Personally I have no doubt that many US persons (R.S. is probably one of them) sought the aid of Russia to elect Trump. They thought that Hillary was corrupt or whatever and Russia could unmask her. The fact that Russia did it, to them is irrelevant, the "truth" was revealed. I am also certain that the end didn't justify the means in this case, USA is right to through the kitchen sink at the people involved...we have elections every 2-4 years and a message should be sent. (USA did the same is not a moral equivalent to me)
Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
131–140 of 172 posts
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hypothetically, if a Russian agent became President of the USA, what would you expect him to do? If a Russian agent became President of the USA, I would expect him to disarm american citizens and to reduce the power of the U.S. military. e: if you're downvoting please explain why.
Why would disarming citizens make a difference?
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It seems like a no-brainer that an enemy force (Russia in this instance) would want to disarm the people they plan to attack/control.
The OP asked what I'd expect from a Russian Agent as President, and that's what I'd expect one of the first steps to be. I _wouldn't_ expect a russian agent who became president of the U.S. to fight for the 2nd Amendment/arming of citizens and to push for the EU to increase their military spending.
Sure, it could happen, but I wouldn't expect it.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#133> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…
My guess is that Russia will fund one charged guy to hire a a top US lawyer and fight the charges.
A Russian company--allegedly doing Russia's dirty work--hired top US lawyers and they are giving DOJ a heartburn...they must share evidence (can tell how it was obtained) and get ready to go to trial. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/09/concord-manag...
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#134[flagged]
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hypothetically, if a Russian agent became President of the USA, what would you expect him to do? Try to withdraw from as many international treaties as possible? Insult foreign heads of state and sabotage America's relationship with their allies? Refuse to enact sanctions against Russia? I don't think Trump is a Russian agent, but I wouldn't call the idea crazy
> Hypothetically, if a Russian agent became President of the USA, what would you expect him to do? If a Russian agent became President of the USA, I would expect him to disarm american citizens and to reduce the power of the U.S. military. e: if you're downvoting please explain why.
I'm not convinced disarming citizens would be a good move for an agent. It would cost a lot of political capital to pull off, and the benefit only materialized in the unlikely event of physically occupying the US (which would be decades in the future). Keeping guns readily available also seems to come at a cost to health and safety of the population, benefitting the goals of a Russian agent.
Weakening the U.S. military sounds like a more worthwile goal. Reducing their budget would be one way to do that, but that's easily undone. I would go for more a more sublte approach to inflict better long-term damage. Try to restructure and reprioritise to get less done with more money. Try to get rid of important military installations abroad. Try to burn bridges with allies to make sure the US military has to take a larger burden in foreign interventions. If you're feeling really bold, try to establish entirely new arms of the military to further decrease effectiveness and increase spending. Try to do all of that in a way that's hard to undo by the next president.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would disarming citizens make a difference?
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It seems like a no-brainer that an enemy force (Russia in this instance) would want to disarm the people they plan to attack/control. The OP asked what I'd expect from a Russian Agent as President, and that's what I'd expect one of the first steps to be. I _wouldn't_ expect a russian agent who became president of the U…
You don't need to invade a country to conquer it.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
His policies are fairly anti-western alliance, which has defined America for nearly a century. It's unlikely he's a Russian agent but he certainly seems to be influenced by at least one. His son definitely attempted to work with the Russian government to help get Trump elected, even though he knew they were doing something illegal.
At least some of that seems in the past. Presently, Schindler has good coverage of the details here [1], which details what a generous reading of mkempe's point is trying to say -- let's not go over-board. 1. http://observer.com/2018/07/putin-conflict-poland-ukraine-na...
Is it overboard to consider Paul Manafort a Russian asset? He seems to have influenced Trump and his governing style pretty drastically.
I don't think anything in my comment was particularly inflammatory.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not; the issue is that a US Presidential campaign actively collaborated in an influence operation by a hostile foreign power directed against the US That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you pres…
There was a meeting with a foreign ambassador offering to collaborate which was met with enthusiasm by trumps people who we are to believe knew nothing about this even though he was in the same building a few floors above. He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.
According to the indictment, Russia kicked off a set of hacking attempts a few hours after Trump made that request. The timing creates an appearance of cooperation that is not ideal.
Republicans have argued that Trump was joking. The fact that Russia appears to have promptly complied with Trump's request complicates the situation.
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#139> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…
You might be interested in some of the FBI's previous work
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-ghost-stories-ins...
Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence used to charge them?
> Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence use to charge them? If they actually are arrested or surrender themselves to face the charges, yes, mostly. That is, they are entitled to not only what the prosecution will use at trial, but to have any exculpatory evidence in the hands of the government proactively turned over, and to have compulsory means of securing any relevant evidence, physical or testimonial, f…
Thanks. I'm asking because apparently the other Russian group previously charged by Mueller et al has hired lawyers who seem to be easily winning the case in court, without any Russian national having to appear. Apparently for lack of evidence and lack of legal substance.