Mueller bombshell: 13 Russian 'troll factory' staffers charged with allegedly meddling in US presidential election Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating foreign agents tampering with the 2016 US presidential election, has criminally charged 13 Russian nationals with conspiring against the United States. A 37-page grand jury indictment, revealed today, named staff at the Internet Research Agency troll factory as conspirators …
As above, the indictment doesn't allege that. As per the tweet, in the main article, trying to condense things down enough that you might actually read them: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election".
The allegation is that these 13 committed crimes while seeking to influence the election.
There is no public allegation that they succeeded, or about where the money came from.
Can we clarify what the illegal activity is?
I have no stake in US elections, but when I hear the talk of "meddling in elections" and then find out that means "sowing discord" and then see that means tweeting and posting on facebook in favour of one of the election candidates, that just looks like partisan propaganda to me.
When I see that the "illegal" part is having non-accurate user handles I begin to laugh in the face of those who are upset. I see the words "troll factory" and wonder how that would have helped Trump. Were they making "Yo Mama" comments at Hillary supporters? Did that cause people to laugh so hard they slipped and accidentally voted for Trump? What are we talking about here?
If the illegal part of the process was taking over someone-else's account, then that's wrong, but it isn't a political act unless they took a party's account and were posting non-representative views.
Whenever I see these articles, they are never clear as to what the illegal activity is and what the meddling is. The vagueness is so universal that I begin to smell a rat. Please provide some examples of tweets which sow discord. Please provide some examples of "meddling," because at the moment I have real difficulty thinking this is anything but political sour grapes.
Come on, change my mind.
So we're expected to believe that Putin sought to empower the insular, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist demographic of the American public (the rest of whom are only slightly less ultra-nationalist), and install a leader who views anything not American as "the enemy"?
And how does this benefit a foreign leader and his national interests, exactly?
Sorry Mueller, but I think you may simply be engaging in propaganda yourself. It's McCarthyism 2.0.
I'm more inclined to believe that the wave of Trumpism (and in the UK, Brexitism) is actually explained by Hanlon's Razor. We, on both sides of the Atlantic, have become a real-life Idiocracy.
As for pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, whether true or not, our xenophobic friend needs to look up the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".
Oh Homer, when has Trump ever suggested that he views Russia as an enemy? The only enemies in his world are people who have the temerity to sell things to Americans.
He's happy enough to take action against Kaspersky, which is pretty much the only Russian company that does that at any noticeable scale. But when told to act against Putin and his thugs, he systematically undermines the law that he himself signed.
Apparently you're unaware that Russia also has the "temerity to sell things to Americans". $27.0 billion worth, to be precise, with only $11.2 billion going in the other direction, although admitedly this pales in comparison with China.
But unlike Mueller, Trump's antipathy isn't based on xenophobia, it's about power and greed - the same mentality that for decades defined his business ethics, or rather the total lack of them.
This is why he also hates "shithole countries" like Haiti, because they are of little economic value to a powermonger like Trump.
With gangsters like Trump, it's a turf war, and Nazism is just a convenient tool with which to pillage the loot. He's only interested in Making America Great Again® to the detriment of everyone else, pretty much like any other cut-throat capitalist. Hence why we're all "the enemy", because we are not Donald J. Trump, narcissist extraordinaire.
The idea of Trump colluding with anyone, in any mutually beneficial way, is utterly laughable, and anyone with any sense would know better than to even try. Say what you like about Putin, but even the most McCarthyist American "patriot" would be hard pressed to call him a fool.
I'm more inclined to believe that the wave of Trumpism (and in the UK, Brexitism) is actually explained by Hanlon's Razor. We, on both sides of the Atlantic, have become a real-life Idiocracy.
Hmm.
This is a breakdown of income in the UK by percentage point of the population:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax
Would I be right in assuming that your in the top 50% and only socialise with other people in the top 50%? Personally, i'm in the top 25% but I do actually socialise with people who aren't so and i'm not inclined to mock anybody earning less than the "average" wage.
I think that the simplest explanation is that people generally earning less weren't happy that their career prospects have basically been eliminated. I know people who started off working as a teaboy, and ended up working their way up and retiring confortably as a middle manager.
Things are now different. I now know people who started off on the minimum wage, and are trapped there a decade on. There is no avenue for promotion or any other form of advancement, and their quality of life gets worse year by year as the cost of living rises and their working conditions deteriorate. After all, why should companies bother taking care of staff? If staff do leave then there are plenty of desperate people lined up ready to replace them. They have little hope things are going to improve, largely because politicans have completely ignored and marginilised the concerns of anybody in the bottom 65% or so of the population.
Without hope that these people are going to do anything in their interests, or that their lives will otherwise improve they pick an alternative that they feel will deliver a better life for them. I don't blame them, because i'd be doing the same if I was in their shoes, and so would you.
I would say that there are two ways to go from here. First is to address the concerns of the majority of the population. This is the sane, sensible choice.
The other option is to ignore the concerns of the majority of the population and demonstrate that your part of your mates "in group" by insulting people not as fortunate as you are. I'm not sure what the end result of this will be, but I am sure that it will not be pretty, and it will not end well.
"We, on both sides of the Atlantic, have become a real-life Idiocracy".
Well, it took nearly a century, but Mencken is vindicated.
"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".
- H. L. Mencken (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)
This post has been deleted by its author
Natasha - "Daalink, this misinformation campaign is ingenious"
Boris - "Thank you Babushka, it will shake the US election to its core"
Squirrel - " Hey Moose, look at this advertisement - do you really believe this?:
Moose - "Humm! Nutin' up my sleeve! "
Squirrel - "No! In the paper"
Moose - "Oh that? Who reads election ads?"
Squirrel - "Weeell, you have a point there - they spend millions and still lose the election!"
The lesson from this, is what makes anyone think ad dollars and misinformation will actually change an election, when the advertisements that are riddled with half truth anyway, don't statistically change a thing! How many times have I seen a US race where the biggest spender lost the election fair and square. This whole story of subterfuge is non sequitur.
Mother Russia would never do such a thing. Muller probably also says we starved Ukrainians during the 1932-33 Holodomor. And that Russia was allied with Nazi Germany from September 1939 with the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland until June 22 1941 with the start of Operation Barbarossa when Hitler turned on Stalin. Is lies! Lies! All lies!
I see, so it's always Russia. Tsars, Soviets, Russian Republic, doesn't matter; it's all the same thing.
(Like France: Bourbons, Jacobins, Napolean, Bourbons (again), plus one more monarchy, an Empire, and 4 more republics, it's always just France, unchanging.)
Don't worry, such things could never happen here.
"And that Russia was allied with Nazi Germany from September 1939..."
Fwiw, the 'Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' was really a bit of a sham because both parties knew it wouldn't last very long. Both Germany and the USSR knew that war between them was inevitable but also realised that neither side was ready at that time; Germany didn't have the immediate resources for war in both the east and the west and Stalin knew that the USSR couldn't effectively defend itself against Germany.
Thus, the treaty was really just an expedient political maneuver to give both sides extra time to prepare for the upcoming conflict between them. Although a disappointment for the UK, and to a lesser degree, the US, where Roosevelt also seems to have believed that war was inevitable, it wasn't much of a surprise to them when the German-USSR treaty was announced - the situation was pretty transparent to the western allies.
As a consequence, contingency plans and lines of communication were already in place between the western allies and the USSR when Hitler eventually embarked upon Operation Barbarossa, enabling the scheme to supply and support the USSR against Germany to swing into operation surprisingly quickly and efficiently, all things considered.
Unlike any other country who did bad things, like colonising and exploiting other countries (oops, sorry 'civilising' those countries) while killing hordes of natives, such as India, most of Africa and most countries in Indo-China. Wiping out native americans using small-pox, mass murder in the Philipines or dropping nukes on city centres killing mostly women and children or until quite recently legally labelling native Australians as 'wildlife', we should ONLY condemn Russia for all eternity for everything that country used to do wrong and never look inward at all the shit that 'western' countries ever did.
Cause, you know, "we're the good guys".
Excuse me if I throw up over the display of hypocrisy.
That is a myth. Even Wikipedia states that on that very same link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)
“It is also sometimes mistakenly stated that the 1967 referendum overturned a "Flora and Fauna Act", which supposedly mandated that indigenous Australians were governed and managed under the same portfolio as Australian wildlife – New South Wales state MP Linda Burney made mention of such an act in her maiden speech in 2003,[26] as did Mark Colvin in a 2007 ABC article.[27] A 2014 SBS article described the notion that "Indigenous people were classed as fauna" as a "myth", listing it as one of "four key misunderstandings persist[ing] about modern Indigenous history and the referendum"
1. The last person on the list is 95%+ Bulgarian. This is not a Russian name. So it is not 13 Russians. 12 Russians and a Bulgarian.
2. The Internet Research Agency, same as any other similar operation are guns for hire. The more interesting question is who paid for them.
Yes. Who paid them? Russia or Trump?
Who told you that these are the only options? If we go by the standard way of trying to dig the trail which is "who benefits from this" it is neither. Neither of them benefits from this at present. Russia may have seen a benefit in having Trump instead of Hillary early on. It is clearly a choice between Pestilence and Plague though. Both are not someone you would like at your table.
There are quite a few others who are benefiting from this at present. Some of them are Russian too and living in Chelsea after having a disagreement with the Breast Chested Russian Overlord. There is a long list of non-Russian entities who are benefiting from this too. A lot of them in USA.
> Russia may have seen a benefit in having Trump instead of Hillary early on. It is clearly a choice between Pestilence and Plague though. Both are not someone you would like at your table.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the aim may not have been to get a given candidate to win so much as to sow enough discord to destabilise the system.
In fact, if you look at the position Trump was in when this allegedly started, they may not even have believed Trump could win it even with their help.
Even more telling though is that they apparently staged both a pro-Trump Rally and a counter rally on the same day. Other than to cause discord, the only other reason I can think of would be a weird attempt to cover their trail.
They also apparently attempted to support Bernie Sanders, so it's also possible the original aim was to get anyone but Hilary.
None of that automatically means Kremlin though. As you suggested it could also be driven by financial interests, either in Russia or elsewhere
Well, someone had $200 million to spend on trolling as long ago as 2011; and, as you will know, government budgets generally grow with time.
"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
Could be a lot of folks. I'm hoping they'll start following the money as it could get interesting. We have groups being funded by millionaires to push their agendas (and not all are "business") so why not this? Things may get a bit murkier than they already were.
Bulgarian? I think you think so because there is a Bulgarian artist of the same name and surname working in London (poor guy - I would advise him to avoid the US now, and maybe even Britain). However, a quick Google search finds a lot of people of the same surname from the St. Petersburg area (Russia, not Florida).
Bulgarian? I think you think so because there is a Bulgarian artist of the same name
No. I just happen to have some ancestry of both and fluence in both languages. That is NOT a Russian family name and it is the only name which is given in a Name + Family Name notation as used by Bulgarians today(*) and not in Name + Paternal Name + Family Name as used by Russians.
While there is some likelihood that someone from that clan has ended up in USSR during the let's say Komintern era, that is less likely than someone from Bulgaria proper.
(*)Bulgarians also used to use a similar notation, but with different grammar resulting in different way of writing out the Paternal middle name (finish with ov, not with ovich or ovna)
Vladimir is not a popular first name in Bulgaria he is Russian.
Who told you so? It is still approximately as popular as it was in Russia 30-40 years ago. It is more popular in Russia today courtesy of the Bare Chested Overlord. It was not in the 70-es and 80-es.
Most "peace" names which are of "old-faith" origin. These are names where "mir" is added to another root. Bulgaria has significantly higher prevalence of those compared to Russia. In Russia only староверцы will call their child Stanimir, Branimir, etc so these all sum up to a fraction of a percent (with Vladimir being somewhat of an exception). In Bulgaria they are normal names - you are likely to run into one within the first 10 people you meet. Including at least one Vlado.
In addition to that Venkov as clan in Bulgaria goes centuries back. I know a few and had one as a classmate.
I'll just join in the discussion to point out that Venkov could also very well be a Czech or Slovak family name (meaning something like "countryside" on both languages).
In any case, the name is not Russian (although of course the person may well be, I do not know or care)
Whether the name is Bulgarian or Slovak or Martian, the individual concerned could still be Russian. And even if he's not, he could still be working in and employed by Russia. Let's not get distracted by trivialities.
As far as I can see, Mueller is about the only person in the US government who's making a sincere and honest attempt to do their job. Let's enjoy it while we can.
"Whether the name is Bulgarian or Slovak or Martian, the individual concerned could still be Russian. And even if he's not, he could still be working in and employed by Russia".
Come to that, he could be American. The USA is full of Russian emigre(e)s. And even if (s)he isn't American, he could very well be employed by the US government - which certainly spends far more on trolling and propaganda than anyone else in the world.
"Let's not get distracted by trivialities".
Yeah, such as the truth.
This looks like a good move by Mueller; the indictment doesn't accuse the Trump campaign of anything, but at the same time identifies serious Russian interference in the election. That makes it more difficult for Trump to move against Mueller because to do so would be to side with Russia (and therefore demonstrate his own guilt).
I assume it's intended partly to dispel the arguments that there might have been no interference, that the source of interference can't be proven, or that any interference might not have been criminal.
Manafort and Gates' indictments were about those two people receiving payments from the Ukraine; both Flynn and Gates are still working on plea deals so we've no idea what they're actually admitting to yet; Papadopoulos admitted only making false statements to the FBI. So none of those directly allege any misdeed seeking to affect the outcome of the election, only personal enrichment and dishonesty about what may or may not have taken place.
I don't think there's any "intention" behind it. This is a wide ranging investigation following a ton of leads in a ton of directions. When there is enough evidence to present an indictment, it is issued unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as not wanting to alert other subjects of investigations to what he knows until later)
He isn't reading tea leaves and deciding when to issue them based on what Trump is doing or the press is saying.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
