The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Goofy Indictments Divert Attention from Criminal Abuses at the FBI and DOJ
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_458871724

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“If the election is ‘disrupted’ by voters changing their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are changing their votes based on posts they read on Facebook.” Bill H, comments line Sic Semper Tyrannis

“God help America. We’ve lost our damn minds.” Publius Tacitus

Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign. The evidence that the FBI and DOJ “improperly obtained” FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign affiliate, Carter Page, has now been overshadowed by the tragic massacre in Parkland, Florida and the obfuscating indictments of 13 Internet “trolls” who have not been linked to the Russian government and who are being used to conceal the fact that the 18 month-long witch hunt has not yet produced even one scintilla of hard evidence related to the original claims of “hacking or collusion”.

Think about what’s Mueller is really up to: He’s not just moving the goalposts, he’s loading them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia? That’s what we want to know, not whether some goofy Russian troll was spreading false information on Facebook. That has nothing to do with the original charges. It’s just politically-motivated gibberish that proves Mueller has nothing to support his case. After a full year, the investigation has failed to produce anything but a big goose egg.

According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls “posted derogatory information about a number of candidates” and its “operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump…and disparaging Clinton.”

Big whoop. If people are so malleable that they can be brainwashed by some suggestive posting on Facebook, then maybe we should abandon democracy altogether. But that’s not what this is really about, is it? Because if it was, Mueller would have posted the contents of those nefarious Russian comments in the indictment…WHICH HE DIDN’T because he knows it’s all obfuscating bullsh** designed to make the sheeple think evil Putin is dabbling in our precious elections.

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit the MSM managed to overlook in their typically-hysterical coverage. This is from journalist Alexander Mercouris at the pro-Russia website, The Duran: (If you think your delicate mind might be brainwashed by Russian propaganda, please, shield your eyes!)

“The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost universally overlooked in all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes no claim that the Russian government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the persons indicted.

Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf….” (The Duran, Alexander Mercouris)

No Ruskis involved? But how can that be? We were assured that diabolical Russia is behind everything bad that happens in America. Has evil Putin been sleeping on the job??

Yes, it’s true that the Internet Research Agency, LLC, is in fact located in St. Petersburg but–as yet–there is no known connection between the company and the government. And, if there was, you can bet that Mueller would have exploited it for all it’s worth.

By the way, Mueller’s presumption that the hackers were trying to influence the election, is just that, a presumption. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is mere speculation like the rest of the claptrap he’s come up with. The more reasonable explanation is that the hackers were trying to make a little dough on “pageviews or clicks” rather than trying to persuade voters to vote for one candidate or the other. Here’s more from the indictment:

” Defendants and their co-conspirators began to track and study groups on U.S. social media sites dedicated to U.S. politics and social issues. In order to gauge the performance of various groups on social media sites, the organization tracked certain metrics like the group’s size, the frequency of content placed by the group, and the level of audience engagement with that content, such as the average number of comments or responses to a post.”

WTF! Isn’t this what everyone is doing, including the Intel agencies, advertisers, media and corporations? So now it’s a crime? Give me a break!

Here’s a blurb from the comments-line at Sic Semper Tyrannis:

“The “conspiracy” started in 2014, and cost a whopping $1.2 MILLION, which includes salaries, tech support, and bonuses. The indictment includes info that the Russians ran ads supporting Black Lives Matter, Muslims, Jill Stein, Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. They also organized rallies in support of, and in opposition to Trump and Hillary Clinton. They continued their activities up into 2017, still organizing pro-Clinton and pro-Trump rallies. At one point, the indictment says that the Russians ran an ad that reached 59,000 people, which is laughable, people with a camera in their kitchen get more views than that. Essentially, after about 1.5 years of investigating “Russian collusion” this is all they’ve come up with.” –London Bob, Sic Semper Tyrannis

And here’s more from the indictment:

“U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General.”

This is mind-numbingly stupid. Does Mueller really think he can cobble together a case against 13 foreign-born defendants based on the thin gruel of Russian support for “Black Lives Matter, Jill Stein and Donald Trump?” Good luck with that, Bob.

Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summarizes how absurd the indictments are in a Friday article tiled “The Result of Mueller’s Investigation: Nothing”:

“How did the 13 Russians go about sowing discord? Are you ready for this? They held political rallies posing as Americans and they paid one person (unidentified) to build a cage aboard a flatbed pickup truck and another person to wear a costume portraying Hillary in prison clothes….”

The whole thing is ridiculous and anyone with half a brain knows it’s ridiculous. The only reason this fiasco continues to drag on, is because the mandarins in the US National Security State run everything in America and they’ve decided that they can invent whatever reality suits their foreign policy agenda and the rest of us will simply accept it in silence or be denounced as “Putin apologists” or “Kremlin stooges”. Fortunately, facts and reason appear to be getting the upper hand which why the deep state powerbrokers are getting so desperate. They’re now genuinely concerned about what might “come out” and who might be exposed.

Do the names John Brennan or Barack Obama ring a bell?

Indeed. I’m sure both names would factor quite large in any seriously impartial and thorough investigation of the Russiagate conspiracy.

One last thing for all you supporters of Donald Trump. I suggest you carefully examine his latest tweet on the topic. Here it is:

“Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!” Donald Trump, Twitter

As I expected, Trump is going to save his own skin, but allow the “Bigger Lie” to persist. It looks to me that Trump may have cut a deal with his deep state antagonists to support their spurious claims of Russian meddling as long as they exonerate him on the charges of collusion. That means, he will NOT use his power as President to try to uncover the roots of Russia-gate fabrication. (that would probably expose the former Directors of the CIA and NSA and, perhaps, even the former president of the United States, who likely gave Brennan the greenlight to set the wheels in motion.) All of these suspects will go uninvestigated, unindicted, and unpunished just like the perpetrators of the Iraq War, just like the perpetrators of the Financial Meltdown, and just like the perpetrators of all the major crimes against the American people. As always, it is complete and total immunity for Parasite Class while the rest of us have to play by the rules. But you probably already knew that.

Trump will get off the hook while the rest of us languish in permanent ignorance of how the shadow government really works. You heard it first here.

 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Svigor says:

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/rosenstein-and-mueller-running-for-cover-leaving-brennan-exposed/

    What perhaps has surely happened

    Now there’s some tight writing. No wonder he insisted on disabling comments on his pieces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    This is a perfectly valid and understandable turn of phrase for NuMerica 2018

    https://imgur.com/DIVoxL5
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Svigor says:

    Oh, the irony (from PCR’s pages):

    Comments are closed.

    Subscribe to All Paul Craig Robrts Comments via RSS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. El Dato says:
    @Svigor
    http://www.unz.com/proberts/rosenstein-and-mueller-running-for-cover-leaving-brennan-exposed/

    What perhaps has surely happened
     
    Now there's some tight writing. No wonder he insisted on disabling comments on his pieces.

    This is a perfectly valid and understandable turn of phrase for NuMerica 2018

    https://imgur.com/DIVoxL5

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. fenster says:

    <>

    Beat you by one day, though you have more readers . . .

    https://uncouthreflections.com/2018/02/17/wonton-speculation/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. After all of the concern expressed in the abstract I’d like to see some concrete examples of the material used to change opinions of American voters. My impression has been that the “fake news” of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing opinions. In any event, in this new environment – absent some form of censorship as with authoritarian states – any interested party such as a foreign government may introduce anonymously, by way of levels of remove, political content intended to change opinion. Of course, information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again.

    Now, if this Mueller investigation would set out anew with a determination to find some Russian government involvement in fomenting the red hot molten lava of Identity Politics bubbling out of our universities – the obscene notion that a “patriarchy” of white males, acting as some kind of an informal fraternity in favoring themselves in the economy to the detriment of the outsiders, needs to get taken down in status in order to make America great – then they’d be cooking with gas toward the concern of harming the bonds of our civil union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
    It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care system.
    It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
    There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
    The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
    The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
    And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    While Mueller is busy indicting (allegedly Russian) Facebook posters, about 2.4 million illegal immigrants are registered to vote, with the full knowledge and active encouragement of the Democrat establishment.

    More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.

    Source: that famous ultra-right publication, the Washington Post.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.db6c31084d1a

    With an estimated total illegal population of 20 million, some 2.4 million are registered to vote. (Legitimate immigrants are unlikely to want to screw up their status by voting – they have something to lose.)

    California and other states have laws making it ILLEGAL to remind non-citizens that they are not allowed to vote. Meanwhile, the federally mandated “motor voter” form is basically an open invitation to non-citizens to register – all one needs to do is tick a confusingly-worded box. New voters never need to show their face to any live person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    This should not be allowed either.

    CNN....

    'Israel has 200,000 eligible American voters, according to the non-partisan organization IVoteIsrael, which registers American Israelis to vote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Whenever i log onto this site i get a security warning.says
    …your connection is not private.my device does not trust this site

    Anyone else have this problem

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It’s wide open, your packets are shooting all over the place, nice n’ secure. Hail Fatherland Security! When you read propaganda, they know all about you and what you’re reading in advance. Us, them, Russians - to the farm junior!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Those Californian laws sound most improbable. Wouldn’t they be invalidated by either the First Amendment (applicable to state law is it not?) or by conflict with federal law? I find it difficult to think of a formula for such a law that anyone would vote for. All I csn see is some instructions to state officials not to intimidate people by suggestimg they might becin breach of the law….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. renfro says:

    Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA ‘get Russia’ monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack.

    White House blames Russia for ‘reckless’ NotPetya cyber attack

    https://www.reuters.com/…russia…/white-house-blames-russia-for-reckless-notpetya-c&#8230;

    3 days ago – WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday blamed Russia for the devastating ‘NotPetya’ cyber attack last year, joining the British government in condemning Moscow for unleashing a virus that crippled parts of Ukraine’s infrastructure and damaged computers in countries across the …

    Best advice for Americans …believe nothing, trust nothing that issues from a government.

    The experts:

    John McAfee, founder of an anti-virus firm, said:
    “When the FBI or when any other agency says the Russians did it or the Chinese did something or the Iranians did something – that’s a fallacy,” said McAfee.

    “Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their tracks. If I were the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it I would use Russian language within the code. “I would use Russian techniques of breaking into organisations so there is simply no way to assign a source for any attack – this is a fallacy.”

    I can promise you – if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians.”

    Wikileaks has released a number of CIA cyber tools it had obtained. These included software specifically designed to create false attributions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Naw, we didn’t hear it here first, it’s been glaringly obvious to about everyone outside of the USA propaganda loop, here’s just one example:

    http://ian56.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-spuious-mueller-indictments-of-13.html

    Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special prosecutor’s known history is framing people for crimes they didn’t commit, sandbagging & sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking, protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent person wouldn’t give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat’s ass level of sympathy for, ‘special’ counsel Robert Mueller. The real question is, why the Boyd Cathy and Mike Whitney types don’t go after these guys at the level the deserve; pointing to their established international criminal mafioso (read intelligence agency) crimes sprees and history of impunity:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/02/07/bob-manson-charlie-mueller/

    ^ It’s ‘alternative news’ cowards won’t take this s**t on

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Ok the earthquake could be in the Pakistani area around the 28 the February 2018.possible serious devastation.many casualties.south east asia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    From a different Anonymous…..Mr. Whitney I can see the point of Donald Trump doing the kind of deal you suggest if there was enough for him to fear as you suggest but do not demonstrate. Why shouldn’t we believe that it’s all over, the indictments show there’s nothing to be concrrned about?

    Before your suggestion of the deal I had already concluded that you had not made a case against the indictments. Are you in fact willing to say that they should not have been instituted? If so, why?

    Are they so completely hopeless in law, or as a matter of practicality in terms of their ever being got to court that it is an abuse if Mueller’s position to support them? And if, as seems likely, nothing will come of them (certainly Russia won’t help with extradition), is there not a case for using these indictments to clear the air on the law and, possibly, by the courts throwing the cases out on weakness of the matters of fact alleged? Could there even be a Machiavellian desire to have arguments put which would embarrass the Israel Lobby?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. renfro says:
    @Anonymous
    While Mueller is busy indicting (allegedly Russian) Facebook posters, about 2.4 million illegal immigrants are registered to vote, with the full knowledge and active encouragement of the Democrat establishment.

    More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.
     

    Source: that famous ultra-right publication, the Washington Post.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.db6c31084d1a

    With an estimated total illegal population of 20 million, some 2.4 million are registered to vote. (Legitimate immigrants are unlikely to want to screw up their status by voting - they have something to lose.)

    California and other states have laws making it ILLEGAL to remind non-citizens that they are not allowed to vote. Meanwhile, the federally mandated "motor voter" form is basically an open invitation to non-citizens to register - all one needs to do is tick a confusingly-worded box. New voters never need to show their face to any live person.

    This should not be allowed either.

    CNN….

    ‘Israel has 200,000 eligible American voters, according to the non-partisan organization IVoteIsrael, which registers American Israelis to vote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?

    Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant’s case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redman
    Law enforcement of course doesn’t bring every case which meets the definition of a crime. If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.

    Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller’s discretion being used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.

    This indictment will not see the light of day. It’s a bit like declaring faux victory in Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the opportunity to refute th bull shit.

    This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.
    , @Beckow

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?
     
    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws - in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' - e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    How can such Californian laws exist compatibly with federal law and the First Amendment?

    Perhaps state public servants have been told not to intimidate people by suggesting that they could be breaking the law???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Tom Welsh says:

    “Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
    “Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

    “Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer”

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    Yet again, Washington is projecting its own vile schemes onto other countries.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Goofy Indictments Divert Attention from Criminal Abuses at the FBI and DOJ

    I wonder how much of the Syrian troubles are diverting attention away from Netanyahoo’s legal problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire “Russians done it” meme.
    Let’s not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco LIES.
    Nor is it, per se, about Trump. This is about State &political actors using State agencies & the MSM to prevent/ bring down an elected president. Its a plain unadorned assault on what’s left of US democracy. (The fact that the vast majority of DNC voters can’t — WONT see this demonstrates how successful Elites have been in morally & psychologically corrupting the US public.
    How many BIG LIE narratives can a State take ? Or do we just whistle & say ” oh, but we live in a post truth age” as if that’s not somehow morally equivalent to being a Moloch worshipper out for sunny day icecream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. journey80 says:

    “U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General.”

    When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in political activities within the United States?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Redman says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?

    Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant's case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.

    Law enforcement of course doesn’t bring every case which meets the definition of a crime. If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.

    Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller’s discretion being used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.

    This indictment will not see the light of day. It’s a bit like declaring faux victory in Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the opportunity to refute th bull shit.

    This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is it not possible for the defendants or maybe the ACLU to move to have the indictments struck out? Might it even be done - as in the case of those early anti-Trump migration cases - by careful selection of judge so that some suitable judge can give the laws and their attempted implementation a well publicised blast? But I know virtually nothing about Mueller. What do you *know*?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. tjm says:

    This is all nonsense, The very idea that Trump, or Clinton is being attacked by the FBI or CIA, or “Deep State”, while doing exactly what he was hired to do, is ludicrous.

    Trump is a PRODUCT, just like Obama, and Clinton, all paid whores of the Zionist money machine.

    The CIA and FBI are merely players in this game of distraction. The whole Russia gate BS was a cleaver rouse to further Zionists goals: Distract Americans from the real foreign interference by Zionist Jews, and to further demonize Christian Russia to the left, opening up the support for war with Russia.

    Washington, Trump, Congress…all lie, the media all lies, yet time and time again I see their lies playing as truth. Are you just stupid or part of the problem? Nothing comes form any of this, just distraction and divide and conquer. Trump continues to ACT like an Israeli firster while he TALKS about Ameirca first, and idiots keep focusing on his words and NOT HIS ACTIONS!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. tjm says:

    Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts…

    Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing conflict in the Middle East…

    Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.

    This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP’s TREASON, HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Jewish money 'bought' Oliver Cromwell, the chief epitome of WASP culture, not because it was an impossible offer to resist, but because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judiaizing heresy, and Cromwell naturally saw Jews as the best allies for WASPs.

    You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    You're right. Trump has caved every single time. Thus far, he has not stood his ground on any issue of importance. He sure tweets good game, but the follow-through is just not there.

    In 2020, can we just write in Putin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Does the writer want us to believe that a bunch of private Russians, with no connection to the government, decided for their own amusement to spend millions of dollars to play games with American voters’ heads?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Do you mean the way that private Israelis, and Saudis, do that very thing, year after year? And with much, much more money?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. SteveK9 says:

    It’s even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can get advertisers to purchase ads.

    There is a lot of interesting detail here:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/mueller-indictement-the-russian-influence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. I think and hope that USA citizens have not lost their minds, but are using it, maybe just for the second time.
    The first time then was when the USA refused to ratify Versailles, after USA citizens had discovered that their sons had die overseas for JP Morgan and British imperialism.

    The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, ‘lying press’, I hope a similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon.
    In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV.

    Here in the Netherlands our Minister of Foreign Affairs Halbe Zijlstra had to resign after the newspaper Volkskrant, in very unusual opening a can of worms, publicised that Zijlstra never had been in Putin’s dacha where Putin had explained what ‘greater Russia’ was: including White Russia, Ukraine, Baltic states and Khazakstan.
    USA press, this time hitting the mark, called him ‘the lying Dutchman’.

    Zijlstra’s friend, prime minister Rutte, already for years has the nickname Pinochio, his lies are well known.
    Rutte must have known that Zijlstra lied at his party’s congress, VVD, in 2016.
    A poll now seems to show that more than half the Dutch have had enough with Rutte.

    This seems to be the era in which nothing is trusted any more, politicians, media, experts, and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. This sounds like panic! The author is using a classic propaganda trick: accuse your enemy of what you’re doing yourself. The Nunes memo makes sense only if Trump actually is guilty of collusion with Russians. Nobody tries to suppress evidence that’s favourable to them. If Trump was innocent, he would want the results of the Carter Page surveillance to be made public because the evidence gathered would undoubtedly clear him. By challenging the validity of the warrant, Trump is telling us that he is guilty and beleives that evidence obtained under the warrant will prove it. Indeed, it may well be precisely that evidence which underlies the recent indictments. Trump has also made matters worse by using the Parkland shooting as an excuse to attack the Russiagate investigation. Even by Trump’s standards of vulgarity, using Parkland as a cheap political stunt when the families have hardly finished burying their children and are still in shock is crass and tasteless in the extreme. As with the memo, all this looks like the panic reactions of a cornered man. The author’s conclusion that Trump will sacrifice Putin to save his own skin is probably correct and would be wholly characteristic of the man. Since the whole point of Russiagate is to nail Putin, not Trump, Robert Mueller would probably regard that as a considerable triumph.

    Read More
    • Troll: jimbojones
    • Replies: @El Dato
    More likely, it's a cabal of Jews+Dispensionalists pushing for nuclear war against Russia so they can profit from Jehovah's preferential Uber service during the rapture or something.

    Some people want to just to see glowing Kabbalahs fill the sunless skies as the blood-red seas mount.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @John Achterhof
    After all of the concern expressed in the abstract I'd like to see some concrete examples of the material used to change opinions of American voters. My impression has been that the "fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing opinions. In any event, in this new environment - absent some form of censorship as with authoritarian states - any interested party such as a foreign government may introduce anonymously, by way of levels of remove, political content intended to change opinion. Of course, information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful number of the American electorate - reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple digits - was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again.

    Now, if this Mueller investigation would set out anew with a determination to find some Russian government involvement in fomenting the red hot molten lava of Identity Politics bubbling out of our universities - the obscene notion that a "patriarchy" of white males, acting as some kind of an informal fraternity in favoring themselves in the economy to the detriment of the outsiders, needs to get taken down in status in order to make America great - then they'd be cooking with gas toward the concern of harming the bonds of our civil union.

    https://pics.me.me/save-time-avoid-the-line-vote-from-home-text-hillary-6900361.png

    For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
    It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care system.
    It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
    There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
    The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
    The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
    And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    All true. Good comment. Also, Denmark appears to have a genetic advantage when it comes to happiness, its lousy weather notwithstanding! See "National Happiness and Genetic Distance: A Cautious Exploration," by
    Eugenio Proto and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick.

    Abstract
    This paper studies a famous unsolved puzzle in quantitative social science. Why do
    some nations report such high levels of mental well-being? Denmark, for instance,
    regularly tops the league table of rich countries’ happiness; Britain and the US enter
    further down; some nations do unexpectedly poorly. The explanation for the long observed ranking -- one that holds after adjustment for GDP and other socioeconomic
    variables -- is currently unknown. Using data on 131 countries, the paper cautiously
    explores a new approach. It documents three forms of evidence consistent with the
    hypothesis that some nations may have a genetic advantage in well-being.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Jake says:

    “According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls “posted derogatory information about a number of candidates” and its “operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump…and disparaging Clinton.”

    This is straight out of the Stalin and/or Mao playbook: those people thought bad thoughts and said some things that did not support us, which proves they are EVIL and must be destroyed for the good of all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Jake says:
    @LoodohLeaky
    Does the writer want us to believe that a bunch of private Russians, with no connection to the government, decided for their own amusement to spend millions of dollars to play games with American voters' heads?

    Do you mean the way that private Israelis, and Saudis, do that very thing, year after year? And with much, much more money?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Jake says:
    @tjm
    Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts...


    Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing conflict in the Middle East...


    Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.


    This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP's TREASON, HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy...

    Jewish money ‘bought’ Oliver Cromwell, the chief epitome of WASP culture, not because it was an impossible offer to resist, but because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judiaizing heresy, and Cromwell naturally saw Jews as the best allies for WASPs.

    You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Joe Hide says:

    To Mike Whitney,
    Good article and thank you for keeping your presentation a reasonable length. Unreasonable length is a problem for many authors and preachers!
    The Florida school massacre, can be orchestrated by simply ignoring significant warnings. For instance, a rogue FBI leadership intentionally ignores warnings from many different locations on the likely danger, and just waits for it to happen. When it does happen the rogue FBI cell can claim plausible deniability, claiming incompetence or stupidity, instead of intention. Then tens of millions of Americans are distracted from recently released information exposing the rogue FBI cell. How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most pepple to understand, but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political, and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered, control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack okay. He’s / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @anon
    Whenever i log onto this site i get a security warning.says
    ...your connection is not private.my device does not trust this site

    Anyone else have this problem

    It’s wide open, your packets are shooting all over the place, nice n’ secure. Hail Fatherland Security! When you read propaganda, they know all about you and what you’re reading in advance. Us, them, Russians – to the farm junior!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said that he’s being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his “service” and that he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in order to act as Special Counsel.

    Still, the total cost of his exploration has been over $6.5 million so far. This, I would have to guess, is all in legal costs, fees paid to attorneys he has selected to do the investigative work. That amount of money is in excess of what he is supposedly giving up in order to conduct this investigation.

    Looking at his motivation from this angle, it would make sense that a lawyer, especially a greedy, power hungry lawyer, would set up a system of kickbacks for attorneys he appoints to do the work. Mueller may be suspected of ensuring himself an equal income to what he is supposed to have given up.

    Any time his fishing trip comes under fire for failing to catch any fish big enough for a meal, he issues indictments. This time he has indicted some foreign nationals who will probably never even be arrested, let alone prosecuted. Still, he’s allowed to keep fishing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. phil says:
    @jilles dykstra
    For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
    It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care system.
    It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
    There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
    The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
    The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
    And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.

    All true. Good comment. Also, Denmark appears to have a genetic advantage when it comes to happiness, its lousy weather notwithstanding! See “National Happiness and Genetic Distance: A Cautious Exploration,” by
    Eugenio Proto and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick.

    Abstract
    This paper studies a famous unsolved puzzle in quantitative social science. Why do
    some nations report such high levels of mental well-being? Denmark, for instance,
    regularly tops the league table of rich countries’ happiness; Britain and the US enter
    further down; some nations do unexpectedly poorly. The explanation for the long observed ranking — one that holds after adjustment for GDP and other socioeconomic
    variables — is currently unknown. Using data on 131 countries, the paper cautiously
    explores a new approach. It documents three forms of evidence consistent with the
    hypothesis that some nations may have a genetic advantage in well-being.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] says:

    Anon from TN
    People who generated lies have vested interest in perpetuating them. They will gladly use new lies to “confirm” the old ones. Even Trump figured that the red herring of Russian interference in the elections made the US a laughing stock in Russia. That’s an understatement, though: this red herring made the US a laughing stock of 90% of the world population (the remaining 10% have no sense of humor).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Where are the indictments of the foreign nationals in California, who openly attacked Trump supporters in San Jose? They attempted to affect the election through criminal assaults and batteries, much more than a simple Facebook post. This is the newly unveiled America, the citizens are not running anything, we are bought and paid for by interests that Gen. Washington would have deemed treasonous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Goofy Indictments Divert Attention from Criminal Abuses at the FBI and DOJ

    Lets be honest, Goofy would have done a better job. Mickey Mouse indictments seem more apt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Jasken says:

    How do US Courts have jurisdiction to prosecute speech originating in another country?

    If is was said here out in public, fine, but saying something on the internet in another country does not seem to be prosecutable. Some countries have speech laws, and I would hate to find myself in their court system for something I say here that violates their deal.

    Also, First Amendment?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Beckow says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?

    Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant's case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?

    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a ‘law’ that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with ‘disparaging comments’ about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the ‘law’ – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed ‘disparaging’ views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts ‘indicting’ millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    This is the insanity where "Universal Jurisdiction" leads. It is an affront to national sovereignty and must stop.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    If you are an American you are very far from the foreigner's stereotype who neither knows nor cares what foreigners think (nor knows where they live nor how they live). [I'm reminded of a rather good joke circulated by an Australian country girl who happened to be a PM's sister in law which was about the UN organising a worldwide telephone poll asking for people's - I rely on memory - "honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world" Still improvising from imperfect memory the problems were "in China no one understood "opinion"; in Latin America no one understood "honest"; in Eastern Europe (?Arab world) no one understood "solutions"; in Africa no one understood "food"; in Germany no one understood "shortage"..... in America no one understood "rest of the world". I think I've missed out something for France but I've also left out the real punchline which i add for completeness rather than current relevance: "In the UK people immediately hung up when they heard the Indian voice on the phone". The UK of course uses India for call centre outsourcing by both legitimate and fraudulent businesses.]

    There are plenty of us on UR too old too notice change and the rate of it; cf. John Derbyshire's gloomy failure to imagine opinion about gun laws changing, as it has changed before. I daresay many Americans have been interested and even sympathetically knowledgeable about "other countries" for a long time now and the 1960s, Vietnam and the Peace Corps must have speeded it up, plus globalisation for some. I can well imagine SJWs supporting your post (though without crediting them with much knowledge).

    Sorry that I have taken the long way round to suggesting that a still strong America might shrug its collective shoulders at the fears you express. Mind you I am fiercely critical of America's extra territorial legal (not to mention extra legal) reach and of its criminal justice system - I even sympathise with Juiian Assange's precautions - but even more so of the weak Tony Blairs and some Oz equivalents who extradite their nationals instead of trying them....

    So... I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Further or alternatively .... if I may haul up the phraseology I once used....

    Might not Mueller have thought, as a responsible citizen, that the American public should be informed about certain things he had discovered and rationally thought an indictment was the appropriate - maybe for him only - vehicle/medium? This thought is prompted by this from The Economist
    Current edition
    Democracy in America
    The Russia House
    Robert Mueller charges Russians with election interference
    The special counsel says that agents posed as Americans to support Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton


    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    A 37-PAGE indictment against 13 Russians issued on February 16th by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is packed with damning, astonishing evidence that Russian agents meddled in the presidential election of 2016. Still, one passage stands out as a reminder of the perils faced by American democracy, and of how much is stake as Mr Mueller’s probe unfolds in coming months.

    The passage reproduces—apparently verbatim—what seems to be a confession by Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina. She is one of the Russians charged with creating multiple, false American identities, to post, monitor and update social media content designed to deepen racial and partisan divides and stoke Americans’ distrust in their political democracy on behalf of the Internet Research Agency, a secretive organisation funded by an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin.


    Latest stories
    Winter races are less popular than summer ones, but more exciting
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    Germany remains reluctant to pull its weight in the world
    KAFFEEKLATSCH
    The Prada Foundation will transform Milan’s contemporary art offering
    PROSPERO
    See more
    “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues,” Ms Kaverzina allegedly wrote to a family member “on or about September 13th 2017”, to use the clinical language of the indictment. The alleged internet troll added: “I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

    At the simplest level, the passage is shocking because of the perfidy that it casually confirms. Go one level deeper, and it is intriguing because it offers a rare glimpse of the tools available to Mr Mueller as he conducts the counter-intelligence part of his probe. It appears to show that his team had access, just a few months ago, to emails written by Russian agents, even after they knew that their actions were under investigation.

    But its real impact lies in the comparison that it begs with President Donald Trump, and his statements about Russian election-meddling and the credibility of the FBI. To spell it out, a Russian internet troll, upon being “busted” by the FBI, demonstrated appropriate alarm and guiltily busied herself with covering her tracks. Contrast that respect for the FBI and fear of America’s wrath with Mr Trump’s own public statements, tweets and equivocations around the same time.

    On September 22nd 2017, shortly after Facebook gave congressional investigators evidence of at least 3,000 political advertisements bought by Russians on its internet platform during the presidential campaign, the president repeated his assertion that the idea that Russia had any hand in the election was an invention. “The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?” he tweeted.

    Ms Kavezina regarded being “busted” by the FBI as a crisis. Well she might. With forensic precision, Mr Mueller’s indictment charges the Internet Research Agency with spending more than $1.2m a month in the latter stages of the American presidential campaign. Scores of agents allegedly created hundreds of false social media accounts to bombard conservatives with invented stories of voter fraud by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate. They created fake left-wing accounts to suppress the non-white vote. In the words of the indictment, “On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account “Woke Blacks” to post the following message: “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

    In August 2016, the indictment reveals, the Russians wired money to help an American build a cage large enough to hold an actress dressed as Mrs Clinton in prison uniform. Following the Watergate-era advice, “follow the money”, the indictment lays out in great detail the Russians’ use of stolen American identities and illegal bank accounts to fund their work. “Busted”, as Ms Kaverzina puts it.

    In contrast America’s elected president has spent months resisting the verdict of his own intelligence services that Russia hacked the election. Visiting Asia in November 2017, Mr Trump noted to reporters that Mr Putin had assured him that Russia did not meddle in the election. “Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” Mr. Trump said.

    Ms Kaverzina, an alleged foot-soldier in Russia’s information war against America, sounds sobered by the idea of the FBI on her trail. Not Mr Trump, who fired the first FBI director that he inherited, James Comey, and has since accused him of being a “political hack” and the orchestrator of a “witch-hunt” that has left the FBI’s reputation in tatters.

    Mr Trump, echoed by apologists in Congress, has repeatedly scorned the idea that Russia—if it did meddle in American politics—tried to help him. In late December 2017 a Republican member of Congress, Francis Rooney of Florida, called for a “purge” at the FBI, describing the Russia probe as “off-the-rails” and the work of the “deep state.” He was echoed a few days later by Representative Matt Goetz, a fellow Floridian, who called for Mr Mueller to be fired. Other members of Congress have suggested that Russians would logically have preferred Mrs Clinton to win because she was so weak in standing up to Mr Putin.

    The indictment leaves that line of Trumpian defence in bad shape. It quotes instructions from bosses at the Internet Research Agency to staff, chiding them during the early stage of the presidential primary process to attack such Republican rivals as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Mrs Clinton. “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” says one instruction cited by the indictment. Once Mr Trump sewed up the Republican nomination, all efforts were bent to helping him. As the indictment notes:

    “On or about September 14, 2016, in an internal review of an ORGANIZATION created and controlled Facebook group called “Secured Borders,” the account specialist was criticized for having a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and was told “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” in future posts.”

    After the indictment was made public on February 16th at a press conference conducted by the deputy attorney-general, Rod Rosenstein, Mr Trump moved the goalposts. Rather than denying that Russia interfered in the election, he noted with satisfaction its finding that the Internet Research Agency began to target American politics in 2014, before he had declared his candidacy. Ignoring the detail that the indictment was wholly silent on whether the Trump campaign knew of other Russian activities, such as the theft of Democratic emails by hackers, the president tweeted: “The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!”

    Mr Trump followed this up with a statement calling for a line to be drawn under the whole matter. Unblushingly, he urged calm in the name of defending America and the institutions that he usually delights in calling elements of a corrupt “deep state.”

    His statement read: “It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions.”

    If Mr Trump really has had a change of heart, and now believes that the Mueller investigation needs to be shielded from outrageous partisan attacks, he is in luck. Thanks to the indictment setting out just how much evidence he has gathered, Mr Mueller has just made himself much harder to fire. This “slight crisis” has some way to run.

    Next
    Another appeals court blocks travel ban 3.0
    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    Reuse this content
    About The Economist

    Stop speculating, start living
    China is trying new ways of skimming housing-market froth
    The party wants people to rent
    , @exiled off mainstreet
    I hadn't read any of the comments before I posted mine, but this states my view exactly. How can free speech by foreigners done in foreign countries be prosecutable in the (originally) constitutional based yankee imperium, particularly in light of the first amendment. What it reveals is a Nero-like claim on absolute power everywhere and even suggests the need that the offending regime needs to be taken down somehow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Beckow

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?
     
    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws - in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' - e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?

    This is the insanity where “Universal Jurisdiction” leads. It is an affront to national sovereignty and must stop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Beckow

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?
     
    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws - in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' - e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?

    If you are an American you are very far from the foreigner’s stereotype who neither knows nor cares what foreigners think (nor knows where they live nor how they live). [I'm reminded of a rather good joke circulated by an Australian country girl who happened to be a PM's sister in law which was about the UN organising a worldwide telephone poll asking for people's - I rely on memory - "honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world" Still improvising from imperfect memory the problems were "in China no one understood "opinion"; in Latin America no one understood "honest"; in Eastern Europe (?Arab world) no one understood "solutions"; in Africa no one understood "food"; in Germany no one understood "shortage"..... in America no one understood "rest of the world". I think I've missed out something for France but I've also left out the real punchline which i add for completeness rather than current relevance: "In the UK people immediately hung up when they heard the Indian voice on the phone". The UK of course uses India for call centre outsourcing by both legitimate and fraudulent businesses.]

    There are plenty of us on UR too old too notice change and the rate of it; cf. John Derbyshire’s gloomy failure to imagine opinion about gun laws changing, as it has changed before. I daresay many Americans have been interested and even sympathetically knowledgeable about “other countries” for a long time now and the 1960s, Vietnam and the Peace Corps must have speeded it up, plus globalisation for some. I can well imagine SJWs supporting your post (though without crediting them with much knowledge).

    Sorry that I have taken the long way round to suggesting that a still strong America might shrug its collective shoulders at the fears you express. Mind you I am fiercely critical of America’s extra territorial legal (not to mention extra legal) reach and of its criminal justice system – I even sympathise with Juiian Assange’s precautions – but even more so of the weak Tony Blairs and some Oz equivalents who extradite their nationals instead of trying them….

    So… I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "So… I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law."

    I doubt that what you'd like to think is included anywhere in Mueller's thinking. More likely, he's trying to drag things out. Maybe he likes getting paid, maybe he likes the illusion of power. As long as his crooked old ass ends up in prison, I really don't care what he intends or what he's trying to pull.

    Mueller, Brennan, et al have been exposed as being involved in a criminal conspiracy and, if Trump has any courage at all, they will be charged and tried.

    Anyway, to address your point, these indictments are meaningless and will result in no arrests. Mueller knows this, and it isn't a matter of him trying to enforce US law internationally, at least not in this case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Redman
    Law enforcement of course doesn’t bring every case which meets the definition of a crime. If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.

    Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller’s discretion being used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.

    This indictment will not see the light of day. It’s a bit like declaring faux victory in Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the opportunity to refute th bull shit.

    This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.

    Is it not possible for the defendants or maybe the ACLU to move to have the indictments struck out? Might it even be done – as in the case of those early anti-Trump migration cases – by careful selection of judge so that some suitable judge can give the laws and their attempted implementation a well publicised blast? But I know virtually nothing about Mueller. What do you *know*?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Wizard of Oz
    If you are an American you are very far from the foreigner's stereotype who neither knows nor cares what foreigners think (nor knows where they live nor how they live). [I'm reminded of a rather good joke circulated by an Australian country girl who happened to be a PM's sister in law which was about the UN organising a worldwide telephone poll asking for people's - I rely on memory - "honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world" Still improvising from imperfect memory the problems were "in China no one understood "opinion"; in Latin America no one understood "honest"; in Eastern Europe (?Arab world) no one understood "solutions"; in Africa no one understood "food"; in Germany no one understood "shortage"..... in America no one understood "rest of the world". I think I've missed out something for France but I've also left out the real punchline which i add for completeness rather than current relevance: "In the UK people immediately hung up when they heard the Indian voice on the phone". The UK of course uses India for call centre outsourcing by both legitimate and fraudulent businesses.]

    There are plenty of us on UR too old too notice change and the rate of it; cf. John Derbyshire's gloomy failure to imagine opinion about gun laws changing, as it has changed before. I daresay many Americans have been interested and even sympathetically knowledgeable about "other countries" for a long time now and the 1960s, Vietnam and the Peace Corps must have speeded it up, plus globalisation for some. I can well imagine SJWs supporting your post (though without crediting them with much knowledge).

    Sorry that I have taken the long way round to suggesting that a still strong America might shrug its collective shoulders at the fears you express. Mind you I am fiercely critical of America's extra territorial legal (not to mention extra legal) reach and of its criminal justice system - I even sympathise with Juiian Assange's precautions - but even more so of the weak Tony Blairs and some Oz equivalents who extradite their nationals instead of trying them....

    So... I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law.

    “So… I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law.”

    I doubt that what you’d like to think is included anywhere in Mueller’s thinking. More likely, he’s trying to drag things out. Maybe he likes getting paid, maybe he likes the illusion of power. As long as his crooked old ass ends up in prison, I really don’t care what he intends or what he’s trying to pull.

    Mueller, Brennan, et al have been exposed as being involved in a criminal conspiracy and, if Trump has any courage at all, they will be charged and tried.

    Anyway, to address your point, these indictments are meaningless and will result in no arrests. Mueller knows this, and it isn’t a matter of him trying to enforce US law internationally, at least not in this case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So, like most human beings, Mueller could have a number of motives, maybe mixed, for producing an indictment which he knows will lead to no convictions. And he won't have done President Trump any harm. But you thinknhe is such a bad man that he ought to be in gaol. Why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Beckow

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?
     
    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws - in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' - e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?

    Further or alternatively …. if I may haul up the phraseology I once used….

    Might not Mueller have thought, as a responsible citizen, that the American public should be informed about certain things he had discovered and rationally thought an indictment was the appropriate – maybe for him only – vehicle/medium? This thought is prompted by this from The Economist
    Current edition
    Democracy in America
    The Russia House
    Robert Mueller charges Russians with election interference
    The special counsel says that agents posed as Americans to support Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton

    [MORE]

    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    A 37-PAGE indictment against 13 Russians issued on February 16th by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is packed with damning, astonishing evidence that Russian agents meddled in the presidential election of 2016. Still, one passage stands out as a reminder of the perils faced by American democracy, and of how much is stake as Mr Mueller’s probe unfolds in coming months.

    The passage reproduces—apparently verbatim—what seems to be a confession by Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina. She is one of the Russians charged with creating multiple, false American identities, to post, monitor and update social media content designed to deepen racial and partisan divides and stoke Americans’ distrust in their political democracy on behalf of the Internet Research Agency, a secretive organisation funded by an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin.

    Latest stories
    Winter races are less popular than summer ones, but more exciting
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    Germany remains reluctant to pull its weight in the world
    KAFFEEKLATSCH
    The Prada Foundation will transform Milan’s contemporary art offering
    PROSPERO
    See more
    “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues,” Ms Kaverzina allegedly wrote to a family member “on or about September 13th 2017”, to use the clinical language of the indictment. The alleged internet troll added: “I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

    At the simplest level, the passage is shocking because of the perfidy that it casually confirms. Go one level deeper, and it is intriguing because it offers a rare glimpse of the tools available to Mr Mueller as he conducts the counter-intelligence part of his probe. It appears to show that his team had access, just a few months ago, to emails written by Russian agents, even after they knew that their actions were under investigation.

    But its real impact lies in the comparison that it begs with President Donald Trump, and his statements about Russian election-meddling and the credibility of the FBI. To spell it out, a Russian internet troll, upon being “busted” by the FBI, demonstrated appropriate alarm and guiltily busied herself with covering her tracks. Contrast that respect for the FBI and fear of America’s wrath with Mr Trump’s own public statements, tweets and equivocations around the same time.

    On September 22nd 2017, shortly after Facebook gave congressional investigators evidence of at least 3,000 political advertisements bought by Russians on its internet platform during the presidential campaign, the president repeated his assertion that the idea that Russia had any hand in the election was an invention. “The Russia hoax continues, now it’s ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?” he tweeted.

    Ms Kavezina regarded being “busted” by the FBI as a crisis. Well she might. With forensic precision, Mr Mueller’s indictment charges the Internet Research Agency with spending more than $1.2m a month in the latter stages of the American presidential campaign. Scores of agents allegedly created hundreds of false social media accounts to bombard conservatives with invented stories of voter fraud by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate. They created fake left-wing accounts to suppress the non-white vote. In the words of the indictment, “On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account “Woke Blacks” to post the following message: “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

    In August 2016, the indictment reveals, the Russians wired money to help an American build a cage large enough to hold an actress dressed as Mrs Clinton in prison uniform. Following the Watergate-era advice, “follow the money”, the indictment lays out in great detail the Russians’ use of stolen American identities and illegal bank accounts to fund their work. “Busted”, as Ms Kaverzina puts it.

    In contrast America’s elected president has spent months resisting the verdict of his own intelligence services that Russia hacked the election. Visiting Asia in November 2017, Mr Trump noted to reporters that Mr Putin had assured him that Russia did not meddle in the election. “Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” Mr. Trump said.

    Ms Kaverzina, an alleged foot-soldier in Russia’s information war against America, sounds sobered by the idea of the FBI on her trail. Not Mr Trump, who fired the first FBI director that he inherited, James Comey, and has since accused him of being a “political hack” and the orchestrator of a “witch-hunt” that has left the FBI’s reputation in tatters.

    Mr Trump, echoed by apologists in Congress, has repeatedly scorned the idea that Russia—if it did meddle in American politics—tried to help him. In late December 2017 a Republican member of Congress, Francis Rooney of Florida, called for a “purge” at the FBI, describing the Russia probe as “off-the-rails” and the work of the “deep state.” He was echoed a few days later by Representative Matt Goetz, a fellow Floridian, who called for Mr Mueller to be fired. Other members of Congress have suggested that Russians would logically have preferred Mrs Clinton to win because she was so weak in standing up to Mr Putin.

    The indictment leaves that line of Trumpian defence in bad shape. It quotes instructions from bosses at the Internet Research Agency to staff, chiding them during the early stage of the presidential primary process to attack such Republican rivals as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Mrs Clinton. “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” says one instruction cited by the indictment. Once Mr Trump sewed up the Republican nomination, all efforts were bent to helping him. As the indictment notes:

    “On or about September 14, 2016, in an internal review of an ORGANIZATION created and controlled Facebook group called “Secured Borders,” the account specialist was criticized for having a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and was told “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” in future posts.”

    After the indictment was made public on February 16th at a press conference conducted by the deputy attorney-general, Rod Rosenstein, Mr Trump moved the goalposts. Rather than denying that Russia interfered in the election, he noted with satisfaction its finding that the Internet Research Agency began to target American politics in 2014, before he had declared his candidacy. Ignoring the detail that the indictment was wholly silent on whether the Trump campaign knew of other Russian activities, such as the theft of Democratic emails by hackers, the president tweeted: “The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!”

    Mr Trump followed this up with a statement calling for a line to be drawn under the whole matter. Unblushingly, he urged calm in the name of defending America and the institutions that he usually delights in calling elements of a corrupt “deep state.”

    His statement read: “It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions.”

    If Mr Trump really has had a change of heart, and now believes that the Mueller investigation needs to be shielded from outrageous partisan attacks, he is in luck. Thanks to the indictment setting out just how much evidence he has gathered, Mr Mueller has just made himself much harder to fire. This “slight crisis” has some way to run.

    Next
    Another appeals court blocks travel ban 3.0
    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    Reuse this content
    About The Economist

    Stop speculating, start living
    China is trying new ways of skimming housing-market froth
    The party wants people to rent

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”
     
    Things are pretty bad when signs for rallies can no longer be produced in America and Russians must produce them.

    Tensions among American Muslims: STOKED!
    , @Beckow
    No matter how many words and convoluted sentences you put around it, this indictment is for people living abroad (in Russia, but they could have been anywhere) expressing their point of view. All the verbiage and loaded terms ('propaganda', 'interference',...) cannot change that.

    The 'pretending to be someone else' charge is beyond silly - please don't bring it up if you want people to take you seriously. Making pretend 'cages' or calling people names is not a crime. I also don't believe we are hearing the full story about how it all happened. The reporting is manipulated to appeal to low-IQ conformist types.

    I don't believe for a second that the word 'busted' was translated properly from the original Russian. And there is no admission of guilt in what that woman says. This is a manipulated lawyerly document that hides the fact that nothing actually happened. At least not anything that doesn't happen thousands of times every day around the world and has never been called a 'crime'.

    US has too many laws, many very bad ones. To have a law forbidding 'foreigners' to express an opinion about 'elections' is insane. It literally cannot be done. And once you strip out all the camouflage verbiage that DOJ put there, this is a case about a dozen people commenting on US elections from Russia. It might be obnoxious or even silly, but it cannot in a free society be forbidden.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. eah says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Current state of intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Democrats can relax. In the mid term elections the Russian Troll factory will support Democrats.
    The purpose of this will be to increase the divisions in US government and so to make US government even more inept as is now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. El Dato says:

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/419238-us-meddling-russia-munich-security/

    The release on Friday of the US Department of Justice’s indictment of 13 Russian citizens for alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election went on to dominate the conference being held in Munich over the weekend.

    Rather than being a peripheral matter owing to its dubious claims, the Washington hobby horse of “Russian meddling” was given free rein in Munich. Instead of parsing the latest Russophobia with intelligent skepticism, the conference added fuel to the bonfire of warmongering.

    Ok, finally a good explanation for the release! Seriously this is the one that finally makes sense.

    The disgusting scallywags!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. El Dato says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Further or alternatively .... if I may haul up the phraseology I once used....

    Might not Mueller have thought, as a responsible citizen, that the American public should be informed about certain things he had discovered and rationally thought an indictment was the appropriate - maybe for him only - vehicle/medium? This thought is prompted by this from The Economist
    Current edition
    Democracy in America
    The Russia House
    Robert Mueller charges Russians with election interference
    The special counsel says that agents posed as Americans to support Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton


    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    A 37-PAGE indictment against 13 Russians issued on February 16th by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is packed with damning, astonishing evidence that Russian agents meddled in the presidential election of 2016. Still, one passage stands out as a reminder of the perils faced by American democracy, and of how much is stake as Mr Mueller’s probe unfolds in coming months.

    The passage reproduces—apparently verbatim—what seems to be a confession by Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina. She is one of the Russians charged with creating multiple, false American identities, to post, monitor and update social media content designed to deepen racial and partisan divides and stoke Americans’ distrust in their political democracy on behalf of the Internet Research Agency, a secretive organisation funded by an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin.


    Latest stories
    Winter races are less popular than summer ones, but more exciting
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    Germany remains reluctant to pull its weight in the world
    KAFFEEKLATSCH
    The Prada Foundation will transform Milan’s contemporary art offering
    PROSPERO
    See more
    “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues,” Ms Kaverzina allegedly wrote to a family member “on or about September 13th 2017”, to use the clinical language of the indictment. The alleged internet troll added: “I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

    At the simplest level, the passage is shocking because of the perfidy that it casually confirms. Go one level deeper, and it is intriguing because it offers a rare glimpse of the tools available to Mr Mueller as he conducts the counter-intelligence part of his probe. It appears to show that his team had access, just a few months ago, to emails written by Russian agents, even after they knew that their actions were under investigation.

    But its real impact lies in the comparison that it begs with President Donald Trump, and his statements about Russian election-meddling and the credibility of the FBI. To spell it out, a Russian internet troll, upon being “busted” by the FBI, demonstrated appropriate alarm and guiltily busied herself with covering her tracks. Contrast that respect for the FBI and fear of America’s wrath with Mr Trump’s own public statements, tweets and equivocations around the same time.

    On September 22nd 2017, shortly after Facebook gave congressional investigators evidence of at least 3,000 political advertisements bought by Russians on its internet platform during the presidential campaign, the president repeated his assertion that the idea that Russia had any hand in the election was an invention. “The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?” he tweeted.

    Ms Kavezina regarded being “busted” by the FBI as a crisis. Well she might. With forensic precision, Mr Mueller’s indictment charges the Internet Research Agency with spending more than $1.2m a month in the latter stages of the American presidential campaign. Scores of agents allegedly created hundreds of false social media accounts to bombard conservatives with invented stories of voter fraud by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate. They created fake left-wing accounts to suppress the non-white vote. In the words of the indictment, “On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account “Woke Blacks” to post the following message: “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

    In August 2016, the indictment reveals, the Russians wired money to help an American build a cage large enough to hold an actress dressed as Mrs Clinton in prison uniform. Following the Watergate-era advice, “follow the money”, the indictment lays out in great detail the Russians’ use of stolen American identities and illegal bank accounts to fund their work. “Busted”, as Ms Kaverzina puts it.

    In contrast America’s elected president has spent months resisting the verdict of his own intelligence services that Russia hacked the election. Visiting Asia in November 2017, Mr Trump noted to reporters that Mr Putin had assured him that Russia did not meddle in the election. “Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” Mr. Trump said.

    Ms Kaverzina, an alleged foot-soldier in Russia’s information war against America, sounds sobered by the idea of the FBI on her trail. Not Mr Trump, who fired the first FBI director that he inherited, James Comey, and has since accused him of being a “political hack” and the orchestrator of a “witch-hunt” that has left the FBI’s reputation in tatters.

    Mr Trump, echoed by apologists in Congress, has repeatedly scorned the idea that Russia—if it did meddle in American politics—tried to help him. In late December 2017 a Republican member of Congress, Francis Rooney of Florida, called for a “purge” at the FBI, describing the Russia probe as “off-the-rails” and the work of the “deep state.” He was echoed a few days later by Representative Matt Goetz, a fellow Floridian, who called for Mr Mueller to be fired. Other members of Congress have suggested that Russians would logically have preferred Mrs Clinton to win because she was so weak in standing up to Mr Putin.

    The indictment leaves that line of Trumpian defence in bad shape. It quotes instructions from bosses at the Internet Research Agency to staff, chiding them during the early stage of the presidential primary process to attack such Republican rivals as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Mrs Clinton. “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” says one instruction cited by the indictment. Once Mr Trump sewed up the Republican nomination, all efforts were bent to helping him. As the indictment notes:

    “On or about September 14, 2016, in an internal review of an ORGANIZATION created and controlled Facebook group called “Secured Borders,” the account specialist was criticized for having a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and was told “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” in future posts.”

    After the indictment was made public on February 16th at a press conference conducted by the deputy attorney-general, Rod Rosenstein, Mr Trump moved the goalposts. Rather than denying that Russia interfered in the election, he noted with satisfaction its finding that the Internet Research Agency began to target American politics in 2014, before he had declared his candidacy. Ignoring the detail that the indictment was wholly silent on whether the Trump campaign knew of other Russian activities, such as the theft of Democratic emails by hackers, the president tweeted: “The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!”

    Mr Trump followed this up with a statement calling for a line to be drawn under the whole matter. Unblushingly, he urged calm in the name of defending America and the institutions that he usually delights in calling elements of a corrupt “deep state.”

    His statement read: “It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions.”

    If Mr Trump really has had a change of heart, and now believes that the Mueller investigation needs to be shielded from outrageous partisan attacks, he is in luck. Thanks to the indictment setting out just how much evidence he has gathered, Mr Mueller has just made himself much harder to fire. This “slight crisis” has some way to run.

    Next
    Another appeals court blocks travel ban 3.0
    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    Reuse this content
    About The Economist

    Stop speculating, start living
    China is trying new ways of skimming housing-market froth
    The party wants people to rent

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

    Things are pretty bad when signs for rallies can no longer be produced in America and Russians must produce them.

    Tensions among American Muslims: STOKED!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. El Dato says:
    @Michael Kenny
    This sounds like panic! The author is using a classic propaganda trick: accuse your enemy of what you're doing yourself. The Nunes memo makes sense only if Trump actually is guilty of collusion with Russians. Nobody tries to suppress evidence that's favourable to them. If Trump was innocent, he would want the results of the Carter Page surveillance to be made public because the evidence gathered would undoubtedly clear him. By challenging the validity of the warrant, Trump is telling us that he is guilty and beleives that evidence obtained under the warrant will prove it. Indeed, it may well be precisely that evidence which underlies the recent indictments. Trump has also made matters worse by using the Parkland shooting as an excuse to attack the Russiagate investigation. Even by Trump's standards of vulgarity, using Parkland as a cheap political stunt when the families have hardly finished burying their children and are still in shock is crass and tasteless in the extreme. As with the memo, all this looks like the panic reactions of a cornered man. The author's conclusion that Trump will sacrifice Putin to save his own skin is probably correct and would be wholly characteristic of the man. Since the whole point of Russiagate is to nail Putin, not Trump, Robert Mueller would probably regard that as a considerable triumph.

    More likely, it’s a cabal of Jews+Dispensionalists pushing for nuclear war against Russia so they can profit from Jehovah’s preferential Uber service during the rapture or something.

    Some people want to just to see glowing Kabbalahs fill the sunless skies as the blood-red seas mount.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Twodees Partain
    "So… I would like to think Mueller is attempting a more realistic and narrower focused task of teachin Americans something about that rather ridiculous overreach of American law."

    I doubt that what you'd like to think is included anywhere in Mueller's thinking. More likely, he's trying to drag things out. Maybe he likes getting paid, maybe he likes the illusion of power. As long as his crooked old ass ends up in prison, I really don't care what he intends or what he's trying to pull.

    Mueller, Brennan, et al have been exposed as being involved in a criminal conspiracy and, if Trump has any courage at all, they will be charged and tried.

    Anyway, to address your point, these indictments are meaningless and will result in no arrests. Mueller knows this, and it isn't a matter of him trying to enforce US law internationally, at least not in this case.

    So, like most human beings, Mueller could have a number of motives, maybe mixed, for producing an indictment which he knows will lead to no convictions. And he won’t have done President Trump any harm. But you thinknhe is such a bad man that he ought to be in gaol. Why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Beckow says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Further or alternatively .... if I may haul up the phraseology I once used....

    Might not Mueller have thought, as a responsible citizen, that the American public should be informed about certain things he had discovered and rationally thought an indictment was the appropriate - maybe for him only - vehicle/medium? This thought is prompted by this from The Economist
    Current edition
    Democracy in America
    The Russia House
    Robert Mueller charges Russians with election interference
    The special counsel says that agents posed as Americans to support Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton


    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    A 37-PAGE indictment against 13 Russians issued on February 16th by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is packed with damning, astonishing evidence that Russian agents meddled in the presidential election of 2016. Still, one passage stands out as a reminder of the perils faced by American democracy, and of how much is stake as Mr Mueller’s probe unfolds in coming months.

    The passage reproduces—apparently verbatim—what seems to be a confession by Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina. She is one of the Russians charged with creating multiple, false American identities, to post, monitor and update social media content designed to deepen racial and partisan divides and stoke Americans’ distrust in their political democracy on behalf of the Internet Research Agency, a secretive organisation funded by an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin.


    Latest stories
    Winter races are less popular than summer ones, but more exciting
    GRAPHIC DETAIL
    Germany remains reluctant to pull its weight in the world
    KAFFEEKLATSCH
    The Prada Foundation will transform Milan’s contemporary art offering
    PROSPERO
    See more
    “We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues,” Ms Kaverzina allegedly wrote to a family member “on or about September 13th 2017”, to use the clinical language of the indictment. The alleged internet troll added: “I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”

    At the simplest level, the passage is shocking because of the perfidy that it casually confirms. Go one level deeper, and it is intriguing because it offers a rare glimpse of the tools available to Mr Mueller as he conducts the counter-intelligence part of his probe. It appears to show that his team had access, just a few months ago, to emails written by Russian agents, even after they knew that their actions were under investigation.

    But its real impact lies in the comparison that it begs with President Donald Trump, and his statements about Russian election-meddling and the credibility of the FBI. To spell it out, a Russian internet troll, upon being “busted” by the FBI, demonstrated appropriate alarm and guiltily busied herself with covering her tracks. Contrast that respect for the FBI and fear of America’s wrath with Mr Trump’s own public statements, tweets and equivocations around the same time.

    On September 22nd 2017, shortly after Facebook gave congressional investigators evidence of at least 3,000 political advertisements bought by Russians on its internet platform during the presidential campaign, the president repeated his assertion that the idea that Russia had any hand in the election was an invention. “The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?” he tweeted.

    Ms Kavezina regarded being “busted” by the FBI as a crisis. Well she might. With forensic precision, Mr Mueller’s indictment charges the Internet Research Agency with spending more than $1.2m a month in the latter stages of the American presidential campaign. Scores of agents allegedly created hundreds of false social media accounts to bombard conservatives with invented stories of voter fraud by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate. They created fake left-wing accounts to suppress the non-white vote. In the words of the indictment, “On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account “Woke Blacks” to post the following message: “[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we’d surely be better off without voting AT ALL.”

    The indictment details how Russians devoted much energy to stoking tensions against and among American Muslims, at one point allegedly using the Facebook group “United Muslims of America” to promote a rally in Washington, DC at which they paid an unwitting American to hold a sign (which Russians had produced) showing Mrs Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating “I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom.”

    In August 2016, the indictment reveals, the Russians wired money to help an American build a cage large enough to hold an actress dressed as Mrs Clinton in prison uniform. Following the Watergate-era advice, “follow the money”, the indictment lays out in great detail the Russians’ use of stolen American identities and illegal bank accounts to fund their work. “Busted”, as Ms Kaverzina puts it.

    In contrast America’s elected president has spent months resisting the verdict of his own intelligence services that Russia hacked the election. Visiting Asia in November 2017, Mr Trump noted to reporters that Mr Putin had assured him that Russia did not meddle in the election. “Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” Mr. Trump said.

    Ms Kaverzina, an alleged foot-soldier in Russia’s information war against America, sounds sobered by the idea of the FBI on her trail. Not Mr Trump, who fired the first FBI director that he inherited, James Comey, and has since accused him of being a “political hack” and the orchestrator of a “witch-hunt” that has left the FBI’s reputation in tatters.

    Mr Trump, echoed by apologists in Congress, has repeatedly scorned the idea that Russia—if it did meddle in American politics—tried to help him. In late December 2017 a Republican member of Congress, Francis Rooney of Florida, called for a “purge” at the FBI, describing the Russia probe as “off-the-rails” and the work of the “deep state.” He was echoed a few days later by Representative Matt Goetz, a fellow Floridian, who called for Mr Mueller to be fired. Other members of Congress have suggested that Russians would logically have preferred Mrs Clinton to win because she was so weak in standing up to Mr Putin.

    The indictment leaves that line of Trumpian defence in bad shape. It quotes instructions from bosses at the Internet Research Agency to staff, chiding them during the early stage of the presidential primary process to attack such Republican rivals as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Mrs Clinton. “Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” says one instruction cited by the indictment. Once Mr Trump sewed up the Republican nomination, all efforts were bent to helping him. As the indictment notes:

    “On or about September 14, 2016, in an internal review of an ORGANIZATION created and controlled Facebook group called “Secured Borders,” the account specialist was criticized for having a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and was told “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” in future posts.”

    After the indictment was made public on February 16th at a press conference conducted by the deputy attorney-general, Rod Rosenstein, Mr Trump moved the goalposts. Rather than denying that Russia interfered in the election, he noted with satisfaction its finding that the Internet Research Agency began to target American politics in 2014, before he had declared his candidacy. Ignoring the detail that the indictment was wholly silent on whether the Trump campaign knew of other Russian activities, such as the theft of Democratic emails by hackers, the president tweeted: “The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!”

    Mr Trump followed this up with a statement calling for a line to be drawn under the whole matter. Unblushingly, he urged calm in the name of defending America and the institutions that he usually delights in calling elements of a corrupt “deep state.”

    His statement read: “It’s time we stop the outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories, which only serve to further the agendas of bad actors, like Russia, and do nothing to protect the principles of our institutions.”

    If Mr Trump really has had a change of heart, and now believes that the Mueller investigation needs to be shielded from outrageous partisan attacks, he is in luck. Thanks to the indictment setting out just how much evidence he has gathered, Mr Mueller has just made himself much harder to fire. This “slight crisis” has some way to run.

    Next
    Another appeals court blocks travel ban 3.0
    Democracy in America
    Feb 17th 2018by D.S.O.R. | NEW YORK
    Reuse this content
    About The Economist

    Stop speculating, start living
    China is trying new ways of skimming housing-market froth
    The party wants people to rent

    No matter how many words and convoluted sentences you put around it, this indictment is for people living abroad (in Russia, but they could have been anywhere) expressing their point of view. All the verbiage and loaded terms (‘propaganda’, ‘interference’,…) cannot change that.

    The ‘pretending to be someone else‘ charge is beyond silly – please don’t bring it up if you want people to take you seriously. Making pretend ‘cages’ or calling people names is not a crime. I also don’t believe we are hearing the full story about how it all happened. The reporting is manipulated to appeal to low-IQ conformist types.

    I don’t believe for a second that the word ‘busted‘ was translated properly from the original Russian. And there is no admission of guilt in what that woman says. This is a manipulated lawyerly document that hides the fact that nothing actually happened. At least not anything that doesn’t happen thousands of times every day around the world and has never been called a ‘crime’.

    US has too many laws, many very bad ones. To have a law forbidding ‘foreigners’ to express an opinion about ‘elections’ is insane. It literally cannot be done. And once you strip out all the camouflage verbiage that DOJ put there, this is a case about a dozen people commenting on US elections from Russia. It might be obnoxious or even silly, but it cannot in a free society be forbidden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    You actually read the Olde Wizzer's pompous meanderings? Take him seriously? LOL.

    How about we hang Queen Killary in effigy, holding placards of her crimes against humanity. Right here in the US, of course. Lock her up, indeed.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I didn't notice that The Economist (over 95 per cent of the words in my comment) had put prolixity and convoluted sentences around the indictment or associated issues but perhaps you are not making that part of your accusation clear. Otherwise we are in substantial agreement except that you seem to cast Mueller in a role, and ascribe motives to him, that you do not justify with reasons or evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    As a non-voter, I thought the producers had brought in the Trump character to change the direction of the play.

    But no, still the same old Empire first, the rich second, and everything else later. How much did the Trump family save from the new tax law? That’s the kind of kleptocracy best hidden by running another government psyop the voting class gobbles up like candy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. RobinG says:
    @Beckow
    No matter how many words and convoluted sentences you put around it, this indictment is for people living abroad (in Russia, but they could have been anywhere) expressing their point of view. All the verbiage and loaded terms ('propaganda', 'interference',...) cannot change that.

    The 'pretending to be someone else' charge is beyond silly - please don't bring it up if you want people to take you seriously. Making pretend 'cages' or calling people names is not a crime. I also don't believe we are hearing the full story about how it all happened. The reporting is manipulated to appeal to low-IQ conformist types.

    I don't believe for a second that the word 'busted' was translated properly from the original Russian. And there is no admission of guilt in what that woman says. This is a manipulated lawyerly document that hides the fact that nothing actually happened. At least not anything that doesn't happen thousands of times every day around the world and has never been called a 'crime'.

    US has too many laws, many very bad ones. To have a law forbidding 'foreigners' to express an opinion about 'elections' is insane. It literally cannot be done. And once you strip out all the camouflage verbiage that DOJ put there, this is a case about a dozen people commenting on US elections from Russia. It might be obnoxious or even silly, but it cannot in a free society be forbidden.

    You actually read the Olde Wizzer’s pompous meanderings? Take him seriously? LOL.

    How about we hang Queen Killary in effigy, holding placards of her crimes against humanity. Right here in the US, of course. Lock her up, indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    Well you prove that you don't because it wasn't Wiz but an Economist leader!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. fnn says:

    My piece on Adam Schiff's relationship to defense contractor donors, who have all publicly said they're profiting from the neo-Cold War tensions Schiff is helping foster. https://t.co/VlMy6bxxVV pic.twitter.com/vDj7kDcfTW— Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) February 15, 2018

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. An indictment such as this one throws the yankee imperium’s legal system into disrepute and eliminates any legitimacy it may retain. Since the first amendment protects free speech, how can these Russians, not acting as part of the Russian state, be guilty of anything? It is all a show anyway, since there is no way they can ever be extradited, and it would be a disgrace if they were.
    It is also so ridiculous to claim to adhere to constitutional principles (or the rule of law) and make such charges that it throws the yankee imperium into serious disrepute in all other western countries, though the media and their states have largely been neutered by outside control. It reminds me of the old adage whom the gods punish they first make mad, and those lackeys backing up the regime, foreign or domestic, are themselves suspect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. FKA Max says: • Website

    Off-topic, for the moderators (did not not know where else to post it; only vaguely related to the topic of this article, but the video talks about Russians, so I thought it could be appropriate to post here):

    I left a comment in the Unz Review video section a couple of hours ago http://www.unz.com/video/ramzpaul_wicked-russian-women-and-vawa/#comment-2211049 , which has not been moderated yet, and I also noticed that the last comment in the video section is almost two days old. Several weeks ago we had a similar problem where comments got stuck in moderation in the video section over several days. Maybe the same problem is occurring again?

    Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Beckow

    Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law appears to make what was done illegal?
     
    This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid?

    Many countries have bad laws - in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' - e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.

    Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?

    I hadn’t read any of the comments before I posted mine, but this states my view exactly. How can free speech by foreigners done in foreign countries be prosecutable in the (originally) constitutional based yankee imperium, particularly in light of the first amendment. What it reveals is a Nero-like claim on absolute power everywhere and even suggests the need that the offending regime needs to be taken down somehow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. eah says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @tjm
    Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts...


    Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing conflict in the Middle East...


    Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.


    This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP's TREASON, HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy...

    You’re right. Trump has caved every single time. Thus far, he has not stood his ground on any issue of importance. He sure tweets good game, but the follow-through is just not there.

    In 2020, can we just write in Putin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Anon from TN
    Russians won’t let anyone have their Putin. The only other world politician winning games with such a weak hand is Bibi. Compared to these two, the rest are hapless and clueless morons (except Xi, who also wins, but with a pretty strong hand).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Mueller should be indicted for his cover up of the 9/11 false flag attack that killed 3000 Americans. Who knows how many deaths have resulted from the illegal wars that have been going on since.

    Anyone that accepts money from AIPAC, Israel lobbies, or Saudis should be indicted for treason.
    9/11 truth would end all of this mass murder.

    The Zionist Project 2. Israel 9/11, All Of The Pieces

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. AnonFromTN [AKA "Anon"] says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    You're right. Trump has caved every single time. Thus far, he has not stood his ground on any issue of importance. He sure tweets good game, but the follow-through is just not there.

    In 2020, can we just write in Putin?

    Anon from TN
    Russians won’t let anyone have their Putin. The only other world politician winning games with such a weak hand is Bibi. Compared to these two, the rest are hapless and clueless morons (except Xi, who also wins, but with a pretty strong hand).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Corvinus says:

    “Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign.”

    Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job.

    “Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?”

    In any investigation that is complex, prosecuting attorneys keep their best evidence close to the vest.

    Ronald Thomas West…

    “Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special prosecutor’s known history is framing people for crimes they didn’t commit, sandbagging & sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking, protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent person wouldn’t give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat’s ass level of sympathy for, ‘special’ counsel Robert Mueller.”

    Fake News.

    Redman..

    “He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.”

    Mueller is not giving up anything.

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    At least "Fake News" is used correctly here, as "News I don't want to hear or think about".

    You must be a big mover in the daily 5 minutes of hate.

    This circus ain't over; doesn't mean it's not just remote control of people who have had their brain removed by meedja influence.
    , @annamaria
    "Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job."
    ---Neither.
    Guess that Clinton is your Queen and the FBI and the CIA are the most trusted organizations, ever. How interesting that the IntelGate has prompted the Israel-firsters to energize their defense of the secret services apparatus. Why? -- Is this because the ingrained Russophobia dies hard? Was not your tribe in charge of the Bolshevik revolution in 1918? Had not the ziocons (and the CIA) propelled the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in 2014? Is not Dm. Alperovitch Jewish? – he is a main expert in "Russian meddling" and the one who pronounced definitively that "Russians hacked" the DNC computers. Was it his cordial advice for the DNC to shoo away the FBI from checking the "compromised computers?" Alperovitch is associated with the viciously Russophobic Atantic Council "fed" by NATO, the State Dept. and by certain Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch. Both in the US and Canada, ziocons have been happily fraternizing with the progeny of Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, in order to install a "new order" in Ukraine. Great. You have your "liberated Ukraine." Israel now complains that Ukraine has become the most anti-semitic country in Europe. Because of Holocaust, Corvinus?
    , @annamaria
    Fake news and Propornot, a roster of presstitutes: http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/unmasking-propornot-exposing-deep-state-crimes/
    -Michael Weiss, National Security Analyst at CNN [do we need to know more about the accomodating Mr. Weiss?]
    -Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
    -Pierre Vaux, s a contributor to the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy...
    - Miller, a contributor to Reuters, The Daily Beast, Foreign Policy...

    All the above make a solid MSM stuff

    The Interpreter [a loving parent of Propornot] is a product of the Atlantic Council. Fellows working with the Atlantic Council in this area include:
    Bellingcat, a former underwear salesman
    Anne Applebaum, a slef-proclaimed historian and vicious Russophobe
    Irena Chalupa, a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and former editor for the Atlantic Council. Her sister, Alexandra Chalupa, brought the term "Russian hacking" to worldwide attention. [Both bloody sisters should be tried and indicted for their activities that led to the coup d'etat in Kiev in 2014.]
    Dimitry Alperovich, CEO of Crowdstrike and person who guessed Russia may have hacked something, somewhere, sometime."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. ANON • Disclaimer says:
    @RobinG
    You actually read the Olde Wizzer's pompous meanderings? Take him seriously? LOL.

    How about we hang Queen Killary in effigy, holding placards of her crimes against humanity. Right here in the US, of course. Lock her up, indeed.

    Well you prove that you don’t because it wasn’t Wiz but an Economist leader!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Beckow
    No matter how many words and convoluted sentences you put around it, this indictment is for people living abroad (in Russia, but they could have been anywhere) expressing their point of view. All the verbiage and loaded terms ('propaganda', 'interference',...) cannot change that.

    The 'pretending to be someone else' charge is beyond silly - please don't bring it up if you want people to take you seriously. Making pretend 'cages' or calling people names is not a crime. I also don't believe we are hearing the full story about how it all happened. The reporting is manipulated to appeal to low-IQ conformist types.

    I don't believe for a second that the word 'busted' was translated properly from the original Russian. And there is no admission of guilt in what that woman says. This is a manipulated lawyerly document that hides the fact that nothing actually happened. At least not anything that doesn't happen thousands of times every day around the world and has never been called a 'crime'.

    US has too many laws, many very bad ones. To have a law forbidding 'foreigners' to express an opinion about 'elections' is insane. It literally cannot be done. And once you strip out all the camouflage verbiage that DOJ put there, this is a case about a dozen people commenting on US elections from Russia. It might be obnoxious or even silly, but it cannot in a free society be forbidden.

    I didn’t notice that The Economist (over 95 per cent of the words in my comment) had put prolixity and convoluted sentences around the indictment or associated issues but perhaps you are not making that part of your accusation clear. Otherwise we are in substantial agreement except that you seem to cast Mueller in a role, and ascribe motives to him, that you do not justify with reasons or evidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. El Dato says:
    @Corvinus
    "Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign."

    Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job.

    "Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?"

    In any investigation that is complex, prosecuting attorneys keep their best evidence close to the vest.

    Ronald Thomas West...

    "Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special prosecutor’s known history is framing people for crimes they didn’t commit, sandbagging & sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking, protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent person wouldn’t give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat’s ass level of sympathy for, ‘special’ counsel Robert Mueller."

    Fake News.

    Redman..

    "He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit."

    Mueller is not giving up anything.

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    At least “Fake News” is used correctly here, as “News I don’t want to hear or think about”.

    You must be a big mover in the daily 5 minutes of hate.

    This circus ain’t over; doesn’t mean it’s not just remote control of people who have had their brain removed by meedja influence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. annamaria says:
    @Corvinus
    "Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign."

    Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job.

    "Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?"

    In any investigation that is complex, prosecuting attorneys keep their best evidence close to the vest.

    Ronald Thomas West...

    "Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special prosecutor’s known history is framing people for crimes they didn’t commit, sandbagging & sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking, protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent person wouldn’t give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat’s ass level of sympathy for, ‘special’ counsel Robert Mueller."

    Fake News.

    Redman..

    "He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit."

    Mueller is not giving up anything.

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    “Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job.”
    —Neither.
    Guess that Clinton is your Queen and the FBI and the CIA are the most trusted organizations, ever. How interesting that the IntelGate has prompted the Israel-firsters to energize their defense of the secret services apparatus. Why? — Is this because the ingrained Russophobia dies hard? Was not your tribe in charge of the Bolshevik revolution in 1918? Had not the ziocons (and the CIA) propelled the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in 2014? Is not Dm. Alperovitch Jewish? – he is a main expert in “Russian meddling” and the one who pronounced definitively that “Russians hacked” the DNC computers. Was it his cordial advice for the DNC to shoo away the FBI from checking the “compromised computers?” Alperovitch is associated with the viciously Russophobic Atantic Council “fed” by NATO, the State Dept. and by certain Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch. Both in the US and Canada, ziocons have been happily fraternizing with the progeny of Bandera, a Nazi collaborator, in order to install a “new order” in Ukraine. Great. You have your “liberated Ukraine.” Israel now complains that Ukraine has become the most anti-semitic country in Europe. Because of Holocaust, Corvinus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. annamaria says:
    @Corvinus
    "Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign."

    Fake News. The Nunes Memo is simply a partisan hack job.

    "Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?"

    In any investigation that is complex, prosecuting attorneys keep their best evidence close to the vest.

    Ronald Thomas West...

    "Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special prosecutor’s known history is framing people for crimes they didn’t commit, sandbagging & sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking, protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent person wouldn’t give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat’s ass level of sympathy for, ‘special’ counsel Robert Mueller."

    Fake News.

    Redman..

    "He’s giving up on Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit."

    Mueller is not giving up anything.

    Please educate yourself on this matter.

    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    Fake news and Propornot, a roster of presstitutes: http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/unmasking-propornot-exposing-deep-state-crimes/
    -Michael Weiss, National Security Analyst at CNN [do we need to know more about the accomodating Mr. Weiss?]
    -Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
    -Pierre Vaux, s a contributor to the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy…
    - Miller, a contributor to Reuters, The Daily Beast, Foreign Policy…

    All the above make a solid MSM stuff

    The Interpreter [a loving parent of Propornot] is a product of the Atlantic Council. Fellows working with the Atlantic Council in this area include:
    Bellingcat, a former underwear salesman
    Anne Applebaum, a slef-proclaimed historian and vicious Russophobe
    Irena Chalupa, a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and former editor for the Atlantic Council. Her sister, Alexandra Chalupa, brought the term “Russian hacking” to worldwide attention. [Both bloody sisters should be tried and indicted for their activities that led to the coup d'etat in Kiev in 2014.]
    Dimitry Alperovich, CEO of Crowdstrike and person who guessed Russia may have hacked something, somewhere, sometime.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Corvinus says:

    “Guess that Clinton is your Queen and the FBI and the CIA are the most trusted organizations, ever.”

    Not a fan nor a supporter of Clinton, so you guess wrong. Furthermore, the FBI and the CIA have lacked the trust of citizens on several occasions, but that does not necessarily mean they are completelt untrustworthy.

    “Was not your tribe in charge of the Bolshevik revolution in 1918?”

    I’m not Jewish.

    “Had not the ziocons (and the CIA) propelled the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in 2014?”

    That would be a conspiracy theory that you are propping up. And the Liberty Beacon is Fake News personified. Would you like to know more, citizen?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When are you people going to see a false flag when you’re looking directly at it? The only thing tragic about the Flordia school is that you apparently believe the MSM bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think Trump intends to bide his time until Mueller finishes his investigation and various people are dragged into court, and at that time Trump will unleash his indictments against Mueller, the FBI, and the other Obama weasels still left in government. He cannot afford to leave them in place or let their partisan crimes go unpunished.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS