- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,553
- Reaction score
- 55,183
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1080766/download
This is the document that details the reasoning behind the charges and it's a remarkably interesting read both for what it says and for what it doesn't say.
If the accusations in the Affidavit hold water, and I have little doubt that they do, this young lady was unquestionably acting as a Russian Agent. To call her a "spy" might be overreaching in the pulp novel sense but it does give the open minded reader a wonderfully laid out insight to the process of spying. The connections to Russian officials are there as are the methods used and the objectives of "recruiting" sources. "Client 1" was, if everything from the affidavit is true, being played by Butina and her handlers.
There is also a lot of discussion that substantiates claims of the Russian preference for a Republican win in 2016. While that preference wasn't necessarily in doubt it is interesting to see it laid out so explicitly. That being said, NOTHING in the affidavit suggests that the preference was for malign purposes. That brings us to what isn't in the affidavit.
There is nothing in the affidavit that suggests an attempt to influence the election. While that may have been part of another plan it was not part of THIS plan.
There is nothing indicating an attempt to "compromise" anyone. While there was quite a bit of discussion regarding establishing "back channels" all that discussion appears to be in the interests of facilitating diplomacy and shortcutting around established, cumbersome diplomatic channels. I will note that such shortcuts can and have been used to leverage recruits into nefarious acts. Such an objective was NOT disclosed in this document.
There is no indication that US political actors were seeking contact with Russia. This is important because the whole case against Trump was that he was the one seeking Russian support. That was in no way indicated in the affidavit.
There was no overt indication of animosity by Russia toward Clinton. The entire discussion seems to be with regard to how to deal with whichever party succeeded in the election. Logic would indicate that comparable approaches by Russia were also being made to Clinton associates and other candidates who were perceived as having a chance to win the election.
My personal conclusions from reading this document are that, in this case, Butina WAS acting as an agent of the Russian government. I suspect that she was knowingly engaged in creating a "contact list" for other agents to work. I do not, however, see any indication that Russia, Trump or any other involved parties were seeking to destabilize American institutions or to destabilize relations between the US and Russia or between the US and any other nation.
This is the document that details the reasoning behind the charges and it's a remarkably interesting read both for what it says and for what it doesn't say.
If the accusations in the Affidavit hold water, and I have little doubt that they do, this young lady was unquestionably acting as a Russian Agent. To call her a "spy" might be overreaching in the pulp novel sense but it does give the open minded reader a wonderfully laid out insight to the process of spying. The connections to Russian officials are there as are the methods used and the objectives of "recruiting" sources. "Client 1" was, if everything from the affidavit is true, being played by Butina and her handlers.
There is also a lot of discussion that substantiates claims of the Russian preference for a Republican win in 2016. While that preference wasn't necessarily in doubt it is interesting to see it laid out so explicitly. That being said, NOTHING in the affidavit suggests that the preference was for malign purposes. That brings us to what isn't in the affidavit.
There is nothing in the affidavit that suggests an attempt to influence the election. While that may have been part of another plan it was not part of THIS plan.
There is nothing indicating an attempt to "compromise" anyone. While there was quite a bit of discussion regarding establishing "back channels" all that discussion appears to be in the interests of facilitating diplomacy and shortcutting around established, cumbersome diplomatic channels. I will note that such shortcuts can and have been used to leverage recruits into nefarious acts. Such an objective was NOT disclosed in this document.
There is no indication that US political actors were seeking contact with Russia. This is important because the whole case against Trump was that he was the one seeking Russian support. That was in no way indicated in the affidavit.
There was no overt indication of animosity by Russia toward Clinton. The entire discussion seems to be with regard to how to deal with whichever party succeeded in the election. Logic would indicate that comparable approaches by Russia were also being made to Clinton associates and other candidates who were perceived as having a chance to win the election.
My personal conclusions from reading this document are that, in this case, Butina WAS acting as an agent of the Russian government. I suspect that she was knowingly engaged in creating a "contact list" for other agents to work. I do not, however, see any indication that Russia, Trump or any other involved parties were seeking to destabilize American institutions or to destabilize relations between the US and Russia or between the US and any other nation.
