11–20 of 118 posts
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
> Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate". Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm having trouble parsing your comment. Would you be willing to say it differently?
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
> Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate". Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm having trouble parsing your comment. Would you be willing to say it differently?
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
> Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate". Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm having trouble parsing your comment. Would you be willing to say it differently?
"I will keep this [stored/saved/bookmarked] so that I can post it as counterargument under any comment claiming that 'Russiagate' didn't actually happen."
As to the efficacy of this counterargument, see the sibling comments of yours.
Interesting details: > These GRU hackers and their co-conspirators engaged in computer intrusions and attacks intended to support Russian government efforts to undermine, retaliate against, or otherwise destabilize: (1) Ukraine; (2) Georgia; (3) elections in France; (4) efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil; and (5) the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic…
Is this clear from the evidence or are these the allegations against them?
So, sort of a paper tiger.
Does the US Government (as represented by these prosecutors) have a good faith belief these individuals committed these crimes? Probably, though you might believe otherwise. I would say my trust is very high in that statement, despite everything else going on in politics right now. The government doesn't make indictments like this lightly, and the grand jury saw at least enough evidence to establish probable cause. At the same time, there is a saying about ham sandwiches and indictments.
Will we ever see the underlying evidence? I doubt we will.
Should we trust the US Government's representations in this case? Again, I would - but you may have priors to suggest you shouldn't.
Can someone explain how individuals are identified when we are talking about state sponsored hackers?
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
Maybe we have different definitions of "Russiagate", but I don't think anyone doubts Russian (or Chinese, American, Iranian, Israeli...) state-sponsored cyberattacks are a thing.
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
A press release for indictments for people you're never going to arrest or have a trial for is nothing more than propaganda. If they actually cared about catching these people, they'd keep the indictments secret so that they might go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US.
Keeping this to post under all those comments saying there was nothing to "Russiagate".
A press release for indictments for people you're never going to arrest or have a trial for is nothing more than propaganda. If they actually cared about catching these people, they'd keep the indictments secret so that they might go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A press release for indictments for people you're never going to arrest or have a trial for is nothing more than propaganda. If they actually cared about catching these people, they'd keep the indictments secret so that they might go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US.
I am even more confused by this comment. How is this propaganda?