Dear Vladimir: "It's Mueller Time"

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office said Friday that a grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for alleged interference in the 2016 presidential elections, during which they boosted the candidacy of Donald Trump.

The indictment says that the defendants by early to mid-2016 were "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton."

The indictment said "the organization," known as the Internet Research Agency LLC, "sought, in part, to conduct what it called 'information warfare against the United States of America' through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based media."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

[Edited to add] Soundtrack

(Yes, I know that's a Russian victory, but back at 'em, I'd say.)


To those who said this president was "legitimate" - as you can see now I hope, he is not.


The Russians were firmly in the “anybody but Hillary” camp. 


Maybe because she was the only candidate from either party that ever stood up to Putin? Who can say. 


Great, now they are saying they organized  protests in NY some for some against Trump. Watch the right will say the Women's March was motivated by Russians.


Who are the unwitting Americans?


Thus could be a crucial moment for the investigation. Thirteen more individuals are now potential sources of information in exchange for leniency or immunity. 

The reaction of the administration should be carefully watched. If these 13 are big enough fish, anyone in the executive branch who is compromised by Russia could attempt to intervene or hamper this prosecution.

It's scary how this spiderweb seems to spread. 


I do hope they are in protective custody.


I think most or all of them are in Russia so beyond our reach. 



mrincredible said:

Thus could be a crucial moment for the investigation. Thirteen more individuals are now potential sources of information in exchange for leniency or immunity. 

The reaction of the administration should be carefully watched. If these 13 are big enough fish, anyone in the executive branch who is compromised by Russia could attempt to intervene or hamper this prosecution.

It's scary how this spiderweb seems to spread. 

If they are Russian citizens what immunity could be offered? Wouldn't they just be deported?


Thanks cramer. It looks like someone dropped the Scrabble tiles. I am hoping Ari Melber can break it down. I just hope Trump doesn't tweet, "See, no collusion."


While it still leaves open the "no collusion", it pretty firmly establishes that 1) there is evidence of possible crimes and 2) Russians were involved in potential criminal activity. That should take some steam away from some of the arguments people like to make.


Morganna said:

Thanks cramer. It looks like someone dropped the Scrabble tiles. I am hoping Ari Melber can break it down. I just hope Trump doesn't tweet, "See, no collusion."



They wanted to help Trump and Bernie!



qrysdonnell said:

While it still leaves open the "no collusion", it pretty firmly establishes that 1) there is evidence of possible crimes and 2) Russians were involved in potential criminal activity. That should take some steam away from some of the arguments people like to make.



Morganna said:

Thanks cramer. It looks like someone dropped the Scrabble tiles. I am hoping Ari Melber can break it down. I just hope Trump doesn't tweet, "See, no collusion."

Yes. These indictments had to come first. Without hard evidence of Russian meddling there's less likelihood of proving any kind of involvement by American campaign staff. Or candidates. 

I haven't read where these thirteen people are, I assumed they were somewhere physically within Robert Muelller's reach. That was a bad assumption. Obviously if they are in Russia they're not subject to arrest, detention and opportunities to flip. But I guess a criminal indictment gives Mueller more freedom to continue investigating their activities and contacts.

I'm sure people are salivating over this. Not me just yet ... but it's another brick in the foundation of the case for collusion.



qrysdonnell said:

While it still leaves open the "no collusion", it pretty firmly establishes that 1) there is evidence of possible crimes and 2) Russians were involved in potential criminal activity. That should take some steam away from some of the arguments people like to make.



Morganna said:

Thanks cramer. It looks like someone dropped the Scrabble tiles. I am hoping Ari Melber can break it down. I just hope Trump doesn't tweet, "See, no collusion."

I hope you are right. I'm continually trying to figure out what will make those loyal followers see the man behind the curtain for what he is.



mrincredible said:

I'm sure people are salivating over this. Not me just yet ... but it's another brick in the foundation of the case for collusion.

I think you are jumping ahead a bit. I think this might answer, "If they colluded, what were they colluding on?"


Well, THIS certainly won't be it. But their arguments have had to change depending on the information available, so at this point they have to contort again.


Morganna said:

I hope you are right. I'm continually trying to figure out what will make those loyal followers see the man behind the curtain for what he is.



I no longer get to check in on Fox, with my reduced cable package, but I'd love to hear Hannity's spin. Or Judge Janine's.


The indictment alleges that Internet Research Agency LLC received its funding from Yevgeny Prigozhin and the companies he controls. The Intelligence Community Assessment said that the likely financier of Internet Research Agency is a"close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence."  

       



cramer said:

The indictment alleges that Internet Research Agency LLC received its funding from Yevgeny Prigozhin and the companies he controls. The Intelligence Community Assessment said that the likely financier of Internet Research Agency is a"close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence."  

       

What can be done to those indicted?



dave23 said:



mrincredible said:

I'm sure people are salivating over this. Not me just yet ... but it's another brick in the foundation of the case for collusion.

I think you are jumping ahead a bit. I think this might answer, "If they colluded, what were they colluding on?"

Yes. It's a brick in the foundation. You can't have a case for collusion without something solid to have allegedly colluded with.

This is Metaphor 101 stuff, man. Didn't you learn this in high school? And the brick is such a useful metaphorical tool: "Manafort's testimony hit the administration like a ton of bricks." "The president's explanations fly about as well as a brick." "The president's advisors are desperately trying to figure out how to brick his phone before he further incriminates himself."

NOW I'm jumping ahead. I think my first post is a post that comes along exactly at the right time. 



mrincredible said:



dave23 said:



mrincredible said:

I'm sure people are salivating over this. Not me just yet ... but it's another brick in the foundation of the case for collusion.

I think you are jumping ahead a bit. I think this might answer, "If they colluded, what were they colluding on?"

Yes. It's a brick in the foundation. You can't have a case for collusion without something solid to have allegedly colluded with.

This is Metaphor 101 stuff, man. Didn't you learn this in high school? And the brick is such a useful metaphorical tool: "Manafort's testimony hit the administration like a ton of bricks." "The president's explanations fly about as well as a brick." "The president's advisors are desperately trying to figure out how to brick his phone before he further incriminates himself."

NOW I'm jumping ahead. I think my first post is a post that comes along exactly at the right time. 

Here's a metaphor: Trump is a brick.


Hm. Too vague. Is he strong, molded from the common clay and strengthened with fire into into something solid and dependable?

Or is he dumb as a brick?



mrincredible said:

Hm. Too vague. Is he strong, molded from the common clay and strengthened with fire into into something solid and dependable?

Or is he dumb as a brick?

He's orange, rectangular and thick, and heavy enough to sink to the very bottom, and probably, when next to one of his women in the sack, feels to her like she's sleeping next to a scratchy, crumbly, ugly rock.


hmm - I don't see Paul's take on this yet.



drummerboy said:

hmm - I don't see Paul's take on this yet.

See Paul's "collusion" thread.



mrincredible said:

Yes. It's a brick in the foundation. You can't have a case for collusion without something solid to have allegedly colluded with.

This is Metaphor 101 stuff, man. Didn't you learn this in high school? And the brick is such a useful metaphorical tool: "Manafort's testimony hit the administration like a ton of bricks." "The president's explanations fly about as well as a brick." "The president's advisors are desperately trying to figure out how to brick his phone before he further incriminates himself."

NOW I'm jumping ahead. I think my first post is a post that comes along exactly at the right time. 

Keep going! One can never get enough brick metaphors.

I still think a clear case of collusion is unlikely. "Useful idiot" (thick as a brick?) collusion seems the most likely. 


“Wow, ordinary Russian folks have weirdly consistent opinions when it comes to US politics.”


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.