Mueller Indictments for 13 Russian Nationals in US Election Meddling

a reply to: aethertek

actually no... he pled guilty to identity fraud

Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, ran an online service called Auction Essistance, through which he bought and sold bank account numbers that would help users circumvent security measures of digital payment companies. Pinedo transfered, possessed and used the identities of other people in connection with unlawful activity, according to a statement of the offense

which he prolly sold to the 13 russians who are also charged with fraud and identity theft

defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft

and Rosenstein press conference

Trump:“Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it, I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country.”

lol

ya, trump is a real patriot! his denial is something else.. we don't want to insult putin or anything. lol

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Coats: “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives that its past efforts have been successful and views the 2018 midterm U.S. elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.”

He's right: the Russians have been wildly successful at getting us to tear each other's throats out. That's why all this never-Trump crap needs to stop: it plays right into their game.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
They may have tried to influence the election, but can anyone prove it actually had an effect? Trying to influence an American election is like trying to influence the path of a hurricane.

It's a very safe bet to say that not one single vote was changed because of ads on Facebook. This whole Russian conspiracy has been stretched and pulled as far as it can go because the left have been in desperate need of something to be mad about.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


maybe if trump were a little more never putin... everything he does screams he's putin's puppet - everything!

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Coats: “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives that its past efforts have been successful and views the 2018 midterm U.S. elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.”

He's right: the Russians have been wildly successful at getting us to tear each other's throats out. That's why all this never-Trump crap needs to stop: it plays right into their game.

No, Trump getting elected was playing into Putin's hand, why did Putin work so hard & risk the backlash to get trump elected.

K~

originally posted by: Whereismypassword

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.

Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.

Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.

I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

It did work and still is working, who do you think is behind all that Q rubbish?

It could be Roger stone and his Russian hacker friends for all we know and that is influencing people online now

The last presidential election in America was disgustingly dirty and one of the chief smear machines was Donald lying through his teeth to win the nomination of the Republican Party and then saying crooked Hillary and lock her up all the time to his fanatical gullible supporters

Donald’s team was working with the Russians to the extent his son went to meet them in person to get some dirt on Hillary

What did the Russians want in return? Follow the money and I’m expecting some joint oil deal with some team trump players and a big Russian oil company

It ain’t Donald’s day today, not only this but also on top of his bedroom gymnastics with stormy the adult entertainer the playboy model mentioned in the election and hushed up has come out and said she had a 9 month affair with him

Most politicians step down when scandal surrounds them, Donald has no Honer

Do you forget the the DNC colluded behind their own Bernie Sanders's back to get Hillary the victory? They had insiders giving her debate questions. The NY Times hired 20 or so workers to search for dirt on Trump working around the clock to get it done, etc etc etc. . . Crying about Trump is the last thing any democrat should do.

There are so many loose threads on this sweater it's dizzying. Wonder which, if any, will see it unravel.

What I think is a tad humorous is Rod Rosenstein is basically the acting Attorney General in this situation. Then I am reminded why that has come to be.

Trump must really hate Jeff Sessions.

Yeah

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.

Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.

Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.

I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.

So, does that mean he's going to indict Hillary's people? They deliberately purchased information (the Steele Dossier) from Russian intelligence sources, for the purpose of influencing the election. And they did so knowing full well who they were working with.

It doesn't count when dems do it. They can lie, cheat, and steal and it's ok because they were supposed to win anyways.

originally posted by: aethertek

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Coats: “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives that its past efforts have been successful and views the 2018 midterm U.S. elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.”

He's right: the Russians have been wildly successful at getting us to tear each other's throats out. That's why all this never-Trump crap needs to stop: it plays right into their game.

No, Trump getting elected was playing into Putin's hand, why did Putin work so hard & risk the backlash to get trump elected.

K~

Trump got elected because the alternative was Hillary. The Democrats couldn't have picked a worse candidate if they were trying to throw the election.

Similarly, Trump became the Republican nominee because the alternatives (Jeb, Rubio, Cruz) were a bunch of pathetic losers that nobody could get excited about, and had proved their lack of charisma in multiple previous elections.

At the end of the day, the idea that the Russians somehow got Trump elected is a comforting lie for the political establishment, because it allows then to avoid confronting just how deeply disgusted most Americans (right & left) are with them.

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.

Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.

Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.

I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.

So, does that mean he's going to indict Hillary's people? They deliberately purchased information (the Steele Dossier) from Russian intelligence sources, for the purpose of influencing the election. And they did so knowing full well who they were working with.

It doesn't count when dems do it. They can lie, cheat, and steal and it's ok because they were supposed to win anyways.

And God help those who beat them.

They will make snip up to try to steal the election back.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


maybe if trump were a little more never putin... everything he does screams he's putin's puppet - everything!

Everything like what?

Imagine being the #Resistance members who showed up to a "Russian organised" protest march...

originally posted by: knoxie
Trump:“Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it, I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country.”

lol

ya, trump is a real patriot! his denial is something else.. we don't want to insult putin or anything. lol

I forgot about that!

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.

Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.

Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.

I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.

So, does that mean he's going to indict Hillary's people? They deliberately purchased information (the Steele Dossier) from Russian intelligence sources, for the purpose of influencing the election. And they did so knowing full well who they were working with.

It doesn't count when dems do it. They can lie, cheat, and steal and it's ok because they were supposed to win anyways.

And God help those who beat them.

They will make snip up to try to steal the election back.

It's repulsive. But at the same time, I get this evil feeling of joy because I know it makes them look worse and worse.

a reply to: dawnstar


reread my post.


i personally believe the meddeling did have an impact and it shouldn't be ignored.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.

Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.

I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.

Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.

I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.

So, does that mean he's going to indict Hillary's people? They deliberately purchased information (the Steele Dossier) from Russian intelligence sources, for the purpose of influencing the election. And they did so knowing full well who they were working with.

Honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised to see something get thrown at Podesta or his group.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Now I'm waiting for the indictment of Clinton Ukrainian trolls. Wait they were helping Clinton so it is ok. bababab witch hunt...

a reply to: knoxie

Yes it did it's called super delegate rigging by the DNC and ballot box stuff caught on camera at numerous locations, u can utube it.