U.S. Indicts 12 Russian Military Officers for DNC Hacking
ridski said:
He wasn’t cleared, the Swedish government dropped the charges because they were too difficult to pursue and Swedish law dictates that the investigation has to close if it cannot be concluded quickly. Lawyers for the rape victim have said they’ll push for the charges to be reinstated is Assange re-enters Sweden before 2020, after which the statute of limitations passes.
"At this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted. In order to proceed with the case, Julian Assange would have to be formally notified of the criminal suspicions against him," the statement reads in part. "We cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador regarding this. Therefore the investigation is discontinued."
http://news.cision.com/aklagarmyndigheten/r/the-investigation-against-julian-assange-is-discontinued,c2269505
He offered to go back and stand trial, but wanted protection which they would not give. He also offered his side and it seems there is evidence that these charges are politically motivated. He is a whistleblower and they often face huge blowback. Look at the price Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning paid. One was tortured and the other had to go into exile. No one else was prosecuted, including people revealed to have committed crimes. These are admirable people, because they risk all to show us what our governments are really doing.
joanne said:
Still, he wasn't cleared.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Julian Assange as a possible rapist as that is not relevant to this discussion and he is not convicted or at the present being charged. He's a whistleblower and on that he's a great journalist and hero. We should protect journalists, because taking away his freedom of speech can affect everyone's. It sets a dangerous precedent.
nan said:
joanne said:I'm not going to get into an argument about Julian Assange as a possible rapist as that is not relevant to this discussion and he is not convicted or at the present being charged. He's a whistleblower and on that he's a great journalist and hero. We should protect journalists, because taking away his freedom of speech can affect everyone's. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Still, he wasn't cleared.
You ARE having a discussion about Julian Assange, and your argument is essentially that because you believe he is a great journalist, any rape accusations against him must be false or ignored. Maybe you should google the #metoo movement. It was started precisely to overcome your type of arguments.
I discussed this weeks ago in the "who colluded more" thread, but it's relevant here too. The fact that there might be warmongers in both Russia and the U.S. who are stoking the tension for their own purposes doesn't mean that Trump and his campaign are innocent of some sort of dirty dealing in Russia. I have no doubt that members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities have their own vested interests in restarting the Cold War. But given Trump's decades long history of dealing with shady Russian characters, this country's citizens deserve answers and deserve an investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign has had unethical or illegal contacts with Russian agents. It's entirely possible that Trump's campaign was involved in some sort of shady dealings with Russians AND that U.S. warmonger are using it as a pretense for inflaming tensions between the two countries. It's entirely plausible that Trump is being a useful idiot for both U.S. and Russian warmongers.
And certainly Trump has been acting suspiciously regarding Europe, NATO and Russia. Why would he consider Europe a "foe?" Why would he demand that European nations expand their militaries while he suggests the U.S. won't defend NATIO nations? That certainly isn't a prescription for peace or disarmament -- a more heavily armed Europe, with each country essentially on their own in terms of defense.
Trump more and more seems compromised when it comes to Russia. Whether it's because he owes them money, or has been laundering their money, or because his campaign colluded with Russian hackers isn't important. And regardless of what country it is, Russia, Britain, Germany, Japan, Israel -- we shouldn't have a president pursuing a specific foreign policy because it benefits or protects him or his family, and not because it benefits the country as a whole.
Certainly we shouldn't conclude anything before an investigation is completed and evidence presented. But jeebus, if some people think there isn't enough smoke regarding Trump, Russia, and his strange behavior toward the EU and NATO to warrant this investigation continuing, I don't know what else it would take.
Linked below is an important piece by Jack Goldsmith in Lawfareblog, titled "Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump's Press Conference With Putin." The entire article is a must read. Among the issues Goldsmith discusses is the following:
"There is a lot of anger against WikiLeaks and a lot of support for indicting Julian Assange and others related to WikiLeaks for their part in publishing the information stolen by the Russians. If Mueller goes in this direction, he will need to be very careful not to indict Assange for something U.S. journalists do every day. U.S. newspapers publish information stolen via digital means all the time. They also openly solicit such information through SecureDrop portals. Some will say that Assange and others at WikiLeaks can be prosecuted without threatening “real journalists” by charging a conspiracy to steal and share stolen information. I am not at all sure such an indictment wouldn’t apply to many American journalists who actively aid leakers of classified information. And even if such a principle could be crafted that would nab WikiLeaks and spare the New York Times, a successful indictment and prosecution of WikiLeaks figures for conspiring to publish stolen information would certainly narrow protections for “mainstream” journalists and raise questions about SecureDrop and other interactions with sources who peddle stolen information."
And this is Marcy Wheeler's response to Goldsmith's article:
"In general, Jack Goldsmith and I have long agreed about the problems with charging nation-state spies in the United States. So I read with great interest his post laying out “Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump’s Press Conference With Putin.” Among other larger normative points, Goldsmith asks two questions. First, does indicting 12 GRU officers in the US expose our own nation-state hackers to be criminally prosecuted in other countries?"
Continue reading at https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/17/how-to-charge-americans-in-conspiracies-with-russian-spies/
eta: I highly recommend reading the comments not only after this post but every post which Wheeler writes.
ml1 said:
Certainly we shouldn't conclude anything before an investigation is completed and evidence presented. But jeebus, if some people think there isn't enough smoke regarding Trump, Russia, and his strange behavior toward the EU and NATO to warrant this investigation continuing, I don't know what else it would take.
Of course, until we see the hard evidence everything we do is speculate. And we may not see all the hard evidence for a while.
However, since we are speculating, there is this problem solving principle called Occam's razor. It is used in science as a heuristic tool, meaning you can use it when you don't have all the data yet. It says that when confronted with multiple conflicting hypotheses to solve a problem (or explain observed behavior), you should select the one with the fewest assumptions.
If one would apply Occam's razor to Trumps international stance on Russia, Nato, Europe, it would lead you to the conclusion that Putin has something on Trump. That's the simplest explanation, which is usually the right one.
If true, we may not see evidence for many many years. Because the evidence will be sitting nicely in GRU servers in Russia. And nan's hero whistle-blowers (like Assange) show great enthusiasm for stealing and posting material data is damaging to US and the West (and Democrats in particular), but not so much for Russian materials. Funny how that works.
nan said:
Jill Stein has nothing to do with Putin. And don't show me the picture of her eating at a dinner. I've seen it. Just google what she was doing there and educate yourself. You are clearly in need of some new news sources.
Oh yeah, I heard her version of events. Jill Stein was in Russia to criticize Putin. And then some stranger invited her to dinner and she went and she did not speak russian and nobody spoke english and there was this funny russian guy with no shirt and it later turns out it was putin but she had no idea and she never spoke to him.
But the funny thing is that in Russia, people that criticize Putin typically go to jail and/or end up getting killed (often in broad daylight), not invited to a black-tie dinner party. Jill Stein wins three (maybe four) Pinocchios.
gerritn said:
If one would apply Occam's razor to Trumps international stance on Russia, Nato, Europe, it would lead you to the conclusion that Putin has something on Trump. That's the simplest explanation, which is usually the right one.
given what we already know to be true about Trump and his businesses, the simplest explanations are that Trump very likely owes lots of money to Russian interests (his son said their financing comes in large part from Russia) and/or his businesses have been used to launder dirty Russian money (one of his casinos already paid a fine for money laundering.)
Even if there's nothing illegal going on, and the loans from Russian entities aren't improper, owing lots of money in one country is compromising. And we the people deserve to know if this is going on.
ml1 said:
gerritn said:given what we already know to be true about Trump and his businesses, the simplest explanations are that Trump very likely owes lots of money to Russian interests (his son said their financing comes in large part from Russia) and/or his businesses have been used to launder dirty Russian money (one of his casinos already paid a fine for money laundering.)
If one would apply Occam's razor to Trumps international stance on Russia, Nato, Europe, it would lead you to the conclusion that Putin has something on Trump. That's the simplest explanation, which is usually the right one.
Even if there's nothing illegal going on, and the loans from Russian entities aren't improper, owing lots of money in one country is compromising. And we the people deserve to know if this is going on.
Yes, its pretty clear that it's money (not anything more salacious). Trump lives for money and flattery, and he got both from his Russian buddies for a number of years.
And it is possible to reduce tensions with Russia, while at the same time standing by our long-term allies. The fact that Trump doesn't act that way, suggests that William of Occam's method leads to one simple conclusion.
gerritn said:
ml1 said:Of course, until we see the hard evidence everything we do is speculate. And we may not see all the hard evidence for a while.
Certainly we shouldn't conclude anything before an investigation is completed and evidence presented. But jeebus, if some people think there isn't enough smoke regarding Trump, Russia, and his strange behavior toward the EU and NATO to warrant this investigation continuing, I don't know what else it would take.
However, since we are speculating, there is this problem solving principle called Occam's razor. It is used in science as a heuristic tool, meaning you can use it when you don't have all the data yet. It says that when confronted with multiple conflicting hypotheses to solve a problem (or explain observed behavior), you should select the one with the fewest assumptions.
If one would apply Occam's razor to Trumps international stance on Russia, Nato, Europe, it would lead you to the conclusion that Putin has something on Trump. That's the simplest explanation, which is usually the right one.
If true, we may not see evidence for many many years. Because the evidence will be sitting nicely in GRU servers in Russia. And nan's hero whistle-blowers (like Assange) show great enthusiasm for stealing and posting material data is damaging to US and the West (and Democrats in particular), but not so much for Russian materials. Funny how that works.
Alternatively, Putin can decide to let the evidence go public. His desire is to sow disruption. Can you imagine the sh!tshow in the U.S. if it turns out Russia does have kompromat on Trump?
drummerboy said:
Alternatively, Putin can decide to let the evidence go public. His desire is to sow disruption. Can you imagine the sh!tshow in the U.S. if it turns out Russia does have kompromat on Trump?
Why would he blow up his own asset, unless he is no longer taking orders?
nohero said:
Yes, its pretty clear that it's money (not anything more salacious). Trump lives for money and flattery, and he got both from his Russian buddies for a number of years.And it is possible to reduce tensions with Russia, while at the same time standing by our long-term allies. The fact that Trump doesn't act that way, suggests that William of Occam's method leads to one simple conclusion.
Trump could clear this up in a minute by releasing his tax returns.
LOST said:
nohero said:Trump could clear this up in a minute by releasing his tax returns.
Yes, its pretty clear that it's money (not anything more salacious). Trump lives for money and flattery, and he got both from his Russian buddies for a number of years.And it is possible to reduce tensions with Russia, while at the same time standing by our long-term allies. The fact that Trump doesn't act that way, suggests that William of Occam's method leads to one simple conclusion.
I've never been sure if his tax returns would show if he got money from Russians. I tend to agree with the following article that not much would be revealed.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/pf/taxes/trump-russia-tax-returns/index.html
gerritn said:
nan said:You ARE having a discussion about Julian Assange, and your argument is essentially that because you believe he is a great journalist, any rape accusations against him must be false or ignored. Maybe you should google the #metoo movement. It was started precisely to overcome your type of arguments.
joanne said:I'm not going to get into an argument about Julian Assange as a possible rapist as that is not relevant to this discussion and he is not convicted or at the present being charged. He's a whistleblower and on that he's a great journalist and hero. We should protect journalists, because taking away his freedom of speech can affect everyone's. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Still, he wasn't cleared.
No, I'm just not going to discuss dismissed rape charges on a thread about the DNC hacking. That's getting way off topic.
nan said:
gerritn said:No, I'm just not going to discuss dismissed rape charges on a thread about the DNC hacking. That's getting way off topic.
nan said:You ARE having a discussion about Julian Assange, and your argument is essentially that because you believe he is a great journalist, any rape accusations against him must be false or ignored. Maybe you should google the #metoo movement. It was started precisely to overcome your type of arguments.
joanne said:I'm not going to get into an argument about Julian Assange as a possible rapist as that is not relevant to this discussion and he is not convicted or at the present being charged. He's a whistleblower and on that he's a great journalist and hero. We should protect journalists, because taking away his freedom of speech can affect everyone's. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Still, he wasn't cleared.
Ah! The old "now is not an appropriate time to discuss this" argument. Also very popular with the NRA after mass shootings. Roughly translates into "I don't want to discuss this because it will make me look bad / stupid".
ml1 said:
I discussed this weeks ago in the "who colluded more" thread, but it's relevant here too. The fact that there might be warmongers in both Russia and the U.S. who are stoking the tension for their own purposes doesn't mean that Trump and his campaign are innocent of some sort of dirty dealing in Russia. I have no doubt that members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities have their own vested interests in restarting the Cold War. But given Trump's decades long history of dealing with shady Russian characters, this country's citizens deserve answers and deserve an investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign has had unethical or illegal contacts with Russian agents. It's entirely possible that Trump's campaign was involved in some sort of shady dealings with Russians AND that U.S. warmonger are using it as a pretense for inflaming tensions between the two countries. It's entirely plausible that Trump is being a useful idiot for both U.S. and Russian warmongers.
And certainly Trump has been acting suspiciously regarding Europe, NATO and Russia. Why would he consider Europe a "foe?" Why would he demand that European nations expand their militaries while he suggests the U.S. won't defend NATIO nations? That certainly isn't a prescription for peace or disarmament -- a more heavily armed Europe, with each country essentially on their own in terms of defense.
Trump more and more seems compromised when it comes to Russia. Whether it's because he owes them money, or has been laundering their money, or because his campaign colluded with Russian hackers isn't important. And regardless of what country it is, Russia, Britain, Germany, Japan, Israel -- we shouldn't have a president pursuing a specific foreign policy because it benefits or protects him or his family, and not because it benefits the country as a whole.
Certainly we shouldn't conclude anything before an investigation is completed and evidence presented. But jeebus, if some people think there isn't enough smoke regarding Trump, Russia, and his strange behavior toward the EU and NATO to warrant this investigation continuing, I don't know what else it would take.
No one is arguing for the investigation to end. I agree that Trump acts strange, but that might just be that he has hero worship for dictators, the way others like Bruce Springsteen or Taylor Swift. It might be related to sleazy business deals cause that's how Trump rolls. It might also have to do John Bolton's obsession for regime change in Iran. Not sure about that one, but thought this was an interesting read.
Trump, Putin and the Iran Agenda
https://therealnews.com/stories/trump-putin-and-the-iran-agenda
So Sara Sanders has confirmed that Putin said he wants the Russians to "talk" to McFaul--who Putin has been targeting for years--and Trump did not dismiss it out of hand.
gerritn said:
nan said:Ah! The old "now is not an appropriate time to discuss this" argument. Also very popular with the NRA after mass shootings. Roughly translates into "I don't want to discuss this because it will make me look bad / stupid".
gerritn said:No, I'm just not going to discuss dismissed rape charges on a thread about the DNC hacking. That's getting way off topic.
nan said:You ARE having a discussion about Julian Assange, and your argument is essentially that because you believe he is a great journalist, any rape accusations against him must be false or ignored. Maybe you should google the #metoo movement. It was started precisely to overcome your type of arguments.
joanne said:I'm not going to get into an argument about Julian Assange as a possible rapist as that is not relevant to this discussion and he is not convicted or at the present being charged. He's a whistleblower and on that he's a great journalist and hero. We should protect journalists, because taking away his freedom of speech can affect everyone's. It sets a dangerous precedent.
Still, he wasn't cleared.
No it really is NOT an appropriate time to discuss dismissed rape charges on a discussion about international politics. It's not about how I look or my IQ. Of course, you are free to continue this conversation with others, but I'm not wasting my time further. Enjoy.
dave23 said:
So Sara Sanders has confirmed that Putin said he wants the Russians to "talk" to McFaul--who Putin has been targeting for years--and Trump did not dismiss it out of hand.
Trump and Putin agreed to it in their private meeting. That's the quid pro quo. McFaul has been tweeting about it all day.
cramer said:
dave23 said:Trump and Putin agreed to it in their private meeting. That's the quid pro quo. McFaul has been tweeting about it all day.
So Sara Sanders has confirmed that Putin said he wants the Russians to "talk" to McFaul--who Putin has been targeting for years--and Trump did not dismiss it out of hand.
https://twitter.com/McFaul/with_replies?lang=en
Yes, Trump is considering turning over McFaul--Obama's ambassador to Russia--for prosecution because Putin hates him.
It really seems that Putin turned the screws on Trump in that meeting.
Regarding Putin's hold on Trump, my working theory is found in two words:
MONEY LAUNDERING
It's why we can't see the tax returns and it puts many of the puzzle pieces and people together. It certainly can involve our uber-wealthy politicians and business leaders from both major parties.
Putin:
"Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can lead them into the country and they will be present at this questioning.
But in this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be a mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate and that they would question officials including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States, whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over one and a half billion dollars in Russia. They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States and yet the money escaped the country, they were transferred to the United States."
He somehow forgot to mention that Browder was the single biggest voice behind the Magnitsky Act.
cramer said:
Linked below is an important piece by Jack Goldsmith in Lawfareblog, titled "Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump's Press Conference With Putin." The entire article is a must read. Among the issues Goldsmith discusses is the following:
"There is a lot of anger against WikiLeaks and a lot of support for indicting Julian Assange and others related to WikiLeaks for their part in publishing the information stolen by the Russians. If Mueller goes in this direction, he will need to be very careful not to indict Assange for something U.S. journalists do every day. U.S. newspapers publish information stolen via digital means all the time. They also openly solicit such information through SecureDrop portals. Some will say that Assange and others at WikiLeaks can be prosecuted without threatening “real journalists” by charging a conspiracy to steal and share stolen information. I am not at all sure such an indictment wouldn’t apply to many American journalists who actively aid leakers of classified information. And even if such a principle could be crafted that would nab WikiLeaks and spare the New York Times, a successful indictment and prosecution of WikiLeaks figures for conspiring to publish stolen information would certainly narrow protections for “mainstream” journalists and raise questions about SecureDrop and other interactions with sources who peddle stolen information."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/uncomfortable-questions-wake-russia-indictment-20-and-trumps-press-conference-putin
Yes, this is exactly what I have been referring to when I say that Julian Assange is a journalist who must be protected because it will affect freedom of speech for all journalists.
nakaille said:
Regarding Putin's hold on Trump, my working theory is found in two words:
MONEY LAUNDERING
It's why we can't see the tax returns and it puts many of the puzzle pieces and people together. It certainly can involve our uber-wealthy politicians and business leaders from both major parties.
Agreed, but I'm not convinced the tax returns would necessarily shed that much light.
dave23 said:
He somehow forgot to mention that Browder was the single biggest voice behind the Magnitsky Act.
This.
"THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, Vladimir Putin, dashed the hopes of conspiracy theorists across America on Tuesday by withdrawing the startling claim he made the day before in Helsinki, that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had received $400 million in donations from investors accused of tax evasion in Russia.
What he had intended to say, according to a Russian government spokesman, was that business associates of the U.S. born investor William Browder had donated $400,000 to Clinton’s campaign. (According to public campaign finance records, that figure also appears to be inflated.)"
My note - It was $17,700 contributed by Ziff Brothers Investment.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The next step is to see if Mueller indicts any Americans involved with the hack. So far, no Americans have been indicted. I've posted that Marcy Wheeler, of https://www.emptywheel.net/, has gone to the FBI and disclosed a source who was involved in the attack. (She includes the following disclosure in her posts:
"As I laid out a few weeks ago, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post."
Wheeler has said that when her source is named, most likely in an indictment, it will be a big surprise. Most people who follow Wheeler think she has a lot of credibility. There are many criminal defense lawyers and cyber security experts who post comments on her posts, as well as on her Twitter feeds https://twitter.com/emptywheel.
: