Mueller hands down 13 Russian indictments!

[Sampson Simpson]

The ridiculous thing is, you can't tell a russian troll to many of the right wingers that post on forum, they both push the same stupid lies and BS

Once again shows the stupidity of the general public in this country, no wonder why things are going to **** really fast

 

[NeverTrump]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

The individuals in question work for a group funded by Putin. Color me surprised....:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Trump and his satellite DP "Trumpies" will be working overtime this weekend coming up with new Mueller attacks and other assorted nonsense. I can hardly wait to see what they can come up with next.

The bottom line is that Trump was either lying or wrong. This IS no hoax.

Thank you Mr. Mueller for your persistence and diligence despite obvious obstructions and personal attacks from the Trump Administration.

The beginning of the end my friends.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, we know they were "****ing with our system". But what are you trying to say? THIS is how the exchange started:








And in the post of mine you quoted, I pointed out that you were omitting the portions of the article about Russians "****ing with our system" in order to help Trump and hurt Hillary. You now cite organization of a rally and counter rally after the election as if it's a rejoinder.

We are talking about the indictments and there was interference with a goal to sew dissatisfaction with our system.
That's what me and Mueller are trying to say.
"By in or around May 2014, the organization's strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of "spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general,"

 

[blackjack50]

Prosecutors don't usually hold back their best stuff. If there was collusion it would be in there.

Besides which, the indictment says that these guys supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, too. Collusion?

So they supported candidates opposed to Hillary?

 

[Mr Person]

We are talking about the indictments and there was interference with a goal to sew dissatisfaction with our system.
That's what me and Mueller are trying to say.
"By in or around May 2014, the organization's strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of "spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general,"

1. They were undermining our system.

2. They were also seeking to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

The article says both. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop idiotically and dishonestly acting like if they were doing #1, they weren't doing #2.




Here are some of the words you keep dishonestly pretending are absent from the article:

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday. The indictment says that a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency sought to wage "information warfare" against the United States by using fictitious American personas and social media platforms and other Internet-based media.


While that effort was launched in 2014, by early to mid-2016 the defendants were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," the indictment charges. As part of those efforts, the defendants also encouraged minority groups to either not vote for in the election or to vote for a third-party candidate. Both actions would have hurt Clinton, who received significant support from minority voters.



I mean, sure. You can probably collect some "likes" from people who defend Trump no matter what. But you really shouldn't fool yourself into believing that anyone interested in honestly looking at the issue is going to overlook the above just because you keep copy/pasting one single line of the article at people.

 

[JackA]

Trump wasn't going to fire Mueller anyway, so that's a non issue. If the object is to get Trump then this falls far short.

Many regular political observers are a lot less sure of that than you are. Your straw man on the object of the indictment is noted.

 

[blackjack50]

OMG! The Russians hedged their bets, working with both parties. :lamo

Yea. Interfering in foreign elections is so un-Russian. I mean...if they attempted to collude with both sides to hedge bets...we should throw them all in jail. And start trying to oust Putin. But not with the military.

 

[Mr Person]

That article only concludes Russia attempted and possibly successfully performed "information warfare".
Not only does that not prove they actually assisted trump winning but also check out the "breaking news" story across the top. "Market rebounds after no indictments on allegations that americans helped"

Basically Russia and many other countries try to hack the US all the time and I'm willing to bet more than just Russia wants to fix elections for one side or the other. This is a security concern, not a espionage job.

The fix, continue improving network security. Not sure why this concludes trump is lying (about Russia and the election).

FAIL.

Here is what he said: "The bottom line is that Trump was either lying or wrong. This IS no hoax."




Definition of or

1 : used as a function word to indicate an alternative

coffee or tea

sink or swim

: the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases

lessen or abate

: or approximation or uncertainty

in five or six days


4: used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

 

[LowDown]

Many regular political observers are a lot less sure of that than you are. Your straw man on the object of the indictment is noted.

Hypothetical ≠ Straw man.

 

[Fraggle Rock]

Soon conservatives will state that Trump is too stupid to knowingly collude. They will have me there I guess. Boy that fake news is getting so REAL

 

[Parrish]

The new normal: Americans rallying around the Russian's anointed, taking misinformation about a candidate and spreading it and sowing mistrust of our press, Congress, FBI and Justice Dept. and minorities.

And they don't believe it happened or that they were duped.

 

[TobyOne]

So, they're indicting Russians for trolling on the internet ?

 

[bubbabgone]

1. They were undermining our system.

2. They were also seeking to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

The article says both. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop idiotically and dishonestly acting like if they were doing #1, they weren't doing #2.




Here are some of the words you keep dishonestly pretending are absent from the article:

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday. The indictment says that a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency sought to wage "information warfare" against the United States by using fictitious American personas and social media platforms and other Internet-based media.


While that effort was launched in 2014, by early to mid-2016 the defendants were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," the indictment charges. As part of those efforts, the defendants also encouraged minority groups to either not vote for in the election or to vote for a third-party candidate. Both actions would have hurt Clinton, who received significant support from minority voters.



I mean, sure. You can probably collect some "likes" from people who defend Trump no matter what. But you really shouldn't fool yourself into believing that anyone interested in honestly looking at the issue is going to overlook the above just because you keep copy/pasting one single line of the article at people.

Spreading distrust toward the candidates means before the election and staging protests against the President elect means after the election.
It seems you're counting on limited, and selectively chosen, information in a CNBC article as being a complete and thorough story.
Why you would want so desperately to do that, you'll have to work out for yourself.

 

[JuiceJS]

Here is what he said: "The bottom line is that Trump was either lying or wrong. This IS no hoax."




Definition of or

1 : used as a function word to indicate an alternative

coffee or tea

sink or swim

: the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases

lessen or abate

: or approximation or uncertainty

in five or six days


4: used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or

A suppose you don't have to limit "wrong" to trump although even if eeerything goes according to plan and these Russians are proven to have attempted effecting the election, this is no different than people global constantly trying to hack (doesn't matter if a different ave

 

[JuiceJS]

"The defendants used fake US persona, social media platforms and other internet media to advance their scheme, according to the indictment"

Verbatim. They didn't "hack", they basically just played as a US citizen and used everyday crap we use.

 

[independentusa]

You seem to be implying that this proves that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians. Is this what you are saying? Where does this appear in Mueller's indictment?

It proves nothing about collusion betweenTrump and the Russians, but it does end Trump saying it wasn't the Russians, you know, fake news. I really wonder why Trump didn't just stay out of the whole thing and it might have died on the vine.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Here's what the Deputy Director of the DOJ says:



You guys are succumbing to wishful thinking again.

Then why doesnt the president take a strong stance against Russia? When it comes to Russia, Trump seems to put them first over his own country.

Personally I dont think that Trump knowingly colluded with Putin; instead I think that Putin took advantage of Trump. ANd now Trump is trying to cover that up. Trump thinks highly of his abilities and probably thought that he could use Russia to his advantage, but hat just played into Putins hands. My main point in all of this is that we stop Russia from influencing Americans. And stop the obvious attacks on our society. But I cannot help to notice that our president is absent in that fight. SO I wonder why the president would not pursue Russia, and it makes me think that perhaps Putin has some type of leverage over Trump tying his hands. Or is Trump just so egotistical that he would put his win in the election over his duties as commander in chief? I wonder if Trump wont accept Russian meddling in the 2016 election because he thinks it threatens his win? IS the president really that petty that he would ignore national security because of his ego?

So you end up with a president who is either highly bad for the country because he cannot put country before his own personal feelings, or a president that knowingly did something really bad to become president. Either way no one should be supporting this schmuck, yet the Republicans do. ANd they keep sharing obvious disinformation of facebook that is exactly what those Russians is indicted for. When will you guys wake up before the Democrats get enough dirt on you guys? I mean I dont like either party, would rather see bother fade away. But while you both still exist I want more equal numbers in the government. This mostly one party rule is too authoritarian for my likes, no matter which party it is. ANd the longer that the Republicans keep denying Russian interference in our election the more likely we will shift to the Democrats being the mostly one party dictatorship (the polar opposite of what we have now).

But go ahead parrot the typical Republican chants.

 

[Mr Person]

We are talking about the indictments and there was interference with a goal to sew dissatisfaction with our system.
That's what me and Mueller are trying to say.
"By in or around May 2014, the organization's strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of "spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general,"

1. They were undermining our system.

2. They were also seeking to help Trump and hurt Clinton.

The article says both. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop idiotically and dishonestly acting like if they were doing #1, they weren't doing #2.




Here are some of the words you keep dishonestly pretending are absent from the article:

A federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump, special counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday. The indictment says that a Russian organization called the Internet Research Agency sought to wage "information warfare" against the United States by using fictitious American personas and social media platforms and other Internet-based media.


While that effort was launched in 2014, by early to mid-2016 the defendants were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," the indictment charges. As part of those efforts, the defendants also encouraged minority groups to either not vote for in the election or to vote for a third-party candidate. Both actions would have hurt Clinton, who received significant support from minority voters.



I mean, sure. You can probably collect some "likes" from people who defend Trump no matter what. But you really shouldn't fool yourself into believing that anyone interested in honestly looking at the issue is going to overlook the above just because you keep copy/pasting one single line of the article at people.

Spreading distrust toward the candidates means before the election and staging protests against the President elect means after the election.
It seems you're counting on limited, and selectively chosen, information in a CNBC article as being a complete and thorough story.
Why you would want so desperately to do that, you'll have to work out for yourself.

I painstakingly illustrate that you were cherry-picking from the article in an effort to deflect from its description of Russians helping Trump but hurting Clinton (and, yes, also generally disrupting things).....

....and your response comes straight from the playground: I know you are but what am I.




Sadly typical for this forum, I guess.

 

[WCH]

You seem to be implying that this proves that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians. Is this what you are saying? Where does this appear in Mueller's indictment?

It also says they were helping Bernie Sanders. They must really hate Hillary.

Maybe now they can go back to finding school shooters.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Trump wasn't going to fire Mueller anyway, so that's a non issue. If the object is to get Trump then this falls far short.

Well if Trump does not fire Mueller then he must stand behind Muellers investigation. But that isnt the message that Trump is putting out now is it? And that make sit a issue.

 

[lurchadams]

You seem to be implying that this proves that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians. Is this what you are saying? Where does this appear in Mueller's indictment?

What Trump and his supporters often claim is that Russia either did not interfere or that Russian interference had no effect on the election outcome. To do otherwise would imply that Trump had help in his victory.

To Trump and is supporters it's more important to sacrifice security of our election process than to admit Trump's victory was assisted by a foreign power.

Russian collusion with Trump and/or his campaign staff is still being investigated. I didn't see that the OP implied otherwise.

 

[AlbqOwl]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

The individuals in question work for a group funded by Putin. Color me surprised....:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Trump and his satellite DP "Trumpies" will be working overtime this weekend coming up with new Mueller attacks and other assorted nonsense. I can hardly wait to see what they can come up with next.

The bottom line is that Trump was either lying or wrong. This IS no hoax.

Thank you Mr. Mueller for your persistence and diligence despite obvious obstructions and personal attacks from the Trump Administration.

Did you read the entire indictment? I just did. It is found here:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...er-indictment-on-russian-election-case-415670

I know of no time that the President or anybody associated with him has said there was no Russian meddling. Pretty much everybody has said they were sure Russia did meddle in our election. Probably a lot of other countries as well.

While it does show that the Russians did fraudulently promote Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign, would that be because they wanted Hillary to win? Or they saw him as the best way to create chaos in the American politic? It is interesting that after the election, the Russians organized both pro Trump and anti-Trump rallies? What is that all about?

And while some members among the Trump volunteers and campaign did get sucked into some of the phony communications on Facebook, Twitter, et al, it was pretty clear that there is no indication that any volunteer or member of the Trump campaign was complicit or knowledgeable of the fraud. Based on the 37 pages of the indictment alone, it pretty well exonerates the President of any wrongdoing so far as Russia is concerned.

 

[lurchadams]

Every time that Trump denies that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections it looks like collusion. Vetoing those new sanctions looked like collusion. Doing nothing about Russia planing to meddle in the next elections looks like collusion. It certainly does not look like America first; it looks like Russia first and screw America.

To me it's more: "Protect Trump's pride and screw national security".

 

[lurchadams]

Trump wasn't going to fire Mueller anyway, so that's a non issue. If the object is to get Trump then this falls far short.

Really? You know that, how?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eller-may-invite-obstruction-case/1068812001/

 

[haymarket]

The noose tightens ever closer to Trump and his top people.

How do Trump and is apologists continue to say Russia did not interfere in our election ?

That sort of insane denial is now full blown delusional placing anyone who takes that tact in an alternate reality of their own creation.