14-07-2019, 05:49 PM
Does anybody have any good sources which might analyze the Mueller indictments? I have just read all or parts of three documents which try to pin some sort of blame on the Russians in 2016.
The "troll farm" indictment is shaky because it relies on the Federal mail fraud statute. That statute requires someone to have been defrauded, which means they have to have been deprived of TITLE to their property. Not clear whether (if your identity is stolen) you have been deprived of title to your identity. Even if your identity is stolen, you still have your identity. See the catch here? Mere temporary possession of the subject property doesn't count. You have to actually steal the title (i.e. ownership) of the property.
The indictment of the Russian GRU is even more fantastic IMHO. Mueller wasted his time indicting the Russian intelligence service. Why didn't FDR think of that? He could have indicted Hitler and the SS in 1941. That would have solved everything. Right?
The DNC hacking (GRU) indictment doesn't even specify which statutes the GRU violated, except as the statutes were listed at the top of the indictment.
The GRU is accused of "hacking" but it's not stated whether "hacking" has a definition in the Federal criminal law statutes or cases. The same thing applies when the indictment mentions "spearphishing". I doubt whether there is a Federal "spearphishing" statute. The indictment doesn't speak to that.
I also searched the Mueller Report itself for the letters "DNC". Where the Mueller Report actually describes the DNC "hacking", it does so in a convoluted and weasel-worded manner IMHO. The Mueller Report does, however, mention the name "Seth Rich". That might be significant, especially when Mueller testifies to Congress (if he doesn't chicken out).
As far as my own understanding of the three documents mentioned above, we will all have to wait for someone with some computer expertise to write a book which can properly analyze the Mueller information for it's technical claims and conclusions. It says the Russians used a server in Illinois as part of all this messy confusion. Whose server in Illinois? It's not laid out.
The Mueller Report is just too obtuse in its discussion of the complex hacking which it alleges. Maybe researchers can clear the air a little bit.
James Lateer
The "troll farm" indictment is shaky because it relies on the Federal mail fraud statute. That statute requires someone to have been defrauded, which means they have to have been deprived of TITLE to their property. Not clear whether (if your identity is stolen) you have been deprived of title to your identity. Even if your identity is stolen, you still have your identity. See the catch here? Mere temporary possession of the subject property doesn't count. You have to actually steal the title (i.e. ownership) of the property.
The indictment of the Russian GRU is even more fantastic IMHO. Mueller wasted his time indicting the Russian intelligence service. Why didn't FDR think of that? He could have indicted Hitler and the SS in 1941. That would have solved everything. Right?
The DNC hacking (GRU) indictment doesn't even specify which statutes the GRU violated, except as the statutes were listed at the top of the indictment.
The GRU is accused of "hacking" but it's not stated whether "hacking" has a definition in the Federal criminal law statutes or cases. The same thing applies when the indictment mentions "spearphishing". I doubt whether there is a Federal "spearphishing" statute. The indictment doesn't speak to that.
I also searched the Mueller Report itself for the letters "DNC". Where the Mueller Report actually describes the DNC "hacking", it does so in a convoluted and weasel-worded manner IMHO. The Mueller Report does, however, mention the name "Seth Rich". That might be significant, especially when Mueller testifies to Congress (if he doesn't chicken out).
As far as my own understanding of the three documents mentioned above, we will all have to wait for someone with some computer expertise to write a book which can properly analyze the Mueller information for it's technical claims and conclusions. It says the Russians used a server in Illinois as part of all this messy confusion. Whose server in Illinois? It's not laid out.
The Mueller Report is just too obtuse in its discussion of the complex hacking which it alleges. Maybe researchers can clear the air a little bit.
James Lateer