Columns, Congress, Criminal law, International, Media, Politics

“O Goody Ruskies”: Mueller Finds Witches But Which Witches Are We Hunting?

600px-Witchcraft_at_Salem_VillageBelow 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.

346 thoughts on ““O Goody Ruskies”: Mueller Finds Witches But Which Witches Are We Hunting?”

  2. IT WASN’T MY IMAGINATION..!!

    FOX COVERAGE OF PUTIN-TRUMP LESS THAN FAWNING

    At about 2:PM Pacific Time I checked the Fox and Brietbart news sites to gage their reactions to the news conference in Helsinki. And amazingly their headlines resembled mainstream media’s with regards to the event. A tone of anxiety was very evident. Then in this past hour I discovered this piece in The Atlantic.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/trump-fox-news-putin/565346/

    1. Manhattan Mafia meets Moscow Mafia in former Russian Empire province.

  4. I thought Trump was going to start a war. He didn’t look like a warmonger to me.

    1. Ind. Bob,…
      -Some of the same people who were convinced that Reagan would start a war with the Soviets are the ones now concerned that Trump will lead us into a war.
      If they’d been right in the 1980s, ( when movies like “The Day After, 1983?, reflected that fear)….,if they’d been right about Reagan, we wouldn’t have to be having that same “he’ll get us into a war” discussion.

      1. Trump leading or “bumbling” the U.S. into war just certain as Reagan causing a war with the Soviets at some point in his 8 years in office.
        There seemed to be a hell of a lot of disappointed people back then; their predictions didn’t come true.
        But there’s alway a new batch of armchair experts to take another stab at predicting Armageddon.
        So there is “hope”.

          1. DB Benson,…
            You can always hope. Sen. Cruz joked that Trump was so erratic that we’d wake up one morning to discover that Trump had “nuked the Netherlands” when he when he was in a foul mood.

    3. I Bob said, “I thought Trump was going to start a war.”

      The bigotry of low expectations???

  5. Progressive Caitlin Johnstone on it

    “I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn’t because I think the Russian government is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof works.

    At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with. But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact.”

    “Here are five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:

    1. Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.
    2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
    3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
    4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
    5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.”

    Entire article:

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/five-things-that-would-make-the-cia-cnn-russia-narrative-more-believable-bd8187b601c0

    1. 4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.

      That is an often overlooked point. You won’t hear the Left howling about the validity of the released information; only that it should never have been made public. 🙂

      1. The materials stolen in Watergate were valid as well.

        Why is that even relevant?

        A break-in is a break-in.

        This is really Watergate 2.0 except it involved a cyberattack rather than a physical theft.

        We all know how Watergate turned out for the party that benefited from it.

        1. This is really Watergate 2.0 except it involved a cyberattack rather than a physical theft.

          When you develop evidence that the General-Counsel and Chief of Security of the Trump campaign hired a bunch of subcontractors to steal data from the DNC server, get back to me.

          And, back in the real world, almost no one was interested in Lawrence O’Brien’s telephone conversations. That’s why Robert Mardian and others couldn’t figure what Liddy & co. were up to.

          1. Watergate was a break-in to steal materials to hurt Democrats in future elections.

            The Russian cyberattack was a cyber break-in to steal materials to hurt the Clinton campaign.

            On the same day Trump called for Russia to find Clinton’s emails, they tried it again.

            We now know for certain that the Russian operation was targeted, ongoing, and long-lasting. This means that if any member of Team Trump had an awareness of what was going on, then they did not merely have advance notice of a single bad action, they had knowledge of an ongoing conspiracy against the United States that they did not bother to bring to the attention of the authorities.

            That would effectively make any individuals who were “in the know” into accessories.

            1. Look up Susan Rice and the Intel stand down order. Then get back to me about who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it. Then we can discuss conspiracy theories.

            2. Mary, you’ve gone down a rabbit hole of idiotic false equivalencies. They’re indigenous to this blog.

        2. This is really Watergate 2.0 except it involved a cyberattack rather than a physical theft.

          How do you know this was not a physical theft? Because you were told what you wanted to hear? Did the FBI take custody of the hardware for a forensic analysis?

          The only thing we know for certain is what was leaked, not how that information was was acquired. And what was leaked was a significant revelation for voters; far more informative than than DNC or Clinton will ever admit. For all we know, the Awan’s stole the data as leverage against the DNC.

    2. Caitlin is in a state of denial. It sounds like she believes the Russian government over our own.

      But there is a record of Russia committing similar crimes in many other countries. They hacked into the Macron campaign as well in 2017 and released his emails in an attempt to help LePen.

      Why would the French government lie about this?

    1. There were 62,000 American troops in Europe as of 30 Sept. 2016. The number billeted in a country with a common border with Russia was close to nil. The number deployed in the Caucasus and Central Asia in countries adjacent to Russia is fewer than 1,200.

      1. what? I guess you dont call it Kaliningrad. I do rather like Koenigsberg better. But it literally is part of Russia in case you forgot. oh also Turkey is a NATO country and it’s very close to Russia. Not that Turkey hasnt sidled up closer to Russia of late.

        Polish anti missle defense…Nato expansion to include foreign members of USSR… not exactly what the US promised at the close of the cold war. One could go on. the graphic makes a legit point.

        1. Turkey doesn’t have a common border with Russia. In any case, there are a grand total of 2,000 American troops there. There aren’t an appreciable number of American troops in Poland or Lithuania, either.

          First you’re white knighting hookers, now your trafficking in paul-bot tripe. Is there a stupid cause you won’t embrace?

  7. The demonic Internet character Guccifer 2.0 was a carefully constructed false identity of a hacker, who turned out to be Russian intelligence officers.

    How does Mueller/FBI know that it was Russian intelligence officers that committed a hack of DNC’s servers?

    FBI never forensically examined the servers neither has Mueller.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from an report titled FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn’t Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers found at the website wired.com:

    the DNC told Buzzfeed on Wednesday that neither the FBI nor any other intelligence agency ever did an independent assessment of the organization’s breached servers.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/

    Why didn’t DNC allow FBI access to the servers?

    FBI/Mueller have based their investigation on information provided by a private tech company by name of CrowdStrike that was contracted by DNC.

    Why did not FBI seize DNC’s servers and conduct their own examination in an investigation of such national importance?

    Why does not NSA have any information in regard to the so-called hack of DNC’s servers. As Edward Snowden’s revelations have clearly shown NSA collects every last bit/byte sent on planet Earth and stores them for potential future reference/use. So any evidence of Russians (or any entity) hacking DNC’s servers would be available to Muellers investigation.

    The results of a analysis on Gruccifier 2.0 metadata shows that the data was copied to a local thumb drive and not hacked from the other side of the world.

    Italicized/bold text was excerpted from a report titled Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis found at the website theforensicator.wordpress.com:

    Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive. This rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).

    This transfer rate (23 MB/s) is typically seen when copying local data to a fairly slow (USB-2) thumb drive.

    https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

    If Mueller/FBI have never examined DNC’s servers how can they have found any evidence implicating Russia?

    How very convenient that there is zero evidence provided in the indictment of 13Jul18 nor will there ever be any discovery as it is unlikely any of the 12 Russians will be offered up to the US as a sacrificial lamb.

    1. Thanks for chiming in, comrade. Have a stolichnaya for the motherland and comrade Stalin.

      1. Thanks for the intelligent response to the personanongrata’s points, Marky Mark. You’ve really moved the discussion forward.

        1. Excellent; I regret to inform you, however, that you are manifestly assuming facts not in evidence. A more careful review of my contributions here will most assuredly demonstrate my personal goals. Such clarity is remarkably easy to find, as I have stated those goals verbatim on many occasions.

          this is to “surely russian trolls wouldn’t haunt Res Ipsa, would they?” trotty

    1. AN EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE EDITORIAL

      Mr. Trump had said he would raise the issue of Russia’s interference in the election with Mr. Putin, but the result was a series of statements that could have been scripted by Moscow. Mr. Trump said that, while Daniel Coats, the United States’ director of national intelligence, had told him Russia was responsible for hacking into the server of the Democratic National Committee, “I don’t see any reason why it would be.” He referred to various discredited conspiracy theories about the hack while lambasting the FBI. When offered an open-ended opportunity to cite any behavior by Russia that had contributed to poor relations, the president sidestepped, saying “I hold both countries responsible.” As Mr. Trump apparently sees it, Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, war crimes in Syria, poison attack in Britain and the shooting down of a Malaysian civilian airliner over Ukraine are morally equivalent to the policies pursued by previous U.S. administrations.

      1. Skirpal again. He was in Russian prisons for years and they could have offed him anytime. They waited till he had been in England for years of course of course.

        And NPR lies and said NOVICUK ONLY COMES FROM RUSSIA. Even though it’s open source information that West Germany obtained samples a long time ago and countries including Czech and Iran have synthesized it.

        No chain of custody, no proof, just allegations– like the indictments!

  9. Maria Butina. The GOP. The Kremlin. The NRA.

    Quite a day to be a republican.

    1. The Butina story is currently trending # 1 in The Washington Post.

  10. If Peter Strzok Was A Doctor – – – An Analogy
    Posted on July 16, 2018 by Penelope Dreadful

    https://pansiesforplato.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/crazy-doctor.jpg

    I Swear By Apollo They Will Have To Carry You Out of Here In A Body Bag!

    By Sacks Roamer

    Sooo, here is a hypothetical to help better explain the whole Peter Strzok and FBI meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election.

    It is 2019, and President Trump is in San Francisco, giving a speech on why Illegal Aliens suck, when he keels over with sharp chest pains and shallow breathing. The Secret Service rushes Trump to the nearest hospital, The Fritz Haarmann Memorial Medical Center.

    Dr. Bent More is on call in the ER. Dr. More is a rabid Leftist, with a history of anti-Trump and anti-conservative activism. He wore a pink pussy hat in Washington. He puts on a mask and takes up a baseball bat when conservative speakers come to town. He thinks borders are racist, and looks with disdain on the deplorables.

    The normal procedure for suspected heart attack victims is to run an EKG, do blood tests to confirm a heart attack, and to start blood thinning medications. For the first time in career, Dr. More eschews these procedures, and instead puts Trump onto a treadmill set to a high speed, and about 15 minutes later, Trump falls over and is unresponsive. Dr. More is the only person in the room, and about 10 minutes later, he finally hits the Code Blue button. But it is far too late. Trump is kaput.

    At his trial for Negligent Homicide, Dr. More’s defense boils down to two arguments:

    (1) I am a doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath, and I would never do anything unprofessional, or intentionally harmful to a patient!

    (2) How dare you insult the whole Medical Profession and all hard working doctors everywhere!

    The prosecution however, focuses on the good Doctor’s actual actions and omissions. In other words, the REALITY of what took place. This is the same as with the Trump Political Persecution, and the related Hillary Exoneration. Outside of all the protestations of FBI professionalism and lack of bias, it is the examination of the actual facts that matter.

    In the Hillary email investigation, FBI Director Comey wrote an exoneration of Hillary before the investigation concluded. Cheryl Mills, a potential defendant in the investigation, was allowed to represent Hillary. Never mind that this was a clear conflict of interest. Further, Mills was allowed to sit in on the examinations of other subjects, and thus put herself into position of making sure what everybody said dovetailed with the Hillary narrative. Computers and evidence were allowed to be destroyed by Hillary. The Attorney General of the United States even went as far as to engage in secret meeting with Bill Clinton, a clear violation of ethics. There are more incongruities, but to cap it off, Director Comey took it upon himself to decide against prosecuting Hillary. That is not the job of the FBI. Ever. That is supposed to be a prosecutorial decision.

    With the Trump Persecution, Deputy AG Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest heading up the investigation since he is the one who recommended firing Comey. There is the troubling manner of how the Steele Dossier made it into the investigation, Not to mention how the Mueller Team got stacked with people like Strzok in the first place.

    Against the REALITY of these facts, of which I have only skimmed the surface , we will all be exposed to the Democrat’s constant barrage of Dr. More’s defense – – – Strzok is a professional and the FBI would never ever do such a thing.

    Put your thinking cap and focus on the facts. I hope this analogy has been useful.

    Sacks Roamer

    https://pansiesforplato.wordpress.com/2018/07/16/if-peter-strzok-was-a-doctor-an-analogy/

    I thought this was a very smart article! 🙂

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky,…
      – It also illustrates why the Special Counsel is going to get a tremendouss amount of negative blowback, regardless of his ultimate conclusions.

      1. TOM: have you checked Fox and Brietbart lately? I just looked at both sites. Their headlines don’t look much different than the mainstream media. That news conference today was viewed as a disaster by almost every journalist.

        2. Peter,..
          – I haven’t had a chance to follow the news today, other than your parodies of a really, really bad reporter.☺
          I usually try to watch BBC News America in late afternoon, then the PBS Newshour a liitle later on.
          I sometimes watch ABC evening news with David Muir if I can’t be here to see the PBS programs.
          It’s OK, but probably less than 20 minutes of news after commercials.
          And if they spend 5 minutes on a “hunan interest story”, that cuts back even more on the real news coverage.

            1. They actually spend time covering news stories, rather than jamming in a 2-3 minute summary of a major story before the next commercial break.
              The Sunday morning new programs have some depth to them, too.

          2. I get most news from print. Though PBS and BBC are great sources.

            1. i figured you would dig the Limey MI 5 & 6 run propaganda service
              i do listen to them sometimes when i want to know what the British spooks want me to think

            2. I haven’t had access to C-SPAN for some time
              ….that’s the one I miss the most, but I can compensate somewhat by going to their archives for videos and transcripts.

        3. “Their headlines don’t look much different than the mainstream ”

          Thank God journalists aren’t running the country. They have no idea of how nations need to deal with one another. They should start reading the classics starting with Thucydides.

            1. Peter: Wish I understood exactly what you said. If you are saying journalism hasn’t changed then I would say you are wrong.

              If you are saying that today is a different world than all the intervening years I would say that is true but diplomacy hasn’t changed as much as many think.

    2. FAKE NEWS. Try reading NPR. They aren’t influenced by foreign money like many US outlets are

      1. NPR’s founding president was Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern’s campaign manager. Have a gander at Fred Barnes’ 1987 article on NPR’s coverage of Central America. Their editorial judgment, such as it was, was to use political tourists as stringers to file reports.

        NPR has had agreeable production values and (for a certain audience, story selection). The trouble is what you see on The News Hour since Jim Lehrer’s retirement. Every single story is framed in such a way that the discussions perimeter and direction reflects the assumptions of someone on the staff of the Vera Institute or the Institute for Policy Studies or the Century Foundation. Alternative viewpoints are atypical and they’re confined to a pseudo-counterpoint (think David Brooks) or they’re not very articulate, or they’re selected from a source that undermines them (the trick is to get an academic to argue one side and a trade association executive to argue the other). And, of course, they’re reporters, which means people who turn in copy on time but don’t know much. One reason I quit listening to NPR was they insisted I had to be treated to Daniel Schorr’s pompous blather every weekend.

        1. npr i used to listen in the car because it was the only talk radio on the air at the time, and the music stations were all so bad
          i can’t stand it anymore, garbage, boring, pretentious, uninformative propaganda

        2. NPR and PBS are hated by conservatives because they have no commercials.

          No commercials means that journalists can explore an issue in depth without interruption. When issues are explored that closely, conservative solutions, and, or, approaches, are often exposed as simplistic, stingy, mean-spirited, short-sighted, anti-labor, anti-consumer, anti-envirnoment, etc.

          Conservative ideas are best presented on Cable News and Talk Radio with plenty of commercials to keep viewers distracted.

          1. “NPR and PBS are hated by conservatives because they have no commercials.”

            In the past did you take too many drugs and fry your brain?

          3. you are hilarious.
            i like pbs better than npr
            democracy now is a major commie radio show but it’s better than most of the garbage on npr these days

          4. btw you know why conservative radio has commercials? because they have a lot of listeners

            NPR has sponsors usually a bunch of lawyers aiming at the FIRE sector flunkies listening and bureaucrat budget directing clients

          5. Nominally Public Radio and PBS are supported by Big Ag, Big Pharma and the military industrial complex. Wake up Peter Shill!

            1. Autumn; a major news organization, with global correspondents and a well-staffed presence in Washington, requires corporate funding. That’s why it’s called ‘The Corporation For Public Broadcasting’. That’s a disclaimer to let you know what they’re about.

              Bernie Bros are fond of so-called Alternative News Sites. But there’s no alternative to well-connected sources in Washington. A writer in Portland Oregon can’t duplicate their work. That writer in Oregon is following mainstream media and giving his own spin.

        3. TS to Dance,…
          – I agree with you that that the PBS News Hour was at heads zenith when Jim Leher was there.
          Unfortunately, people of Leher’s caliber are few and far between in the media.
          I just don’t think it’s declined as much as you feel it has since Leher left.
          It fell from a very high perch when Leher left, but I think,the overall quality of the program is still pretty good.
          A couple if stories about St. Daniel Shorre.
          He was on Nixon’s enemy list. When this came to light….that is, that the FBI was investigating Schorr….the cover story was that the Nixon administration was thinking of putting Schorr into a government position.
          Schorr ran into Nixon at a gathering years later. He went up to Nixon and said “I don’t know if you remember me or not”.
          Nixon said “Of course, Daniel Schorr….damn near hired you years ago”.
          The second funny thing I remember involving Schorr was happened right after Nixon died.
          Every network was doing “specials”, retrospective look at the Nixon administration, etc.
          Alexander Haig and Schorr were the guests on one of these “Nixon news specials.
          Schorr, in his “delevery-tone” voice, intoned that “Lyndon Johnson would rant at you. Lyndon Johnson would rave at you. But Lyndon Johnson would…. not…plot…against you.”
          Haig started laughing so hard that I thought he might fall out of his chair, and said to Schorr “You wanna bet?”

    3. you GO Squeek!! We left Indies totally are in sync with your analysis.

  11. TRUMP BELITTLES U.S. INTELLIGENCE..

    WHILE PRAISING PUTIN’S OFFER TO ‘COOPERATE’

    In an extraordinarily weird press conference, Trump essentially sided with Putin against U.S. intelligence agencies. Here’s an excerpt from The New York Times’ coverage of said press conference in Helsinki:

    “Mr. Putin said: “President Trump mentioned the so-called interference of Russia in the American elections. I had to reiterate things I said several times: that the Russian state has never interfered, and is not going to interfere, in internal American affairs, including the election process.”

    He offered to have Russian intelligence agencies work with their American counterparts to get to the bottom of the matter.

    “What he did is an incredible offer,” Mr. Trump said. “He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer.

    Asked whether he believes his own intelligence agencies, which say that Russia interfered in the 2016 United States election, or Mr. Putin, who denies it, Mr. Trump refused to say, but he expressed doubt about whether Russia was to blame.

    Mr. Trump raised the matter of Russian electoral meddling, the two leaders said at the news conference, and Mr. Putin reiterated his denial of Russian involvement.

    Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and other American intelligence officials “said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

    But when asked directly whom he believes, Mr. Trump changed the subject to what he said was misconduct by Democrats during the campaign.

    The president’s ambivalence, after the indictments of 12 Russian intelligence agents over the election hacking, and after the findings of congressional committees, represents a remarkable divergence between Mr. Trump and the American national security apparatus”.

    Edited from: “Trump, Putin And The Incredible Offer”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. ” he expressed doubt about whether Russia was to blame.”

      Let’s think about what Trump said. He asked why if Russia was involved in the DNC hack why weren’t the DNC computers examined by the FBI?

      I think anyone with a brain would recognize that doubt exists because neither the FBI did its job nor did the DNC allow it to. One has to ask why.

      He made similar comments about Aran the Pakistani IT guy.

      It seems Democrats are afraid of investigating these things and that places a lot of doubt as to whom one should blame.

      Did the Russians do other things? My guess is yes but they didn’t impact votes. There too I have a question as to why Obama stopped people from investigating what was happening at the time.

      The US and Russia are the two nuclear superpowers. It is better we get along then to unleash our weapons. How does any other answer Trump could provide make all of us safer especially since we have influenced foreign elections? I think it more important for the superpowers to work with one another rather than permit petty politics to interfere with the peace.

      1. Allan: Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans. I’m sure they explored the matter concerning the DNC’s server. It’s ridiculous to think that server is somehow a vital, overlooked clue. You, like Trump, are essentially siding with Russia over the U.S.

        1. Allan: Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans.

          Really? Where is Mueller registered to vote? DC? California? No one who repeats this talking point seems to know. I kept hearing that James Comey was a Republican. He was living in NoVa. Virginia has no party registration. As for Rosenstein, he is registered as a Republican in Montgomery County, Maryland. He was also trusted by the Holder-Lynch inJustice Department.

          Most salient about Rosenstein, Comey,a nd Mueller is this: they’ve been employees of the Department of Justice for most of their career (and, in Rosenstein’s case, nearly all of it).

          1. Hey Spastic: you’re essentially saying that because these men have fine credentials, and years of experience, that alone makes them untrustworthy. Only in Trumpland does that logic carry weight. You really need to open yourself to other news sources.

            1. i say they’re untrustworthy because they have botched many important investigations.
              and a lot of democrats have agreed over the years. now they forget

            2. Shill, TSD is asking you to support your statement that Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans. Can you?

        2. I’m sure they explored the matter concerning the DNC’s server. It’s ridiculous to think that server is somehow a vital, overlooked clue.

          Matter? Once again, it’s the Federal Bureau of Investigations. And you’re sure they explored why? Because if it was important they would have taken custody of it?

          Hypothetical: Your neighbor is alleged to have child porn on their computer with images of your children. Your neighbor claims his computer was hacked and you put those images on his computer. Your neighbor tells law enforcement that they cannot take custody of his computer; instead, he will have it forensically examined by a “3rd” party. Based on that information, you are charged with trafficking in child pornography, your children are taken out of your home, you lose your job, bank account assets are seized, all while you await trial. By the way, you don’t own a computer and your neighbor’s computer is no longer available to law enforcement.

          Will you accept the claim by law enforcement and the DA that they explored the matter and determined it was not a vital, overlooked clue?

          Would it change your opinion if I told you your neighbor voted for Donald Trump?

          1. Olly, are you saying that some “DA” looked at that server?? ‘Who’??

              1. Olly,….- Well, part of it has an explanation. Early on, DOJ urge the FBI to refer to the Hillary email investigation as a “matter”, not “an investigation”.

                1. Tom,
                  I had referenced that point earlier. It would seem to Peter Hill and others, where the FBI is involved, rules of evidence are insignificant if the matter is resolved in their favor. Just another example of the ends justifying the means worldview of these folks.

                  At some point, the only way these progressives are ever going to learn the importance of the rule of law is to suffer under the weight of their willful ignorance to it.

        3. “Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans”

          Peter Shill, you are a party hack. It’s bad if done by the opposite party and good if it is done by your party. That is the dumbest way of deciding on policy.

          “I’m sure they explored the matter concerning the DNC’s server.”

          The DNC refused. But maybe it was done secretly. I don’t know. I also don’t know what happened to the computers that Awan had since he was a Pakistani that had access to loads of Democratic leaders computers. On that alone, every one of those that used Awan should be thrown out of office.

          I’m not siding with Russia especially since I believe the Russians did a few bad things during our election process, but I have to note that we do the same. It is better to talk than throw nukes. I am sure the Russians are embarrassed because if what we think happened actually happened we have broken through a lot of their security and Putin knows it.

          I think Trump was smart and provided himself additional leverage. What good is it to yell at Putin? Who gives a sh-t? Sanctions continue and all sorts of problems have been created by Russian involvement in our election process. Stop looking at the past and look towards the future. Words mean very little. Actions are what count.

          I heard Schumer and he is a fool.

      2. Haha. Excellent. The trumpettes are twisting like pretzels and Pence on kneepads trying to somehow explain the day glo bozo’s flirtation with treason. That millstone you’re wearing looks good with the tinfoil hat, though.

        this is to “we could all stand to learn a foreign language; what’s wrong with russian?” allan

        1. Mark, don’t be a fool. Is it better to talk and try to work things out? Alternatively, do you believe that Trump and Putin flew from their respective countries just to insult one another?

          1. Day glo bozo appeared because he sought a pat on the head and a promise that the tape wouldn’t be released; KGB Koronel Putin appeared to remind day glo bozo who his daddy was.

            this is to “I never really liked Russia before, but now they’re peachy-keen” allan

            1. Trump and Putin openly conspired with one another on a public stage in front of cameras and microphones to provide even more Russian election meddling for Trump’s reelection bid in 2020. One would have to be deef to have missed it. What am I saying? They are deef . . . dumb . . . and blini-ed, too.

              1. “One would have to be deef to have missed it. ”

                Sometimes things quietly said have more of an effect than all of your screaming and jumping around like a lunatic.

              2. Conspired to do what, avoid world war 3 by extending the strategic arms deals that expire in 2021? If that’s a conspiracy then let’s have more of it. Conspiring against the military industrial complex, what a sin!

              3. “Trump and Putin openly conspired with one another on a public stage in front of cameras and microphones to provide even more Russian election meddling for Trump’s reelection bid in 2020.”

                Diane, let me provide a bit of enlightenment for you.

                “here’s what happened when Obama met with Putin.”

                “What did Putin get from Obama?

                1. A free hand in Georgia

                2. A free hand in Syria

                3. The betrayal of Poland vis a vis the missile shield

                4. The betrayal of Ukraine by refusing to provide its governor with useful weapons

                5. A whole bunch of our uranium via Uranium One

                6. A deal allowing Russia’s Iranian allies to go nuclear

                7. Failure to do anything about the same Russian actions that the media is now blaming Trump for. Instead his administration actually issued a stand down order.

                What has Trump given to Putin? Nothing. He’s come to the defense of Poland and Ukraine when Obama wouldn’t.

                If this is the media’s metric for treason, then Obama is a traitor. He not only praised Putin, he promised to make a sweetheart deal with Russia after the election was over.

                That’s number 8.

                President Obama was running for re-election in March 2012, when a live microphone picked up his whispered conversation with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

                Obama told Medvedev it was important for incoming President Vladimir Putin to “give me space” on missile defense and other difficult issues and that after the 2012 presidential election he would have “more flexibility.” Medvedev said he would “transmit” the message to Putin.” __Daniel Greenfield

    2. BREAKING NEWS! THIS JUST IN!! EXCITING!!!😦UNUSUAL!!!!😦
      SEN. RAND PAUL INTERVIEWED ON THE PBS NEWS HOUR; EXPRESSES ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF TODAY’S DEVELOPMENTS

  13. If this was a sincere and unbiased investigation, then topping the list of leads would be Hillary Clinton and the DNC. She paid over a million to a British foreign national, who compiled a fraudulent dossier on her political opponent through Russian spies. She tried to release that false document right before the election, which could have stolen the election based on lies provided by Russian spies. Then, she took over the debt of the DNC in order to push out her opponent, Bernie Sanders.

    The only one who worked knowingly with the Russians was Daniel Steele, the British foreign agent and rabid anti-Trump who provided that information to the DNC.

    Then, there was alleged collusion between the FBI and DOJ in using that fabricated opposition research to push the FISA court into granting a warrant, and seeding an FBI investigation that is still ongoing today.

    Russia has always hacked us, and we have always hacked them. Same holds true for China and the North Koreans. Ever follow all of the theft of intellectual property from small businesses to Chinese hackers?

    I am therefore greatly interested in any investigation that can identify and solve weaknesses in that regard. What I am not interested in is a partisan hunt from a politicized and corrupt FBI. This has ruined the reputation of the honest rank and file agents whom, I presume, will shortly be replaced by similarly partisan hacks as upper management’s fanaticism trickles down to hiring practices.

    I would also like to know how the US keeps a straight face in complaining about meddling in its elections when A) the information hacked from the DNC was actually true and disclosed wrongdoing and B) we meddle in elections around the world, routinely. That is one of the complaints against America, our interfering in the politics and regimes of other nations.

    1. As far as “meddling”, there is a difference between releasing truthful but embarrassing information, against Hillary Clinton and Podesta, and seeding completely fraudulent information against Trump or anyone else. Pedestal also bears the brunt of the responsibility. If you make your password “password” and you work in a high profile job, that is negligence. If this happened in the corporate world, he might have been sued for exposing corporate assets to hackers through negligence in internet security.

      If any information released by Russians against anyone, even Hillary Clinton, was false, then that should be part of the investigation summary released to the public.

      I also tire of the grandstanding of Congressional Hearings. What value do they bring, besides a venue for people to yell and get sound bites?

    2. Karen, explain how Hillary is manipulating events while Trump and the Republicans control the government.

      1. It is a fact that:

        1. Hillary Clinton took on the DNC debt and controlled the organization before the primary, defrauding Bernie Sanders
        2. Hillary Clinton paid a British national for a fraudulent dossier compiled by Russian spies against her political opponent, Donald Trump.

        The fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election is immaterial to whether she broke any laws re classified information or if she acted unethically. Her loss is material, however, to any pundit claiming that Russia caused her to lose. Actually, Hillary’s own actions caused her to lose. She was already a heavily disliked candidate. She had decades of establishing a reputation for lying and backdoor deals. There were her Wallstreet speeches. The Bimbos in trailer parks. Bill Clinton’s rape allegations. There was a mountain of baggage. Russia may have exposed her most recent shenanigans, but corruption has been her life’s work. In addition, polls show she still would lose against Trump today, and Russia has nothing to do with that.

        There was indeed collusion… to rig the Democratic primary, and an attempt to steal the election. So concerted was this effort, in fact, that Democrats appear to be pushing war with Russia for exposing the most recent serious wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. Democrats are still outraged, 2 years later, that we found out about the rigged DNC.

        Come on. If Pedestal is gong to use “password” as his password, and Hillary Clinton is going to upload classified information to the Cloud, you cannot be surprised or enraged that other countries pick up what we laid out in the open. The FBI now admits that it knew with certainty that enemy actors did in fact lift the classified information that Hillary carelessly strewed about, as well as picked her Blackberry when she broke the rules and used it in hostile territory. In addition, despite all of the howls about Russia, the DNC never did turn over its servers to the FBI. If it really wanted to discover if it was hacked, versus a spear phishing expedition, it would have its servers investigated. But it hasn’t.

        1. Karen, like ‘all’ your explanations this is just a web of false equivalencies. Only committed consumers of right-wing media would buy any of your points here.

          1. How about contesting her assertions with facts countering those Karen stated? That is the usual and proper manner utilized in debate.

            1. “That’s how your hard-core commie works”, Darren 😏😆😌😆😀

    3. B) we meddle in elections around the world, routinely. That is one of the complaints against America, our interfering in the politics and regimes of other nations.

      Yes, but the complaints are invalid.

      One of the few discrete claims you can verify was that the U.S. Government provided about 1/2 the funds for Eduardo Frei’s campaign for President of Chile in 1964. Henry Kissinger admitted that the U.S. Government was sluicing funds to Salvador Allende’s opposition in 1970. He complained that the Latin American bureau at the State Department had an animus toward the more salable candidate (Jorge Alessandri) and insisted the funds be directed toward a Marxisant Catholic candidate, so U.S. efforts were squandered. Are you going to argue, Karen, that the communist parties in Chile were not receiving laundered foreign aid? (BTW, the name of the conduit for Soviet subsidies to the French Communist Party was public information in the late Cold War period).

      1. Hey Spastic: are you saying Americans should simply admit ‘we’re guilty of meddling too’ and just move on from this? Like we don’t need to explore this matter any further? Because if that’s what you mean, I seriously wonder if you’re present in the United States.

        1. Are you saying…

          What I said is in cold print. You’d like to put words in my mouth. Shove it.

          Libertarians make a fetish of ‘non-intervention’ because they’re GK Chesterton’s mad men. Liberals did also. Some were like Robert Pastor and Gary Hart and conceive of political life as a series of postures. Others just wanted the enemy to win in the third world. Ultimately reasons of state should trump pleasing George Vickers and Robert Pastor. I doubt it’s necessary most of the time, but on occasion…

          It’s doubtful Karen had any specific historical sequence in mind and Kurtz memory is hopelessly garbled.

          1. that was another thread you’re talking about. US does meddle and so do other nations. it may or may not be good for the US at any given moment, but in some cases time has told that our interferences did not benefit the US. that’s my opinion.

            in this case, the alleged interference of Russian agents is kind of besides the point. we understand there is hacking, but the issue here is was there collusion. apparently not according to the DOJ. so what’s the point of this other garbage? to indict ham sandwiches with russian dressing on them?

            https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-16/murica-rule-law-optional-nation

            1. and of course the harder everyone ignores the possibility if not likelihood that the wikileaks dump was due to a leak and not a hack, it’s going to increase suspicions that it was seth rich. who is conveniently dead.

    4. karen quit complaining next thing you’ll be talking about the chicom general who gave money to slick willy and somehow ended up with warhead blueprints. i forget the names and details but then again so did everybody else

    5. Thanks for checking in with today’s Pravda Faux News talking points. Pro tip: there are other’s who rabidly beat you in posting this blather each day. So sorry for your loss.

      this is to “we gotta make up something to cover for this clown’s treason” karen

        1. Nice. You assume I believe that you, or your ilk, have anything that I would consider of value in hearing. You, and the other gullible rubes, dupes, and klan-wanabees have cast your lot with the day glo bozo; whose antics on a daily basis move closer to the treason tipping point. With the exception of those of your ilk who are able to change their opinion with the change in facts, none of you enablers of treason are anything other than ridiculous caricatures of authentic people in my opinion. On the bright side, while the clowns play here in bedlam, real people in real life aren’t being affected by those clowns.

          this is to “ya, but he’s such an imbecile, his treason might not have any effect” kurtzie

          1. ROFL one man’s treason is another man’s treasure
            If we met in life I doubt I would want to talk to you at all sir.
            You are the kind of person I usually ignore.

            Nonetheless, the day may come when things go hot, and if they do, it will provide many new kinds of social interactions, some may like and some may not.

            “There are two paths you can go by, but in the long run/
            there’s still time to change the road you’re on!”

            1. Another thinly veiled threat of civil war with you leading the charge. That’s your third reference today to this fantasy of yours, isn’t it Kurtz?

              And then you finish up with a quote from Zep’s “Stairway to Heaven”?

              To paraphrase you, you’re prolly a real smart cracker, but wouldn’t Zep’s “immigrant Song” align more with you blood-lust fantasy.

              I would suggest some quotes from literature, buy you ‘prolly’ would miss the references.

              Talk to PCS, he can’t wait for the war either, because, “we [PCS and friends] have more ammo.”

  16. While I don’t want to see my fellow Americans hurt in any way, I think some of you out there better get ready for a shot to the stomach. It is a proven fact that the Russians interfered in the election. When Mueller names the Americans, be ready because it’s coming and coming hard right at you. The very least you can do is to be ready. If Mueller has nothing, so be it. But the odds of that are not looking good. If any of you were Boy Scouts, remember the motto used…..Be Prepared.

    1. It is a proven fact that the Russians interfered in the election.

      The lesser sort of partisan Democrat now attributes the Democrats’ losses to a six-figure sum in Facebook ads.

    2. specifics? where is the hurt coming from?
      be prepared for what? gee, you must have a crystal ball,
      or a batphone to Mueller.
      Or, should we anticpate the leftist mobs will find a way to walk past the edge of town for their next series of riots?

    3. Fishwings,…
      Whatever Mueller concludes, it will be “a shot to the stomach” for a lot of people.
      If Trump is facing serious criminal charges and / or impeachment, that shot to the stomach hits Trump supporters, c.40-45% of the country, measured by polling data.
      Among that faction, maybe it’s somewhere between 60-80% who are “hard-core” Trump supports likely to be skeptical of negative findings by Mueller.
      That estimate is pure guesswork on my part, but it results from the realization that the polarized reactions to Trump works both ways.
      A big portion of Trump supporters are strong, steadfast supporters, and not likely to easily give up that support.
      On the flip side, if Trump is ultimately cleared by the investigation(s), that’ll be a shot in the gut to the c. 55-60% of Americans with a negative view of Trump.
      Those “wishing, hoping, praying” for Trump to get nailed have at least as much emotionally invested in that outcome as Trump supporters have for the opposite result.
      So if 60-80% of those opposing Trump are resolute in that opposition, there’s another sizeable minority that needs to brace for “a shot to the stomach”.
      The conclusions/ final recommendations of the Special Counsel are virtually guarranteed to disappoint and piss off tens of millions of Americans, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the SC investigation.

      1. Tom: I saw a poll yesterday that said about 80% of the Republicans approve of Trump right now. But about 90% of Democrats disapprove of Trump while about 60% of independents disapprove of Trump. Those independents could be decisive here. What’s more, Trump’s idiotic trade war could quite possibly erode support in the heartland. Furthermore, an economic downturn is quite possible before 2020. This current economic expansion is currently in it’s 9th year. History suggests it can’t last too much longer.

        1. Peter,…those poll numbers may be in the ballpark of reasonable estimates of where people stand on support of, or opposition to, Trump.
          My point remains that, whatever poll is used, we’ re probably looking at tens of millions of Americans who’ll be extremely angry regardless of the Special Counsel’s ultimate decision.
          I watched ABC news an hour or so ago; Terry Moran “nailed it” in saying that, for many, “who you believe is less important than who you hate”.😬

      2. I don’t think a “shot to the stomach” is really the goal here at all. The goal is either a successful soft coup, or to simply de-legitimize Trump, at least through the midterms.

        1. FF Sierra,..
          You’re right that the “shot to the stomach” isn’t the primary goal.
          I think there’ll be a widespread stunned and angry reaction to whatever the Special Counsel concludes.
          So IMO that will be the reaction to Mueller’s ultimate decisions and recommendations ,if he ever gets around to deciding about the central issue ( “collusion”), and his conclusions are made public.
          So it’s the reaction, not the goal(s) I was responding to when Fishwings brought it up.
          As far as the political goals, I don’t think most Democratic politicians would prefer a Pence presidency over a Trump presidency under seige.
          There are very few Democratic members of Congress on board with this impeachment talk.
          Most of those who are advocating impeachment, like Maxine Waters, are short on influence as well as numbers.
          That could change if there’s sone kind of a “smoking gun” discovered by Mueller, but so far Mueller hasn’t produced any evidence of “colkusion” on Trumoo8&w

        2. It better not be anything at all like that because Trump’s American supporters are firmly behind him a literal deep state coup will be met with strong anger among the peasants who will have hungry pitchforks. Keep that in mind.

      3. what exactly do you mean by a “shot to the stomach?”
        please elaborate.

        1. Mr. Kurtz,
          The “shot to the stomach” phrase was used by Fishwings…Fishwings comment should be right above mine in the thread.
          Basically Fishwings said Trump supporters will be hit like “a shot to the stomach” when Trump goes down.
          That meaning clear enough…it’s a confident expression that the investigation will uncover something damning to Trump.
          So Fishwings isvin that category that already “knows” the ultimate
          outcome.
          And second point Fishwings was making is that it’ll be like “a shot to the stomach” for Trump supporters
          when Trump goes down.
          I’m not going to give a detailed summary of my reply to Fishwings; it’s already there in black and white, and it’s clear enough what I said.
          That is, that there will likely be a powerful backlash against the Special Counsel no matter what he concludes. If Trump is cleared, that will be the “shot to the stomach” for many of the anti-Trump people, who really expect and “need” to see Trump go down.
          Just as, if it turns out that Trump is impeached or otherwise forced out of office, many of his supporters will likely feel that he was railroaded, so they’ll be as angry as the other group will be if Trump is cleared.

            1. I haven’t really followed the controversy over what Rep, Cohen said, or might have said.
              The last thing I heard was that he and a large group were headed toward Harper’s Ferry and Fort Sumter.

  17. Personally, I do not believe the Indictment crap. I think it is all BULLSH*T. I do not understand how we can exercise American legal jurisdiction over Russian citizens, in Russia. Plus, Mueller has gone after the wrong people before.

    I want to see the EVIDENCE.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. we can ask for extradition but of course they are not going to extradite their active military personnel engaged in cyber-warfare any more than the US is going to extradite ours

      so it’s a worthless mastubatory exercise in phony authority over nothing
      Meuller has a purpose, to justify himself, but rosenstein is just an incompetent fool

    2. Squeeky, so do the indicted Russians. This will prove to be very interesting and I suppose evidence against the Russians will be held secret by the DOJ not permitting a fair trial which I believe will never occur.

      1. Exactly! How can the FBI say it was the Russians when the DNC refused to turn over the server(s). Then, the Democrats complain that Trump doesn’t trust his own intelligence agencies when it is pretty obvious the DNC did not even trust the FBI with their computer equipment.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. in a real computer forensic investigation the subject does not get to choose to trust the FBI or not. the FBI takes the computer into its possession by warrant if necessary and makes an exact and complete copy.

          never happened here as far as I can tell!

          1. Darn straight! Isn’t there a little thingy called, “Chain of Custody”??? Well guess what? In the DNC case, there ain’t no chain at all because the FBI didn’t get the computer(s).

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. yeah and anybody old enough to remember the OJ trial can get it.
              there is no chain of custody here, they still dont have the servers do they>?
              its just bs

      2. Thanks, counselor. Unfortunately for the now-terrified trumpettes, an indictment “proves” to a grand jury that there is probable cause to believe the named person has committed a criminal offense. Pro tip: hannity is not a lawyer, me merely plays a buffoon on TV.

        this is to “the smart feller on reddit said it was caused by some dude named ben gazi” kennie

        1. oh geez and grand juries so often decline. so often. if they do it’s a dog bites man story.

    4. Well, call up Mueller’s office and ask him if he’d share the evidence with you in an ongoing investigation. I’m sure he’ll be willing to give it to someone named Squeeky.

      1. More to the point, Mueller will never have to give anyone the evidence. Not even a jury. And Mueller knows that. Talk about a Mulligan! He can say anything he wants in the Indictment (which I read), and never have to prove any of it. Because there isn’t going to be a trial.

        And if there was, by some miracle, a trial, can you imagine this little exchange in a Defense Motion to Dismiss:

        Defense Attorney: Your Honor, we have asked the Prosecution to provide us with a chain of custody on the subject computer equipment, and they have refused.

        Prosecutor: Well, uhhh, er, ummm, Your Honor, we never actually got the computers to examine them. We just kind of took the word of the DNC experts. . .

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. one of you democrats show me a freakin receipt like the cops make for their evidence lockers that shows the FBI had or has the servers and we will shut up about it.

  18. you know the US and Russia are trying to hack each other’s systems all the time right? i mean is spy v spy crap now going to be the subject of ridiculous indictments that will never go to trial? what a joke

    normally if the government needs to bring an indictment against one person that describes actions of another in a conspiracy, they just refer to an “unindicted co conspirator.”

    but you might have had to read a few indictments before the past few months to know something like that.

    to me this suggests that they actually aren’t going to be working up to indicting Americans whom they can actually put on trial instead of some alleged anonymous likely russian military personnel, and, lacking a real defendant, they’re just indicting phantoms

    a sad joke, really, Trump is exactly right this is making America look bad

    1. Yes, everyone spies on everyone else but it’s always to benefit your own country. This appears to be the first time that an American president is on the side of the Russians. That’s the difference.

      1. on the contrary, they said JFK was a traitor too
        and many regarded FDR as a traitor
        even Ike was considered suspect by some
        MacArthur thought Truman was weak against the Russians
        please take those examples seriously and reflect on this.
        the military industrial complex is always trying to scare up a baba yaga

        1. “please take those examples seriously ”

          Suze can’t. She is a mental midget.

      2. “This appears to be the first time that an American president is on the side of the Russians.”

        That is a dumb statement.

        1. uninformed perhaps and I am trying to be polite because there are apparently many millions of democrats that are totally deluded by the moment of anti Russian hysteria whipped up by the Deep State that’s right the military industrial complex and their stage managed mass media

          1. Suze has had several aliases and likely will find a new one soon. Her statements along with mostly being untrue have been rude and arrogant. No need to be polite with that type of individual.

            1. I should add that people have died to keep people like Suze free. I would think people like Suze would respect those people that gave their lives by attempting to be truthful and supportive of the nation.

          2. Please post more information on this mysterious “Deep State” entity. Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

            this is to “and I’ve got the goods on the trilateral commission, to boot” kurtzie

            1. ok, good question. here’s an introduction and you can go educate yourself

              “Political scientists and foreign policy experts have used the term deep state for years to describe individuals and institutions who exercise power independent of—and sometimes over—civilian political leaders. They applied it mainly to developing countries like Algeria, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey, where generals and spies called the real shots in nominally democratic societies and replaced elected leaders when they saw fit. (Turkey and Egypt have recently moved to more overt security-state dictatorships, in which the deep state is the only state.)

              For a generation, the people who saw something like an American deep state—even if they rarely called it that—resided on the left, not the right. The 9/11 attacks triggered the rapid growth of an opaque security and intelligence machine often unaccountable to the civilian legal system. In the 2000s, the critique focused on a “war machine” of military and intelligence officials, defense contractors and neoconservative ideologues who, in some versions, took orders directly from Vice President Dick Cheney. In the Obama era, the focus shifted to the eerie precision of “targeted killings” by drones, and then the furor over Snowden, the ex-National Security Agency contractor whose 2013 leaks exposed the astonishing reach of the government’s surveillance. “There’s definitely a deep state,” Snowden told the Nation in 2014. “Trust me, I’ve been there.”

              https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537

      3. This appears to be the first time that an American president is on the side of the Russians.

        You have a very narrow view of history. Let’s go to the wayback machine and have you take a look at this:

        Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to “stand down” in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.

        Whose side was President Obama on? Where’s the DNC server?

      4. “It appears to be an American president on the of the Russians”, mostly to those predisposed to believe that.
        And it appears that Trump is not ” on the side of the Russians”, mostly to those predisposed to believe that.
        At this stage, how “it appears” is not all that important.

      5. Suze….– “It appears to be an American president on the of the Russians”, mostly to those predisposed to believe that.
        And it appears that Trump is not ” on the side of the Russians”, mostly to those predisposed to believe that.
        At this stage, how “it appears” is not all that important.

        1. many american presidents have been denounced as insufficiently belligerent to Russians. FDR, Truman, JFK, to name a few. Even Ike. Trump is in good company. The company of those who do not rush imprudently forwards to war.

  19. The Trump team is not out of the woods. First of all, because the indictments suggest some level of American involvement in the Russians’ schemes.

    Second, because the indictments do nothing to excuse these individuals or clear their (anonymous) names, an ambiguity that is often prelude to bringing charges against such individuals.

    Third, because it is now 100% clear that hacking the DNC was the Russians’ specific goal (and not merely a byproduct of a larger intelligence operation).

    Fourth, because the Russians’ operation extended for much longer than previously believed, and well into the the months where people close to the Trump campaign were in contact with the GRU.

    1. First of all, because the indictments suggest some level of American involvement in the Russians’ schemes.

      That’s one thing Rosenstein has denied.

  20. TURLEY SEEKS POSSIBLE COURT APPOINTMENT

    DISMISSES RUSSIAN INDICTMENTS AS INCONSEQUENTIAL

    The indictments of 12 Russians handed down on Friday described in great detail what was supposed to be ‘Fake News’. Just the day before, ‘discredited’ FBI Agent Peter Strozok had been called before The House Oversight Committee where blatantly hostile Republicans attempted to dismiss Russian meddling as a so-called ‘witch hunt’.

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller deliberately timed the indictments for the day after Strozok’s testimony. A day in which right-wing media was going to gin up a case for a ‘Contempt of Congress’ citation against Agent Strozok who had the mendacity to yell back at Republican inquisitors. That, in fact, was the ‘real’ witch hunt; the effort to portray Strozok as an out-of-control rogue agent.

    But the 12 indictments handed down Friday disrupted the smear campaign against Strozok. What’s more, they raised serious questions about Trump’s looming summit with Vladimir Putin. The indictments described a Russian Military Intelligence operation that was undoubtedly launched at Putin’s behest.

    The indictments also revealed Donald Trump as the wanton liar he is. Absurdly Trump was in England calling the Mueller Probe a ‘witch hunt’ as the indictments were announced. Viewers of cable news actually saw a split screen with Trump on one side and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on the other. That split screen symbolized the duplicity of this administration.

    And with this column Professor Turley makes an unusually feeble attempt to dismiss the indictments as so much ‘loose change’; leaving readers to contemplate Professor Turley’s ambitions.

    1. RUSSIA BEGAN HACKING CLINTON..

      AFTER TRUMP PUBLICLY INVITED THEM TO

      It was one of the more outlandish statements in a campaign replete with them: In a news conference in July 2016, Donald Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.

      “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said, referring to emails Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

      As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.

      Edited from: “Russians Began Clinton Hack Same Day Trump Publicly Suggested It”

      THE BOSTON GLOBE, 7/13/18

      1. No. “Supposedly” “Russians” began hacking the R.N.C. and the D.N.C. in 2015.
        This is hilarious. Hacking by any number of characters has been around since the Internet, and before that.

    2. “Absurdly Trump was in England calling the Mueller Probe a ‘witch hunt’ as the indictments were announced.”

      It is and started out to be a witchhunt against Trump. Just look at all the media reports since the start of Trump’s campaign. A witchhunt doesn’t necessarily stop at its target that is innocent rather entraps good people and might find wrongdoing among bad people, but that is not the way a civilized society should act. The witchhunt exposed you Peter Shill as a Shill. Is that good? I don’t think so. Your exposure hasn’t added anything to the moral fiber of the nation.

      I don’t think investigating seemingly innocent people to see if they might have committed a crime is the way the DOJ should act.

      1. Well there’s nothing new or novel about that much, they investigate innocent people all the time.

        1. Generally, they investigate a stated crime without spinning off in multiple directions. I believe most of the times innocent people are investigated is because they were involved in violating laws that shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

          1. quite often i am sure as well
            mueller is justifying himself with all these count-em-up worthless indictments
            he’s like a guy that goes hunting for a trophy stag and comes home with roadkill doe from the side of the road instead.

      2. Allan,
        I posted this in another thread but it works here even better.

        The phrase witch hunt always alluded to an investigation based on false allegations; there was never a question of the definition of witch. What’s changed in 325 years? Witch hunt no longer has the same meaning because there is no operational definition of the term witch; at least in reference to politics.

        In this context, wouldn’t witch and enemy be interchangeable in the oath of office?

        1. there is no operational definition of the term witch; at least in reference to politics.

          No, but we have a store of examples. Like Potter Stewart said, you know it when you see it.

          1. Like Potter Stewart said, you know it when you see it.

            No, he said, I know it when I see it.

            Regardless, it is still subjective and it begs for a clearly defined definition if it is to be used in legal proceedings.

    3. Just tap your ruby slippers, Peter, and maybe it all comes true.

    4. Sure….with a definative HEADLINE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, you can get some to contemplate “Turley’s ambitions”.
      I’ll go with The Onion or Weekly World News for credibilty over our man on the ground in Hollywood.

Comments are closed.