101–110 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're kidding, right? You can't possibly be this thick. The first set of indictments against Russians involved in the social media manipulation campaign have lawyers actively representing them in US courts while they hide in Russia. How the fuck is Mueller and his team going to lie when they know that their adversary is a nation-state with essentially unlimited resource, one that has already hired half a dozen Ameri…
How the fuck is Mueller and his team going to lie The comment you are replying to specifically says that they didn't lie, and didn't have to. This and your other comments seem to imply that you have some sort of angry agenda here. I'm new to commenting here, but I've been lurking for a long time and your goals here seem to be in conflict with the spirit of HN. One person pointed out some facts that you seem to not li…
They strongly implied that Mueller probably lied because they didn't have to tell the truth and no one could prove it.
> This and your other comments seem to imply that you have some sort of angry agenda here.
I do have an agenda: Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unlike most natural born Americans, I take my Oath of Allegiance very seriously.
> One person pointed out some facts that you seem to not like, and you basically screamed and didn't even read the comment you were replying to.
Bingo: I don't like facts that are completely disconnected from reality. By definition, they're not facts.
If screaming means rejecting abject bullshit, I'll die happy.
> But you cannot deny that none of the people in this indictment face any risk of being arrested, which means the allegations in this specific indictment will never be challenged or proven.
The first group of Russians that were indicted for social media manipulation have lawyers defending them in court despite the fact that there is zero chance of extradition.
I don't know what your definition of "never" is, but it can't possibly overlap with the English cognate.
I wish there was more technical discussion of the hack and the indicment. Due to the political nature of the case nearly everything written is extremely partisan. However there is actually quite a bit of "source material" out there: The indicment, the crowdstrike analysis, the published hacked data, the bitcoin blockchain. Which could use some cold headed technical analysis.
Due to the nature of the case the FBI seems to have thrown more resources after the investigation than they normally would do. One thing I notice is section 41 in the indicment.
As I am understanding this, the perpetrator, strugling to formulate the contents of the wordpress site he would publish the day after, was typing in phrases into Google (presumely) under that later would occur on the Guccifer 2.0-site.
Showing two things. That searches are logged extensively and are accessable to American authorities. And that the said GRU perpetrators didn't really care to cover their tracks that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How the fuck is Mueller and his team going to lie The comment you are replying to specifically says that they didn't lie, and didn't have to. This and your other comments seem to imply that you have some sort of angry agenda here. I'm new to commenting here, but I've been lurking for a long time and your goals here seem to be in conflict with the spirit of HN. One person pointed out some facts that you seem to not li…
> The comment you are replying to specifically says that they didn't lie, and didn't have to. They strongly implied that Mueller probably lied because they didn't have to tell the truth and no one could prove it. > This and your other comments seem to imply that you have some sort of angry agenda here. I do have an agenda: Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign…
The comment literally says:
"They didn't lie, they don't have to. Everything in this indictment may be what they believe happened".
How is that ambiguous in any way?
By definition, they're not facts.
Russia does not extradite its own citizens to the US. That seems to be an undisputed fact. It's also a fact that the people named in this indictment - the indictment being discussed in this thread and the only people relevant to these comments - are Russian citizens. Accordingly, there is a 0% chance that these people will see the inside of a courtroom to litigate these charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, maybe something is damning, but if you believe that these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain" I have a cheap sunny beach in Greenland for sale. Or if you believe that the US spies had somehow full access to this info and are not afraid to compromise their sources by these revelations. Or, finally, if you believe that the US security agencies…
Dutch intelligence watched them do it. They were able to watch people coming and going through a security camera. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
> according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous.
It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos:
> It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians
So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but some skepticism is in order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grand juries cannot even exist independent of a judge, let alone decide things of consequence like an indictment. What planet do you live on?
You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper this conversation goes. There's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You're literally arguing that water isn't wet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper this conversation goes. There's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You're actually trying to argue that judges don't play an active role in the JUDICIAL SYSTEM . You're literally arguing that water isn't wet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With ZCash, you have to trust the few men that did the "trusted setup". The point about privacy is to trust no one.
This reminds me what I learned about secrets as a child: the only way to keep a secret is to not share it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dutch intelligence watched them do it. They were able to watch people coming and going through a security camera. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
The interesting thing about the article is its sourcing: > according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos: > It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but so…
This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The interesting thing about the article is its sourcing: > according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos: > It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but so…
That's what grand juries, juries, and transparent trials are all about. The first set of Russians indicted months ago have had lawyers representing them in front of a judge this entire time, despite the fact that there is no Russia-US extradition treaty and zero chance of then facing trial. The Office of Special Counsel is fully aware of that fact and yet they keep going, despite the risk that a judge could force the…
> This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
I think this is a very kind way of describing the Iraq fiasco. The US intelligence agencies claimed there were WMDs, the UK intelligence services produced the Dodgy Dossier[1], and don't get me started about what the Israeli intelligence claimed (I was stupid enough to believe them and prepare the bomb shelter for a chemical attack).
The one thing I learned is that claims by intelligence agencies or anonymous sources in those agencies are meaningless until hard evidence is provided.