Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the most recent indictment of Russian military intelligence figures for hacking the computer systems linked to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. Once again, the indictment seems straightforward in what is says and what it does not say. Yet, the Washington spin machine quickly put forward highly distorted accounts, including media reports that worked hard to avoid acknowledging obvious elements of the indictment.
Here is the column:
“They caught the witches.” Those were the celebratory words of John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, in response to the indictment Friday of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for hacking efforts linked to the 2016 election. Only hours before, President Donald Trump repeated his favorite mantra, calling the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller a “rigged witch hunt.”
Trump always has been wrong about the Mueller investigation, which many supported after he fired then-FBI Director James Comey. As this investigation once again proves, there be witches in those woods. The question, however, is the type of witches we were hunting.
The problem with hunting witches is that you can quickly forget what sent you on the hunt, or gradually view most everyone as a witch. In Salem, Mass., in 1763, Mary Easty was convicted by deranged girls yelling “O Goody Easty, O Goody Easty, you are the woman.” That was it. Witch.
The problem in the Russian investigation is that we have plenty of crimes but not necessarily plenty of colluders.
The demonic Internet character Guccifer 2.0 was a carefully constructed false identity of a hacker, who turned out to be Russian intelligence officers. Before we all shout “O Goody Ruskies,” we should keep in mind the distinction between criminals and colluders. Trump is correct that none of these indictments have established any crime linked to collusion by himself or his key aides. That does not mean that the investigation is rigged or improper.
After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.
When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign.
There are some individuals who, according to media reports, may have sought hacked material from WikiLeaks. There also is an unnamed journalist who sought such information, and even an unnamed candidate for Congress. That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal. Indeed, numerous journalists, including at least one reporter for The Hill, sought access to Guccifer 2.0’s information.
Moreover, the efforts of the Russian operations detailed in these indictments do not establish a particularly significant impact on the election. When the Russians began this operation in 2016, we were already irreconcilably divided as a nation between the two least popular candidates ever to run for the White House. Thirteen trolls in St. Petersburg, or 12 military hackers in Moscow, certainly could spit into that raging ocean, but it remains highly unlikely to have had a material impact on the election.
As for the information shared by the Russian units, it is was rather underwhelming even to the recipients. For example, Guccifer 2.0 sends a Trump associate what is described as “the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” The Russians were eager to help, even saying in similarly stilted language, “please tell me if i can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.” However, the recipient simply responds that the information is “pretty standard.”
Indeed, much of this effort may have been much too “standard” for some of us to admit. The continued shock and revulsion expressed by many leaders at the thought of such interference is a tad forced. The United States has intervened in foreign elections for decades, including leaking stolen documents. Not long ago, our hacking of our own allies, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was revealed. Many nations regularly try to influence elections and this is nothing new for the United States, either as the culprit or as the target of such efforts.
In other words, if there were a real hunt for election witches, we would find ourselves at the head of the line to the pillory.
Does that mean that the Mueller investigation is somehow invalid? Of course not. This remains an attack on our system, there is still work to be done, and we should all want the FBI to continue that work unimpeded.
With minutes of its release, the latest indictment was unrecognizable after being put through the centrifuge of the Washington spin machine. The fact is that the indictment largely confirmed what we knew. It shows an effort by the Russians to undermine Clinton and influence the election; it also shows no evidence of knowing collusion and, indeed, very limited evidence of unknowing collusion.
So, ignore the exclamations of “O Goody Ruskies.” We can be outraged by the Russian operation without being hypocrites as to our own history. Likewise, we can support the Mueller investigation without ignoring the fact that no credible evidence has thus far arisen against Trump on collusion.
In other words, if you want to find witches, start by not being chumps.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The other day, for the second time in the last few weeks, Trump says that his father was born in Germany.
Fact: His father was born in NYC.
This is level of “intellect” that just spent two hours with Mr. Putin, who is a very well informed and skilled dictator and head of the Russian mafia.
We are indeed f***ed.
He is a very stable genius.
Yup, he knows how to fling horseshit very well.
For noncrazy people that aren’t looking for soundbites, one notes it is very common for one to say ‘I am from (another country)’ despite the fact they were born in the US. I take note that the WP didn’t quote Trump’s words in context but paraphrased his words. Until they actually quote him one has to assume the WP is spinning. Are you so ignorant that you think Trump doesn’t know where his father was born?
Low information people eat the spin and then spit it out without ever knowing the truth.
I have never, ever heard a person say this when they were actually born in America. Your comment is a great example of how people’s brains have been so thoroughly eaten by Trumpism that they can spew out such nonsense.
“I have never, ever heard a person say this when they were actually born in America. ”
Suze, you need to get out more. Your comment was stupid and the only thing that can save you from your own stupidity is if you provide the entire quote including the statements before and after. Better than that would be a video which would permit all of us to evaluate what Trump and what he meant. In the meantime, you can wallow in your stupidity of not recognizing the difference between something that is paraphrased and a quote that is in context.
The president lies sometimes. He is delusional sometimes. He bull*****sometimes. Sometimes when he’s being a really stable genius, he does all three in one paragraph. Hard to know which of these explains his comment about his father’s birthplace. But if he can’t remember or admit that his father was born in the Bronx, there is something very wrong with him.
“there is something very wrong with him.”
No there is something wrong with you Suze who hides behind multiple aliases and doesn’t show the actual quote relying instead on hearsay. Hearsay is the crutch used by the stupid who lack adequate intellectual capacity.
By the way Suze, why are you hiding your previous identities? Did their stupidity weigh you down?
Hey, comrade,
“Hey, comrade,”
Suze I am not your comrade nor the comrade of any of your former aliases.
Yes, comrades, everything is just fine. Putin and his cronies must be astonished at just how easy this is all turning out to be.
A PS to my comment:
Putin has won. It’s now on the GOP congress to decide whether they are patriots or not.
And Jon Lemire is a god-da**ed journalism hero.
wah wah babies crying about Putin again. boooooring
if he had a big victory in this, it’s mostly because the Democrats have been exposed as a fraud, one day asking the donald ‘if he will respect the results of the election” and then the next year plus not respecting it themselves.
the Democrats, oh the same party that wants to flood the country with more immigrants because that’s their main idea on how to win, since the natives are sick of being short changed by them!
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats/
Suze, how has Putin won. He stopped winning as soon as Obama was out and Trump was in. Remember how under Obama Putin moved into Ukraine and Crimea? Obama did nothing. Other things happened and Obama did nothing except to draw red lines that Obama then erased. Trump helped arm the Ukrainians, has made NATO more powerful, and most important scares Putin like Reagan scared Gorbachev by increasing the military budget something the Russians cannot keep up with. Trump also used force and in the process killed 200 Russian mercenaries.
There is a lot more good to say about Trump but we can leave it at that. In the meantime why do you keep your old aliases a secret? Embarrassed? I expect that soon you will find a new alias again.
Allan. Entertaining the possibility that you might actually have a brain, so let me give you a counterargument for Obama and against Trump. Obama, in response to Russian aggression, created a multilateral sanctions regime against Russia including kicking them out of the G8. Pres. Dump wants to end sanctions and let Russia back into G8. Putin says “thank you,” Pres. Dump.
Joe, Russia went into Ukraine because Obama left the door open. He did the same thing in Crimea. Red lines for Obama were nothing more than lines Trump went into Syria, mostly destroyed ISIS and when faced with Russian mercenaries I believe 200 died. Trump continues with sanctions on the Russians and is willing to increase them. I think we will see better relations with the Russians now that they know a strong President is in office.
If you want to talk about brains you might find yours in the never used department.
Crimea, the Russians already had a lawful base at Sebastopol. And Ukraine, largely part of the Russian Empire throughout history, I won’t lose a lot of sleep over Donbass. I give Obama a pass on that.
“And Ukraine, largely part of the Russian Empire throughout history, I won’t lose a lot of sleep over Donbass. I give Obama a pass on that.”
No pass for Obama on both of those scores. He was stupid. That doesn’t mean I disagree with some of what you say. I was against NATO thinking about permitting Ukraine and Georgia to be part of NATO. I considered that a great danger and felt that would promote even more Russian nationalism and it seems to have done just that. Powerful nations require buffers and the Russians know their history and they can read a map to see how far Moscow is from its border.
“…..by spreading false information….” One could argue that campaign ads of both major parties do this all the time.
I’m so glad you mentioned campaign ads. Just picture the campaigns ads that will be run against Trump in 2020 (if he makes it that far) featuring his old pal Vlad openly conspiring with Trump on the public stage in front of cameras and microphones to provide all the Russian election meddling Trump is going to need in 2020–if he makes it that far.
Turley wrote, “Thirteen trolls in St. Petersburg, or 12 military hackers in Moscow, certainly could spit into that raging ocean, but it remains highly unlikely to have had a material impact on the election.”
Really? Spitting into a raging ocean? You don’t say? Did you know that the indictment alleges that the GRU successfully stole the DNC’s data analytics operation lock, stock and barrel. Don’t be surprised if the Russians, or the Trump campaign, or both, used the stolen DNC data analytics to “weaponize” the entire hack-and-leak, trolling, information-warfare operation in the 2016 election.
P. S. The more Turley gloats with arch phrases such as “spitting into a raging ocean,” the worse Turley’s eventual, inevitable comeuppance will get for him.
Agreed, JT might have tipped his own scale.
we got a lot of comeuppances ready, maybe there’s one in the deck for you too
Your President is a proven coward–a crude, crass and completely craven coward.
“They caught the witches.” Those were the celebratory words of John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, in response to the indictment Friday of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for hacking efforts linked to the 2016 election.”
********************
Dear John:
Does one really need the power of the supernatural when you give your password to a phishing hacker? Abracadabra!! Those intelligence officers could have been 14-years-old and still deceived the mastermind of the DNC.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310234-typo-may-have-caused-podesta-email-hack
Podesta incompetent fool who can’t recognize a phishing attack
used improper password protocols
and apparently was involved in influence peddling
maybe he gets indicted too in a little surprise surprise before its all done
Isn’t there a chain of custody issue here? Sometimes known as chain of evidence.
Nobody at the F.B.I., D.O.J., or Mueller staff examined the server.
They relied on a third party report from a private firm known as CrowdStrike that was hired by the D.N.C. They never examined the server themselves.
At best it’s incompetent.
At best it’s irrelevant. The GRU ex-filtrated stolen data to servers in The US that were connected to servers overseas. The evidence for the hack comes from the US servers the GRU paid for using crypto-currency the GRU had mined. Analyzing the servers at the DNC is not strictly necessary unless you’re going to allege that the evidence of stolen DNC data that the FBI found on The US servers that the GRU paid for and used is, somehow, not the same stolen data that Wikileaks and D.C. Leaks published.
U.S. servers other than the D.N.C. server sent the data to overseas servers. But how did the U.S. servers get the data from the D.N.C. server? For that you need the D.N.C. server, the original source of the data.
I know nothing about cyber anything. Except for this: Supposedly every data transfer is accompanied by something called metadata that identifies the source location, the time of transfer, the routing and the destination for the transferred data. If you require more information than that, then you’ll have to take it up with the cyber-investigators at the FBI’s Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco offices.
“then you’ll have to take it up with the cyber-investigators at the FBI’s Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco offices.”
No, I’ll have to take it up with CrowdStrike. The cyber-investigators at the FBI’s Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco offices didn’t examine the server.
If you’re now suggesting that the stolen data that Wikileaks published did not come from the DNC server, then you must forfeit the theory that someone at the DNC leaked that data to Wikileaks. Does that help, Stevej?
“you’re now suggesting that the stolen data that Wikileaks published did not come from the DNC server”
There is NOTHING in my comment that says that.
Sreve J…,
That doen’t matter. She put in there , “therefore it’s in there”.
I learn a lot from statesments that Jonathan Turley ( AKA, The Unforgiven”) didn’t make in his columns.
L4D will put them in, then “cite” what JT never said.
Sreve J…..,
-That doen’t matter. She put in there , “therefore it’s in there”.
I learn a lot from statesments that Jonathan Turley ( AKA, The Unforgiven”) didn’t make in his columns.
L4D will put them in, then “cite” what JT never said.
The slow one said, “There is NOTHING in my comment that says that.”
True. And yet the only conceivable reason for questioning the chain of evidence for the hacking indictment (which you did do in your comment, slow poke.) is that the GRU supposedly didn’t hack the DNC; which in turn presupposes that Wikileaks didn’t get the stolen emails from the GRU; which in turn, yet again, presupposes either that someone at the DNC leaked the emails to Wikileaks or that the emails Wikileaks published didn’t come from the DNC server. The hacking indictment completely and totally eliminates the leak theory. That leaves you only with the hair-brained notion that the emails Wikileaks published didn’t come from the DNC server. Please learn to savor the fruits of your own intellect, slow one.
“And yet the only conceivable reason for questioning the chain of evidence for the hacking indictment (which you did do in your comment, slow poke.) is that the GRU supposedly didn’t hack the DNC; which in turn presupposes that Wikileaks didn’t get the stolen emails from the GRU”
We don’t know how WikiLeaks got the data. You don’t have adequate analysis of a starting point, the D.N.C. servers, nor do you have analysis of an end point, how WikiLeaks got the data. Other than that, good job!
Steve J.,,,
-If your neighbor’ house is burglarized while they’re out, and the police arrive at the home at the same time the neighbors get back, there would be an expectation that the police would be allowed into the house to investigate.
If the neighbors say no, we’ll call a private investigator to examine the crime scene for evidence, then he’ll share his findings with you, that creates some problems.
There’s likely a reason that your neighbors are handling things this way, and some of the possible reasons heighten your suspicions of the neighbors.
And if the police are blocked from examining the crime scene inside the house, they’ll be reliant on the report of the P.I.
A orivate investigator who may, or may not, have come to the conclusions as the P.I.
This isn’t a perfect analogy to the DNC/Crowdstrike situation, but its the best one can think of.
At a minimum, they is something very odd with the the DNC blocking FBI access to their computers, then going with a private firm to investigate
Here’s a simple question for you, Gnash: Did Wikileaks publish the DNC emails?
L4D,…
– If it’s so simple, you should know the answer. Or easily find the answer.
That being the case, I don’t I’ll give you the answer….you need to do your own homework.
And the answer doesn’t have anything to do with the comment that I made, but that’s par for the course.
The comment you made is utterly irrelevant. Someday it will dawn on you. Till then, and by whatever means most desirable to you, keep playing whack-a-mole with your defunct theory of the hack that was supposedly a leak. But is it really necessary to defend Putin and the GRU the way Trump does just for the sake of defending Trump in the devil’s bargain? What’s in it for you, Ptom?
L4D,..
I never commented on the hack/ leak issue…certainly never said it was a leak,
I’m not sure why you’ve steadily progressed from distortion to outright lying, and I don’t actually give a rat’s a**.
Go play your games elsewhere…..I’ve wasted enough time just trying to keep exchanges with you halfway on track….you add lying to the mix now.
Good luck scoring points with that, Late 4 Dinner, Early4Trolling
Odd? yeah really odd the FBI would allow itself to be blocked in the first place. Smacks of phony bs. Normally they just get a warrant and take it. Normally the supposed victim cooperates with the investigation too.
Wait a second. Ho! Ghee! If the data Wikileaks published didn’t come from the DNC server . . . ??? Huh? What?
What the blazes are you Wing-Nuts going to come up with next???
Would you get your act together. The analysis involves the indictments against the defendants and chain of evidence questions.
Now hear this: You will be made to see the necessary consequences of your own thoughts. Either Wikileaks published the DNC and Podesta emails or they didn’t. Either the emails that Wikileaks published came from the DNC and Podesta servers or they didn’t. The hacking indictment traces the crypto-currency that the GRU mined and used to pay for servers in the US that ex-filtrated stolen keystroke data and screenshots from at least ten computers at the DNC to a server in Arizona then through a network of overseas servers and back to a server in Illinois over the course of roughly one month. The keystroke data and the screenshots are the evidence that proves he GRU hacked the DNC and Podesta. Your questioning of the chain of custody for the DNC server is utterly irrelevant. Wikileaks did not publish the DNC server. Wikileaks published the DNC and Podesta keystroke data and screenshots. It’s the data that matters–not the server.
Irrelevant? You sure in hell aren’t a lawyer. A direct forensic analysis of the hardware is standard operating procedure in any FBI crime investigation and chain of custody is basic police procedure right on down to the cops pressing charges for somebody having a reefer. Quit talking fancy you’re full of malarkey!
Steve J.
Virtually every morning, we get a filibuster loaded with lies from this same Whacko.
There are probably 3 or 4 people I will no longer waste time on….that is over a 3-3 1/2 year period in exchanges with hundreds of people on this blog.
It takes a lot of work from a genuine low-life to get me to that point, but I’ve never considered this loon to be lazy….she’s met both requirements I mentioned above.
🙂 Just be aware she will use another sock puppet when enough people tire of this latest one. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Olly,…
It may not be actual sock puppets. Multiple Personality Disorder may be in the mix with the other unhinged characteristics of that loon.
Good choice..,.a lying whacko talking about “Wing-nuts”
SteveJ:
Incompetent? The FBI? Never! Corrupt fits the bill better. See Strozk, Peter. This was a decision made above the field agent grade.
Strzok had nothing whatsoever to do with the cyber investigations conducted at the Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco Offices of the FBI.
Haven’t you heard the news? Strzok secretly and nefariously has been masterminding the entire deep state operation !!
sarcastic but worth a comment. i doubt there is a mastermind, just a bunch of bureaucrats abusing their offices to pursue their own agendas and obstruct the legit victor of the election, Our President Donald J. Trump
but, if they had a mastermind, I would guess Clapper is the guy.
insufficient evidence that would probably not even make a preponderance of evidence let alone reasonable doubt. they are expecting the Russian personnel not to show up and defend. Of course they will not. It’s a preposterous indictment. IT makes the DOJ look foolish. Like they are justifying the Mueller probe.
There are acts of sovereign belligerence carried out every day among the nations and the idea that the US would begin to haul the operators of foreign nationals into court for a slap on the wrist is a joke, played on fools who lack basic insight into the fundamental adversarial postures of the nations.
And what about the evidence the massive download was an insider leak?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Many democrats will discount this but here it is presented by veteran intelligence professionals for sanity a nonpartisan group with credibility and one which is published on a modestly left liberal investigative journalism website
what differs in this publisher? it’s a pro-peace, anti-paranoia perspective that’s what
You are wrong. And you know that you are wrong. And you don’t care about knowingly posting wrongful whack-a-mole cockamamie right here on this blawg. The VIPS analysis assumed a speed-limit on the transfer rate for the stolen data if, and only if, it was ex-filtrated all at once. The stolen data was not ex-filtrated all at once but over the course of roughly one month. Consequently, the speed limit on the transfer rate is completely and totally irrelevant. The data was not leaked. The data was hacked. The odds are still eeksie peeksie that you will eventually let go of your beloved leak theory. But the chances that your beloved leak theory will eventually be proven true are absolute zero. Think of the deceased parrot nailed to its perch in the famous Monty Python skit. You are the Michael Palin character in that skit.
The data was not leaked. The data was hacked.
Prove it. And not with the brother of my friend’s sister’s uncle’s LEO friend with 4 advanced degrees from Hawvod who knows someone that used to be somebody really schmott.
Personally, I have no doubt the Russians are capable of hacking them. I also have no doubt it could have been an inside job. Perhaps the Awans. It wouldn’t be beneath our own IC to set up anyone. This all could have been put to rest by turning over the hardware for analysis. Too late for that now.
What can be proven?
1. The content was damaging to Clinton and the DNC.
2. Obama’s Susan Rice told the IC to “stand down.”
3. Clinton emails are missing.
4. Hardware is missing.
5. Awan’s had access they shouldn’t have had.
6. FBI did not secure evidence.
7. Russians aren’t to be trusted.
8. DNC is not to be trusted.
9. RNC is not to be trusted.
10. Government should not be trusted.
11. The MSM should not be trusted.
12. Clinton lost another election.
13. Trump is 1 for 1.
14. Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court.
15. Judge K will be next.
16 Trump got a brand new soccer ball and all the Russians got was a stupid reset button.
Lot’s more, but the Left blew it when they claimed rape and then refused a medical exam.
From the Lawfare article linked downstream about the hacking indictment:
To release their stolen data, the conspirators did not stop with DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, according to the indictment. It describes extensive interaction between the conspirators and an entity, called “Organization 1,” which the Washington Post and other news outlets have identified as Wikileaks. In late June 2016, Wikileaks allegedly solicited additional stolen information from Guccifer 2.0, saying that its release of the data “will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” In early July, citing the upcoming Democratic convention, it allegedly messaged Guccifer 2.0 that “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days” and that “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary” so stoking conflict between Clinton and her rival Bernie Sanders “is interesting.”
On July 22, 2016, the government asserts, Wikileaks released more than 20,000 emails and documents stolen from the DNC network by the conspirators and “did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them.” The Democratic convention opened days later and was racked by protests from Sanders supports that led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chairman. The activities continued through the fall: Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 7, 2016, the indictment contends, Wikileaks released approximately 33 tranches of the more than 50,000 documents stolen from John Podesta.
So in conclusion: You can prove the DNC, Clinton and Podesta were all raped by the hideous looking child that Wikileaks published. No one is arguing they weren’t raped. No one is arguing the hideous child was produced from the DNC/Clinton/Podesta DNA. It’s the Nifong-esque claim that has yet to be proven and that’s because the alleged victims denied the FBI control of the physical evidence. The “victims” created their own basis for reasonable doubt. Additionally, the alleged “victim’s” corruption was exposed, but of course that was never supposed to see the light of day.
Good job, Olly. That’s it in a nutshell.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. Putin is not Stalin. The head of China is not Mao. Capitalism is high on the totem poles in Russia and China. But Democracy is not high on any pole. In Poland there is a chance of Democracy. But Poles don’t take polls. All one can say about the investigation is: How was I to know? She was with the Russians too?
But I think Putin would like to be “Stalin but with a short haircut.” His internal critics and rivals have a curious habit of dying one way or another. So far, Putin has not felt the need to set up a new gulag system, but with his oligarch pals, maybe he doesn’t need to.
You like Russian history? Let me recommend a book by the Nobel Prize winning former detainee of the gulag, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn “Two hundred Years together.” Maybe it can give us a key to the present situation.
Rubbish. If you assess the period from 1789 to the present, Russian politics is in one of its more pluralistic periods. Only the period running from 1905 to 1918 and the period running from 1988 to 2004 were arguably more so. The political spectrum in Russia is quite different from that of an occidental country. Over the last generation, you’ve had a party of incumbents which commands about 55% of the electorate with the opposition about equally divided between Soviet nostalgiacs, revanchist Russian nationalists, and occidental-type parties. Putin’s organization is a political machine which bears more resemblance to Mexico under the PRI or South Korea under it’s military than it does to Soviet-era governments in any locale. Putin is broadly popular, perhaps because Russia’s political elites are not dominated by people who take the part of foreigners contra their own countrymen.
An investigation was deemed necessary. If it had not taken place, it would have been a travesty.
While investigating, lots of stuff is surfaced. The public has the right to know about everything.
The investigation is surfacing wrongdoings.
When the investigation is not going the way some would like, those are they that protest the loudest.
There’s either guilt or no guilt. The guilt is always relevant. The only way to know as to how relevant and to whom is to finish the investigation through to its most detailed end.
Hats off to Mueller and Rosenstein.
Isaac,…
“An investigation was deemed necessary” and was initiated by the FBI in July 2017.
According to IG Horowitz’s report, that investigation was “prioritized” by the FBI, and especially Peter Strzok.
So we are 2 years into the 2 stages of the investigation. That investigation would have proceded in any case, but Comey’s firing, and then comments made by Trump, made the appointment of a Special Counsel all but inevitable.
Mueller was the second longest-serving FBI Director in its history. He had left that post only 3-3 1/2 years prior to becoming the Special Counsel, so he would have not had a problem finding and using information from prior investigations.
Manafort had been investigated by the FBI since 2014. Carter Page was also under FBI investigation prior to any association with the Trump Campaign.
So Mueller was not “starting the investigation cold”; he had a lot of existing investigative material at his disposal.
Given his long experience in the FBI, he was in a better position than just about anyone to access and build on it.
Those these were the advantages in selecting Mueller. I think the disadvantages, especially his close personal and professional ties with James Comey, should have eliminated Mueller as a prospect for the SC position.
In any case, we’re two years into an investigation that ostensibly is about coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia.
And we have no answers. Some point to the indictment count in support of the SC’s “success”.
But none of these indictments are related to, or evidence if, the “collusion” question.
Trump isn’t the only polarizing figure in the picture. Mueller himself and the length and focus and results of the SC investigation are under increasing attack, especially by Trump and Giuliani.
And the reason those attacks have some effect, and are gaining traction, is that we have a 2 year old investigation headed byva stone-faced, mute SC who is “above it all” , including giving theAmerican public some idea of where he’s at or where he’s heading.
I’m not talking about daily or weekly or monthly press conferences; I saying that completely keeping the public out of the loop is a major mistake.
i agree with you that the American people need to know what’s going on, but there seems to be a firm policy of making sure that isn’t happening.
July 2016. The 2d anniversary is coming up at the end of the month.
TS to Dance,,.
Thanks for catching that mistake. Of course , I meant 2016.
are acts of sovereign belligerence “hacking” indictable offenses now?
maybe they are setting a bad precedent for our side considering we have this too…
https://www.cybercom.mil/
The link below is a good explanation of the indictment except for the opening assumption that the four different FBI investigations (San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the counter-intelligence investigation out of the D. C. office) were somehow all one and the same investigation. They were not. Peter Strzok had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigations undertaken in San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Lawfare out to know better than to lump them all together.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“According to the indictment, the Russians designed their hacking operation to use an overseas computer to relay communications from their malware via a GRU-leased server in Arizona. By June of 2016, the hackers monitored DCCC employees’ computer activity—logging keystrokes and taking screenshots—on at least 10 different computers and transmitted this information to the Arizona server. The conspirators used their access to the DCCC network to hack into Democratic National Committee in mid-April 2016. Overall, the hackers accessed about 33 DNC computers by the end of June using stolen credentials. As they had with the DCCC, they used malware to explore the DNC network and steal documents, the indictment claims. As they explored the networks and removed data, the indictment alleges, the Russians deleted computer logs and files to obscure evidence of their activities.”
This is the official end of the it’s-a-leak-not-a-hack conspiracy theory based upon the false assumption that all of the stolen data was transferred all at once but that the laws of physics supposedly preclude such rapid transfer rates. Time to let go of that one, Wing-Nuts. Ergo, time to let Seth Rich finally rest in peace, as well.
william binney is not a wing nut
ray mcgovern is not a wing nut
one could go on but what’s the point eh?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Also excerpted from the rticle linked above:
“The 10th count charges the defendants with conspiracy to launder more than $95,000 in cryptocurrency with the intention of promoting unlawful activity in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The document outlines efforts the defendants made from roughly 2015 through 2016 to acquire and mine bitcoin for the purpose of funding their hacking activities, including the purchase of computer infrastructure, domain names and key accounts.”
This, too, drives the nails in the coffin lid for the it’s-a-leak-not-a-hack conspiracy theory. The GRU officers were caught paying for the servers in The US that they used gradually to ex-filtrate the data they had stolen from the DNC.
P. S. Every last single lame-brained Wing-Nut conspiracy theory will meet the same fate someday–and possibly sooner rather than later.
what fate is that? are you going to deliver that fate? somehow i think your presumed wing nuts are not exactly quaking in their boots
It is matryoshka all the way down…
My 2nd comment seems to have disappeared, and I’m not going to start over try again.
I went into the reasons why this should be considered a 2 year investigation, not a 14 month investigation.
There are glitches sometimes where comments don’t post, or just disappear.
While I’m aware of this, I want to join the crowd and claim that this disappearance is a violation of my First Amendment rights!😪😯😞
Tom Nash, Congress is out to get you.
Tom Nash,
I checked the traps and didn’t see any comments from you there. It might have been a WordPress hiccup, but I do not know.
I’ve found it worthwhile after having completed a lengthy comment, to highlight and copy all the text in the event it does not save to the website. Then, you have at least retained your work for another fresh attempt. If you use MSFT Windows, you can drag over the text with your mouse pointer to highlight everything then hit [Control] [C] to copy then [Control] [v] to paste again. Just a few keystrokes if you are not already aware but it can be just a few easy steps to save much work.
Thanks for checking, and for the pointers, Darren.
I incorporated some of the points in “the lost reply” in a comment I just posted to Isaac.
Not sure what happened to the other comment, but in solidarity with a few others I’m going to assume and state that my First Amentment rights were violated by some secret censor overseeing this site.😏😁
The second indictment of a bloc of people he’s not expecting to have to try. It’s PR all the way down.
Mueller has established the predicate crime for the strong case of conspiracy to defraud the United States. All Mueller needs is evidence that members of the Trump campaign knowingly committed at least one overt act in the furtherance of that conspiracy in order to indict those members of the Trump campaign. And the Trump campaign just so happens to be a target-rich environment for Mueller and his crew.
you are so smart. why aren’t you working for Mueller? you can dellver fate to wing nuts and so forth
yep obviously
Kinda funny the real witch got away clean and seems to thinking about a second run.
I have seen zero credible evidence that she is considering this. Unlike Trump, she knows that age is against her.
i am hoping that in spite of her apparent afflictions with Parkinsons and whatever makes her wear the back brace, for which I hope she receives effective medical treatment and I pray for her; but in spite of those medical problems due to age and infirmity, i ardently hope she runs again
The contrast between Turley’s post here and the work done over at emptywheel is like comparing fool’s gold with real gold.
Turley is intelligent enough to understand what going on but continues with this pablum.
Turley wrote, “In other words, if you want to find witches, start by not being chumps.”
Those words from Turley will not be forgotten.
Nor forgiven.
Ominous😧, very ominous.😦
And profound, too.😃😄
lolz panty-waist squad readies the attck
It appears Mueller is setting the stage by letting the country absorb (those that care and aren’t in a constant state of denial) exactly what the Russians did and how they did it. The next stage will include the Americans that aided and abetted, or conspired if you wish. The list of those who can be proven to have conspired may not include Donald Trump, his son Donald Jr, Erik Prince, and Jared Kushner won’t likely be so lucky.
Still making stuff up based on wishful non thinking?
Or… you are in deep denial. One of us will be proven right, the other needs to rethink everything he’s been led to believe.
yawn. the accused have the presumption of innocence even russians. the country is just absorbing a lot of deep state propaganda. sort of, the impressionable ones that is, who want an excuse for why hillary lost
Mr Kurtz – You and the President are of one accord. You both believe Putin and not all the Intelligence Agencies and the Justice Department.
so what? you putting me on a Red Scare blacklist? spasiba tovarische
Enigma, though I can’t be sure I believe our intelligence agencies but would forget about words and use actions. Harsh words accomplish very little. Actions can lessen world tensions. So far all the actions against Putin remain.
Collusion that’s close enough for me, Turley. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/07/how-to-betray-your-country-in-ten-short-steps/
But just remain in denial mode. I want to read what you say when the hammer goes down. Your dissembling will be a sight to behold.
Close enough to what? Collusion is still NOT a crime. and the whole thing is a sham with the media coming up with that word. No one in the legal profession did. but now it’ sthe new reframed, redefined hot button word of the who cares if it’s accurate or not set.
So tell me Hollywood? How many social promotions did it take to get you through school up to the hmmmmm well given the relative value these days up to whatever level you reached?
Turley wrote, “In other words, if there were a real hunt for election witches, we would find ourselves at the head of the line to the pillory.”
Hollywood said, “I want to read what you [Turley] say when the hammer goes down. Your dissembling will be a sight to behold.”
Turley says everybody does it. Turley says The US is at the head of the line for election witches to be publicly pilloried. Either Turley can’t tell which country he lives in anymore or he’s overly eager to scold his own country for supposedly doing the same thing that Russia does. Remind me: Does Russia have free and fair elections? When?
what hammer going down on who? get a little more specific if you want to inspire fear and dread. oblique nonsense won’t cut it
mother jones is not too bad at investigate journalism in general, unless the Donald is involved, in which case they have come unhinged
One has to be very careful with mother jones. They spin and even resort to lying about more things than just Trump.
it’s sad because they have done a lot of good investigative journalism which is almost a lost art in the US> they are blinded by political allegiances on some things nonetheless
Collusion that’s close enough for me, Turley.
Close enough for you is what normal people call ‘non-existent’
It is easy to condemn witches when they will never come to trial. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC servers so how do we know all of this? Are we taking Crowdstrike’s word for it? Another Clinton organization? Really???? And you don’t think Rosenstein should be impeached.
Paul C. Schulte,…
I personally don’t care if Rosenstein gets fired or not.
I think there are grounds for firing him, but since those reasins have existed for over a year, why bother firing him at this particular point?
So I’m neutral on the issue of bouncing Rosenstein.
For that matter, I don’t care if Trump goes or stays.
If and when the Mueller investigation ever gets around to answering the central question that the investigation was ( ostensibly) started for, and Trump is found to have committed an impeachable offense, get on with it.
If not, conclude the investigation with those results published.
If it’s the former outcome, much of the animus and whining now directed at Trump will just transfer over to Pence.
There’s a downside to that, but at least the script will change a bit and it’ll break up some of the monotony of the past 18 months.
Instead of “the fat orange blob”, we’ll see something made of Pence’s gray hair, or his wife, of fill-in-the-blanks.
My main focus, regardless of who stays or who goes, has been the focus/ thrust/ pace/ results of these investigations.
While it’s not realistic to put strict timeline on these investivations, the public’s patience with the lack of some clear resolution to the keg questions is not infinate.
After two years and counting, this thing can’t continue on much longer without some resolution.
We have a stone-faced, mute Special Counsel who has primarily tagged criminal charges on matters NOT related to Trump campaign/ Russian collusion.
If people think that Trump, Giuliani, and others are hammering the Special Counsel investigation now, wstch what happens if this di**ing around the edges with process charges drags on and on, month after month, with the mute monk Special Counsel not providing any real status report to the American people.
That’s why I think we’re at a “tipping point” re the patience of the American people, and the opportunities, and the intensity and ths effectiveness of the Trump/ Giuliani counter-offensive is heightening.
The most interminable special prosecutor investigation to date (that of Lawrence Walsh) bagged its main prey (Oliver North and John Poindexter) with a jury verdict in April 1990, after 41 months of investigation. The shortest distance from indictment to conviction to date was that of the main component of the Whitewater investigation; the McDougals and Gov. Tucker were handed their guilty verdict in May 1996 nine months after they were indicted. Do the math: 41-9 = 32 months, and that takes you to 1 April 2019.
TS to Dance….I think the differnce between the examples that you cited and the current investigation is that specific, identifiable alleged crimes were being investigated from the start.
Also, there was some known sense of direction as the investigation went on.
I don’t remember is the Special Prosecutor’s offices actually gave public briefings, but I do remember that plenty of information was publically known along the way.
Part of the reason for that might be a less rigid and acrimonius relationship between Congressional committes, DOJ, FBI, and the Special Prosecutors’ offices.
The hubris is not so much in lack of action of ignoring the need for as full and complete investigation but in the self congratulatory applause fo rhaving done it openly and in doing so commit even more and more open transgressions.If the left hadn’t convinced you they fit the term ‘enemies domestic’ before that performance should have convinced you.
So we now have coined a new phrase to replace borking and that is ‘Strzoking’ which is putting one over on the public by do nothing or doing it too lawte while a goodly amount of Senators applaud and everyone spits on the citizens of the country.
Big loser? Well who are we going to get to do the job the FBI used to do?
The FSB? The GRU?
Caviler asked, “Are we taking Crowdstrike’s word for it?”
No. Were taking the word of the San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia offices of the FBI who conducted the cyber investigations separately from the counter-intelligence investigation conducted by Strzok, McCabe, Comey et al. in the D. C. office. The use of crypto-currency to pay for US servers connected to overseas servers to ex-filtrate stolen data gradually over an extended period of time completely and totally invalidates the transfer-rate speed-limit upon which the Wing-Nuts based the it’s-a-leak-not-a-hack conspiracy theory. Time to let go, Caviler. Move on to Roger Stone already. He’s next. You know.
They haven’t examined the server in question. Only a DNC contractor was permitted to examine the server.
Irrelevant. The GRU paid for servers in The US that were connected to servers overseas. All of the stolen data was gradually ex-filtrated to the US servers before being transferred overseas. The evidence for the hack came from those US servers for which the GRU paid and the crypto-currency that the GRU mined to pay for them. The leak theory is dead as a doornail. Just like Jacob Marley. Let go. Move on.
irrelevant if you dont know a damned thing about how the FBI usually investigates computer crimes. they usually serve a warrant and seize the server and immediately make a complete accurate and bit by infobit copy.
why? because they need it to ensure a conviction
here we all know there won’t be a trial so they havent bothered
it’s a show trial worthy of Soviet style justice actually. Sort of. except at least the Soviets knew how to follow the chain of command. the Mueller thing looks more and more like what the conspiracy theorists have called it, a slow moving Deep State coup from day one
next? what are they waiting for? lol
Hey Paul, any updates on the status of those curses L4D said were going to be laid on you?
I just got a reminder to check on this a few minutes ago.
I’m thinking about adapting Turley’s words about chumps spitting into a raging ocean, for instance.
Paul C. Schulte….- any updates on the status of those curses L4D said were going to be laid on you?
I just got a reminder to check on this a few minutes ago.
( this may post twice, or not at all…something hanging up my posts, maybe because of the device I’m using).
Paul, you mean to say, the FBI didnt seize the server and make a complete and exact copy at the outset of the investigation, the way it does in 99% of times it is actually planning on bringing a perp to trial?
I mean no problem because those servers are in the US no matter where the defendants are, Right?
Oh wait we are talking a bunch of fops who don’t know the first thing about computer forensic examinations or regular police procedure even. ok “whatever!” Bob Mueller a joke
How can say with 100% surety that the FBI never seized the servers? Or clandestinely examined them?
“Into the Woods” by Stephen Sondheim
“Out in the Tulies”, by David Benson
No witches here.