The Mueller investigation.

[iceaura]

First, if one distributes information against a particular candidate, this is not a "damage" of the electoral process, but simply the usual way to use it.

1)The US electoral process is not available for Russian use, legally.
2) Agitprop is the inverse of information. It displaces information, destroys information, and prevents the informing of people.

The US does not like it if Russians participate? Ok, but why should Russia care?

Doesn’t matter. The Americans are doing the caring here.

The US themselves heavily influences all Russian elections, and what the US is doing should be fine if others are learning from the US, not? From a Russian point of view, this is nothing but the usual freedom of speech of Russian people in Russia, also an American value, not?

So we are in agreement that this is criminal behavior damaging to America - just as the American interferences were in those other countries, mutatis mutandis. And we are informed that lies, slanders, swindles, con jobs, and concealed-source agitprop from rich foreigners with bad motives taking advantage of people illegally, are regarded by Russians as ordinary free speech. Apparently this kind of outright criminal dishonesty is normal in Russia.

What else? Informed and guided by the Russian intelligence services? LOL. What do you think is the job of the Russian intelligence services, if not working for the Russian benefit?

Why yes - we have agreement. The criminal activities undertaken by these organized trolls and hackers were and are for the benefit of Putin’s government and allied elites - which is synonymous with “Russia” in your posting here.

So you are against freedom of association? Should Russia forbid trollers to organize in free associations?

Organized crime should be prosecuted under the law, and those who organize it and finance should pay higher legal penalties than button men and runners and the like.

Those who do unlawful things outside of Russia can be sent to prison based on Russian law by a Russian court, so no problem if this was some real crime.

So if instead they are financed by the Russian government and protected from the legal consequences of their criminal activities, we know it’s not because it was impossible for Russia to enforce these laws -

they just didn’t want to.

But this does not change the moral motives. And having the weapons and leaving the Russians there without them, as the victims of the fascists - this was completely unacceptable for the Russians.

Those were Ukrainians, not Russians.

Moreover, the Russians had the request of the legal president Yanukovych for military help against the coup, and the permission of the Duma to start a military action. So, as from international law, as from national law, even the open use of military force would have been fine.

And annexation of the territory. Israel gets away with it, why not Russia?

You wouldn't fall for that coming from anybody but Putin - or one of the US wingnut media feeds.

 

[douwd20]

It is certainly better for the US too if the elected president will not start a war against Russia, as Clinton has promised (ok, she has promised only to do things which would make such a war very probable, but not to have such a president is nonetheless positive for the US).

Better to start one with North Korea than Russia? If it were not for cooler heads in the government we can be sure the Korean Peninsula would be glowing now and China perhaps drawn into the conflict to protect its interests. The Russian trolls even used the term Killary. Frankly I'm tired of the narrative that Hillary would have the country in a war when we have a President now openly flaunting nuclear war.

What is for sure is either the Russians have something on Trump which would explain A.) his total dismissal of the charges his own Justice Department has filled and B.) Their comfort in having a compromised US president vs. Hillary.

 

[Schmelzer]

Better to start one with North Korea than Russia?

It would certainly be less harmful to America. But actually, nobody believes that the US will start one.

What is for sure is either the Russians have something on Trump which would explain A.) his total dismissal of the charges his own Justice Department has filled and B.) Their comfort in having a compromised US president vs. Hillary.

No, this is complete speculation.

That the Russian media have supported Trump is obvious and natural given the rhetorics about the relations with Russia during the campaign. It makes sense to think that a weak US president would be better than Hitlary, but this would not require any need for having something against Trump.

The US electoral process is not available for Russian use, legally.

Free speech is available to them, even if the US forbids it. And if you name their opinions "agitprop", they don't care.

So we are in agreement that this is criminal behavior damaging to America - just as the American interferences were in those other countries, mutatis mutandis.

No, we are not. If the US would restrict itself to some media campaigns and 13 trolls, nobody would bother.

And we are informed that lies, slanders, swindles, con jobs, and concealed-source agitprop from rich foreigners with bad motives taking advantage of people illegally, are regarded by Russians as ordinary free speech. Apparently this kind of outright criminal dishonesty is normal in Russia.
Why yes - we have agreement. The criminal activities undertaken by these organized trolls and hackers were and are for the benefit of Putin’s government and allied elites - which is synonymous with “Russia” in your posting here.

Only if "we" have the reading abilities of iceaura, which is able to distort every text. I have made clear enough that using names of real US citizens as fakes and opening bank accounts for them is illegal. And I have no problem with criminal convictions because of these methods. My point was about the first part, the conspiracy accusations. I interpret this text as that simply using pseudonyms to express an opinion against Clinton, in a group of like-minded people, would be sufficient for an accusation of conspiracy against the US.

I consider such accusations also from a very pragmatical point of view: How could that state use the same law against me? Given that I have distributed anti-American ideas, and in other forums also using pseudonyms, they obviously can use it against me too.

Those were Ukrainians, not Russians.

They use "Ukrop" as a swearword for Ukrainians, and if they name themselves, they use "Russians" or "Novorussians". And the Ukrainians (at least the Bandera fascists among them) name them "Moscals". That the communists have given these territories to the "Ukrainian Soviet Republic" does not mean that they became Ukrainians.

And annexation of the territory. Israel gets away with it, why not Russia?

If you think so, your choice.

So if instead they are financed by the Russian government and protected from the legal consequences of their criminal activities, we know it’s not because it was impossible for Russia to enforce these laws - they just didn’t want to.

LOL. You want to accuse what you think are Russian secret services of using fake identities, and the Russian government of not punishing their secret services if those use fake identities? You made my day.

Elections? Do you dare to use that word for anything to do with Russia?
Elected by who? Certainly not the people by way of free and anonymous vote?
At least the USA has a democratic system that CAN be interfered with. The same can not be said for Russia in that it is not a democracy.
What point would there be in promoting an opposition party or individual that doesn't exist?

The vote there is free and anonymous. There exist a lot of opposition parties, as well as opposition candidates. One of these candidates, Xenia Sobchak, traveled to America to present herself as the pro-American choice.

That all the parties in power differ only in minor points but agree in all the really important points is the typical situation in Western democracies too.

 

[iceaura]

LOL. You want to accuse what you think are Russian secret services of using fake identities, and the Russian government of not punishing their secret services if those use fake identities? You made my day.

You just crossed that line you try to walk, that separates deniable foolishness and plausible description of US bad stuff from Russian bot level attempts at lying and agitprop.
There's no way in hell you can have honestly missed the entire point of the entire thread that completely, that suddenly.

I interpret this text as that simply using pseudonyms to express an opinion against Clinton, in a group of like-minded people, would be sufficient for an accusation of conspiracy against the US.

No, you can't be that stupid. That is you telling lies, pretending to "interpret" so as to change the subject.

I have made clear enough that using names of real US citizens as fakes and opening bank accounts for them is illegal. And I have no problem with criminal convictions because of these methods.

Yes, you do. Because they would involve either trial in absentia by a corrupt American State, prosecution in Russia for violations of American law, or extradition and depositions under oath with penalties for perjury - and that ain't happenin', is it.

Free speech is available to them, even if the US forbids it.

Again, your instruction in what Russians mean by "free speech" is a valuable part of your contribution here.
I might have underestimated the degree to which Russian propaganda has taken hold, mentally, among vulnerable Europeans - I had been underestimating Putin's actual, underground popularity, for example, not intellectually but in experience - had I not seen the ridiculous lengths to which you will go in propagating utter bullshit here.

They use "Ukrop" as a swearword for Ukrainians, and if they name themselves, they use "Russians" or "Novorussians"

So? They were Ukrainian residents and citizens. So were their neighbors. They were not refugees.

That the communists have given these territories to the "Ukrainian Soviet Republic" does not mean that they became Ukrainians.

It does mean they had to move if they wanted to be Russians and live in Russia. Not betray their neighbors and bring in foreign soldiers to help them secede, and especially not if the foreign soldiers themselves are from an obvious criminal oligarchy like Putin's.

But actually, nobody believes that the US will start one.

Not on purpose. Of course not.
But with a guy like Trump (Republican) doing the talking and hiring, mishap and screw-up and rogue underlings become an immediate threat - as we see in this Korea circus. And this was predicted, by US left libertarians, if Trump were to be elected - giving the keys to the US military to a guy like that is like giving a shotgun to a chimp: you risk mishap.

With Clinton, of course, nobody with any sense bought into the Fox/Russian bs about Clinton starting a nuclear war on purpose. And with Clinton the chances of accident would have been reduced by competent governance.

But incompetent US governance was what Russia preferred - the extra risk of nuclear war was a price Putin was willing to pay. And you, of course - anything Putin wants, you want.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think with out doubt, that if anything has been established by Mueller so far it would be that Trumps success at the polls is not due to his "stable genius" but due to the incredibly divisive and persuasive campaign run by the Russian intelligence agencies.
Trump can NEVER claim he won the election with out Putin's support.
Even his pro-Putin stance during the campaign further reinforces the obvious.

I wonder how his NPD mental health problem will tolerate such a realization?

BUT WAIT!
There is more to come....

eg. Bannon could prove yet to be Trumps Achilles' heel.
Bannon will endure/stand his humilation for only so long IMO

 

[billvon]

I wonder how his NPD mental health problem will tolerate such a realization?

He'll just deny it, as he does any other inconvenient truth.

 

[Quantum Quack]

He'll just deny it, as he does any other inconvenient truth.

He may very well deny it but importantly:
Will the American people continue to do like wise?

 

[iceaura]

Will the American people continue to do like wise?

27% will, rising to about 40% of the voters in a given election.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ever since his :
"I could stand in 5th avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any votes", comment one has got to wonder how much he knew before hand the extent of, and expected effectiveness of a Russian social media and "other"campaign would have in ( his mind) guaranteeing his election.
As we know, Trump is a social media fanatic and knowing that he had support from Russia would have granted him incredible confidence whilst also knowing that USA citizens are social media crazy as well.

Unfortunately, his opposition were not prepared for a social media blitz nor did they consider how distorting social media can be.

There are many instances where social media has been implicated in mass hysterics.

Facebook/Twitter etc. are currently going through hoops to attempt to understand this dynamic and how they were being USED by nefarious actors to pursue an illegal objective.

Head line: AMERICAN INGENUITY* DESTROYS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
*re: Social media

Do you believe Trump would have been successful with out social media platforms? Personally I don't....
There fore one can conclude that Trump's Russian support whether innocently obtained or with covert collusion, was significantly involved in his success in the run for POTUS.
If it wasn't for Social media, Mueller would not be doing his investigation.

Also on a more serious note, Putin NEVER does anything for nothing. The debt Trump personally owes Putin has yet to be called. IMO.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The evidence of unambiguous "direct" collusion could be the very thing Putin can use to blackmail the POTUS.
Example: A video recording of a secret meeting between Putin and Trump well before the election.

 

[Quantum Quack]

as an aside:
News reports are suggesting that school students from all over the USA are co-coordinating a protest March on Washington using Social media to do it, in response to the recent school shooting tragedy in Florida.

 

[iceaura]

I have made clear enough that using names of real US citizens as fakes and opening bank accounts for them is illegal. And I have no problem with criminal convictions because of these methods. My point was about the first part, the conspiracy accusations. I interpret this text as that simply using pseudonyms to express an opinion against Clinton, in a group of like-minded people, would be sufficient for an accusation of conspiracy against the US.

I consider such accusations also from a very pragmatical point of view: How could that state use the same law against me? Given that I have distributed anti-American ideas, and in other forums also using pseudonyms, they obviously can use it against me too.

Here's how you can avoid breaking US law while running an anonymous, hidden source funded, foreign government organized and supplied, election season smear campaign against one of the candidates and favoring another in a US election. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-the-next-russian-attack-perfectly-legal.html

 

[Schmelzer]

You just crossed that line you try to walk, that separates deniable foolishness and plausible description of US bad stuff from Russian bot level attempts at lying and agitprop.

LOL. BTW, reading the accusations, in particular, the point of opening bank accounts, I had the impression that this was more an attempt of making money in some way or another. I thought about asking people for donations or so. It looks like I'm not alone: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/0...fluence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html So, it looks like Mueller has not even found some cheap attempt of some rich enough Russian guy to play a little bit politics, and clearly not some FSB game, but simply a commercial way to create and sell click bites. And, it appears, this was even part of the accusations themselves:

Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.

Looks like the FSB is very poor and has to make money out of his operations in the US.

Yes, you do. Because they would involve either trial in absentia by a corrupt American State, prosecution in Russia for violations of American law, or extradition and depositions under oath with penalties for perjury - and that ain't happenin', is it.

Why not? Extradition will certainly not happen because the Russian constitution forbids it. But prosecution in Russia for violating Russian law would be certainly a possibility.

So? They were Ukrainian residents and citizens. So were their neighbors. They were not refugees.

The Bandera Nazis were not their neighbors, they come mostly from the Western parts of Ukraine.

It does mean they had to move if they wanted to be Russians and live in Russia. Not betray their neighbors and bring in foreign soldiers to help them secede, and especially not if the foreign soldiers themselves are from an obvious criminal oligarchy like Putin's.

Oh, the large majority (in that region) had to emigrate to Russia because they are Russians, and the Bandera fascist minority has to be allowed to take power there, given that they have made a successful coup against the legal president elected by the majority? And all this because Lenin transferred these regions to the "Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic"?

With Clinton, of course, nobody with any sense bought into the Fox/Russian bs about Clinton starting a nuclear war on purpose. And with Clinton the chances of accident would have been reduced by competent governance.

That her governance was not competent is obvious from the consequences of her politics - Libya, Syria. Except if you think that this was the intention of her policy - to ruin and devastate these states because this was the predictable outcome of her actions. Do you think so?

What Clinton openly promised and obviously wanted to do was a very aggressive policy in Syria, not only bombing one airbase once, but bombing them all, destroying the Syrian air force completely, and a no-fly-zone in Syria, for the Russians. The intention would have been, of course, the hope that Russia would submit and run away. But this would not have happened. And shooting a Russian airplane would have been answered. What would Clinton have done once an American plane would have been shot down by the Russians? De-escalate like the Israelis have done?

(Trump would in such a situation ask the Russians for permission for some retaliation, hit with some cruise missiles some empty barracks, name the whole thing "the greatest victory ever" and do something else, like the Israelis have done too.)

In other, normal countries one could hope for some aggressiveness being only the usual lies during an election campaign. In the US, the real policy is usually even more aggressive than the campaign promises.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Schmelzer,
Do you believe Trump would have won his election with out:
1) Social media influences?
2) Russian involvement?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What Clinton openly promised and obviously wanted to do was a very aggressive policy in Syria, not only bombing one airbase once, but bombing them all,

Well.... if I had the evidence needed to bomb one I would have had evidence to bomb them all....What's the difference? none
Syria had used Chemical weapons with Russian support... enough evidence was available to launch a cruise missile strike.
Why didn't Trump shut down Syrian air space immediately the red line had been crossed?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your answer will probably be because doing so would be an act of war and Russia would retaliate.
Why would they retaliate if chemical weapons had been used?
They wouldn't dare start a war with the USA any how...not over a despot like Assad...

So Trump showed yellow and now look at the mess we have in the region...

 

[iceaura]

BTW, reading the accusations, in particular, the point of opening bank accounts, I had the impression that this was more an attempt of making money in some way or another.

Your impressions are not part of reality, and do not supply you with evidence of anything except your own vulnerability to professional American wingnut propaganda.

Why not? Extradition will certainly not happen because the Russian constitution forbids it. But prosecution in Russia for violating Russian law would be certainly a possibility.

As you read, in simple sentences even you can comprehend, the violations involved were of American law.

The Bandera Nazis were not their neighbors, they come mostly from the Western parts of Ukraine.

Lots of people weren't their neighbors. They had neighbors, nevertheless.

Oh, the large majority (in that region) had to emigrate to Russia because they are Russians,

Their choice. They don't want to be Ukrainians, instead Russians? Ok - they go live in Russia. No problem.

And all this because Lenin transferred these regions to the "Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic"?

Because when the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine was one of the pieces - with their support. They didn't want to be Russians then, remember? Lenin was long dead.

That her governance was not competent is obvious from the consequences of her politics - Libya, Syria.

Those weren't her politics, or her creations. She governed none of that.
I agree that Clinton's political competence - for good or for evil - is generally overestimated, ignoring her track record. But compared to Trump? - please.

What Clinton openly promised and obviously wanted to do was a very aggressive policy in Syria, not only bombing one airbase once, but bombing them all, destroying the Syrian air force completely, and a no-fly-zone in Syria, for the Russians. The intention would have been, of course, the hope that Russia would submit and run away. But this would not have happened.

So you think Putin would start a nuclear war over your imagined version of Clinton's slightly more aggressive Syrian policies for handling this aspect of W's Disaster?

What would Clinton have done once an American plane would have been shot down by the Russians? De-escalate like the Israelis have done?

That's been her lifelong pattern. She's been a compromiser with rightwing authoritarian aggression her entire career. American presidents usually behave in office as they have all their lives.

(Trump would in such a situation ask the Russians for permission for some retaliation, hit with some cruise missiles some empty barracks, name the whole thing "the greatest victory ever" and do something else, like the Israelis have done too.)

Trump might go out of his way to appease Putin, true. Fascists always set up hierarchy, and Putin apparently dominates Trump. But then he would have to bolster his strongman credentials elsewhere - and the CIA/military/mercenary black ops side of things, nuclear backed of course, has seen its funding and scope of action significantly increased under Trump. He likes bullying people - that's his strength. He'll find someone to bully, and ignore the fallout prospect.

Mueller is not easy to bully, is Trump's - and the Republican Party's - immediate problem.

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer,
Do you believe Trump would have won his election with out:
1) Social media influences?
2) Russian involvement?

Social media influence was, of course, a key. Without the internet, the mainstream media would have been sufficient to control any elections. With the internet, the number of people who don't trust the mainstream media increased enough so that even the quite serious anti-Trump attacks are no longer decisive. But nonetheless, he would have had no chance without a split among the US elites themselves.

Russian involvement was irrelevant. Given the evidence (Mueller found nothing but a small private commercial firm selling promotional content on click bite honeypots) there was none.

Well.... if I had the evidence needed to bomb one I would have had evidence to bomb them all....What's the difference? none

LOL, you really believe that gas attack fake? There was no evidence, never has been.

The difference is that between a more or less harmless PR action and a war. Both without any base, but nothing but an aggression from a legal point of view. And this is an important difference for Russia. A harmless PR action can be ignored, a serious aggression not. If Russia leaves Syria alone against an open and unjustified aggression, it means Russia has lost the chicken game, and the US can do what they want. Wait for the next chicken game on the Russian territory. Be sure, this scenario is one which Putin has thought about a lot, and made a decision how to react if the US starts such games. And be sure, if Putin would have thought that in such a case he would run away, he would not have started the Syrian operation.

Your answer will probably be because doing so would be an act of war and Russia would retaliate.
Why would they retaliate if chemical weapons had been used?

Why would they retaliate if aliens would attack? It makes no sense to answer such hypotheticals without connection with reality. That for every serious US aggression there will be an information war cover fake is a triviality. Germans in such a context simply remember the good old "Seit 5 Uhr 45 wird zurückgeschossen!"

As you read, in simple sentences even you can comprehend, the violations involved were of American law.

In this case, Russian law gives no possibility of persecution. If they would have violated Russian law too, this could be persecuted in Russia, but if this is legal in Russia, then not. (Not sure if opening accounts with fake names is legal in Russia, I doubt.)

Their choice. They don't want to be Ukrainians, instead Russians? Ok - they go live in Russia. No problem.

This is not a question what they want to be, it is a question of what they are. They are Russians. They identify themselves as Russians. The question is if they have a right to defend themselves against Bandera fascist gangs who like to cry "hang the Russians" and after they have overthrown the legal president. Or against an army ruled by these fascists who started to bomb their cities. But, ok, I see, if the fascists are supported by Obama, everything is fine, they can do whatever they like, and nobody has a right to do anything against this.

Because when the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine was one of the pieces - with their support. They didn't want to be Russians then, remember? Lenin was long dead.

No, they have never voted not to be Russians.

I agree that Clinton's political competence - for good or for evil - is generally overestimated, ignoring her track record. But compared to Trump? - please.

This is not the point. The combination of aggressiveness and incompetence would make her extremely dangerous. Trump is simply incompetent.

So you think Putin would start a nuclear war over your imagined version of Clinton's slightly more aggressive Syrian policies for handling this aspect of W's Disaster?

Learn to read. Russia does not start wars. But if Clinton would start a chicken game with Putin, Putin would not run away. And if Clinton would start a serious attack, there would be retaliation.

Trump might go out of his way to appease Putin, true.

To appease Putin, lol. There is no need to appease him, simply don't aggress.

Mueller is not easy to bully, is Trump's - and the Republican Party's - immediate problem.

If all what he has found up to now is that funny firm making money by selling promotional content using trolls, there is no need to bully him.

 

[billvon]

Mueller is not easy to bully, is Trump's - and the Republican Party's - immediate problem.

Agreed. He is patient and thorough. He's not much for public opinion, and he doesn't use the media for information or influence. He goes by the law rather than by public opinion.

He is, in other words, Trump's worst nightmare.

 

[douwd20]

No, this is complete speculation.

Maybe you can come up with a reason Trump spent the last weekend fuming and tweeting against fellow Americans after the indictments came down and not once against Russia and Putin and their interference. Not once has he criticized the brazen attack on America's election. It's knocking right on the door of treason. The question is why?

Inside Donald Trump's Twitter-Fueled Weekend Meltdown