Mueller Indictment of Russians for Illegal Political Activities

February 18, 2018

It appears the Ruskies began a general plan to sow discord long before Trump was a candidate. In the primaries, that meant going after the establishment candidates on both sides, in favor of Bernie and Trump. Consider Section 10 e:

By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION’s strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of “spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

And Section 43 (preamble):

By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.

Then Section 43 a:

On or about February 10, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted to ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump- we support them).”

As for the actual collusion issue, there does not appear to be a smoking gun at least as far as the Introduction goes. Consider Section 6:

…Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. Emphasis added.

@gumbymark flagged the post-election pro-Trump and anti-Trump rallies of Section 57:

After the election of Donald Trump in or around November 2016, Defendants and their coconspirators used false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies in support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies protesting the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Interestingly, the copy released by the DoJ is an image PDF so you can’t text search it without OCR. Probably violates an accessibility law or two.

Published in Law, Politics

Tags: Donald Trump, investigation, Robert Mueller, Russia

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Inactive
Larry Koler
@LarryKoler

7:25 PM EST ⋅ Feb 16, 2018

WillowSpring (View Comment):
In the race to “sew discord” in the American political process, Russia comes in third behind the Democrats and the media.

Brilliant!

And so true – a distant third.
- #31

Member
Gary Robbins
@GaryRobbins

11:20 PM EST ⋅ Feb 16, 2018

The indictments may be the beginning of the end.

The next question is the nexus between Trump and the Russians, and what the heck Putin has on Trump.

We shall see.
- #32

Coolidge
TBA
@RobtGilsdorf

11:28 PM EST ⋅ Feb 16, 2018

Gary Robbins (View Comment):
The indictments may be the beginning of the end.

The next question is the nexus between Trump and the Russians, and what the heck Putin has on Trump.

We shall see.

Why is that the next question and not the first question?

This is a dog and pony show.

SO WHERE IS THE GODDAMN DOG AND GODDAMN PONY?!
- #33

Member
OkieSailor
@OkieSailor

5:18 AM EST ⋅ Feb 17, 2018

Richard Easton (View Comment):
Can Israel indict Obama for interfering with their 2014 election?

Yes. The only result would be he could no longer travel to Israel…..which wouldn’t affect his travel plans one whit.
- #34

Coolidge
TBA
@RobtGilsdorf

7:28 AM EST ⋅ Feb 17, 2018
Gumby Mark (View Comment):
I found this interesting in Section 34, which is consistent with what I’d heard about Russians trolling all sides of conflicts in the US (apologize for formatting from PDF):

34. Defendants and their co-conspirators also created

thematic

group pages

[Reformatted for Your Reading Pleasure]
1. Defendants and their co-conspirators also created thematic group pages on social media sites , particularly on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram. ORGANIZATION – controlled pages addressed a range of issues, including: immigration (with group names including “Secured Borders”); the Black Lives Matter movement (with group names including “Blacktivist”); religion (with group names including “ United Muslims of America” and “Army of Jesus”); and certain geographic regions within the United States (with group names including “South United ” and “Heart of Texas”). By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION -controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers.
- #35

Inactive
Aaron Miller
@AaronMiller

8:27 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

ctlaw:As for the actual collusion issue, there does not appear to be a smoking gun at least as far as the Introduction goes. Consider Section 6:

…Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities. Emphasis added.

The “and with other political activists” probably means the Clinton campaign. If this comes before a Congressional inquiry, Republicans should demand that a full list of those “political activists” be provided.
- #36

Member
Danny Alexander
@DannyAlexander

9:23 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

Second look at Bob Creamer?…
- #37

Coolidge
Gumby Mark
@GumbyMark

9:43 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

I’ve posted a piece speculating that for Putin this was all a win-win strategy, with him coming out ahead no matter who won, though he was probably surprised it was Trump.
- #38

Inactive
Ontheleftcoast
@Ontheleftcoast

10:28 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

Larry Koler (View Comment):
Just want to understand something: This series of indictments wasn’t based on any evidence of Trump and his campaign of colluding. OK, which indictments will be based on that kind of evidence?

I didn’t read any clear exculpatory remarks for Trump and his campaign. It’s just that so far nothing is forthcoming. Stay tuned for more later.

Can you guys shed any light on the wording in the press briefings?

I can’t but John Hinderaker at PowerLine has some ideas (with discussion.)

I don’t doubt that election lawyers could come up with defenses for Christopher Steele, were he to be charged with violating §30121. But that is a can of worms that Mueller didn’t want to open. Too many people know the facts behind the Steele dossier, and if he had charged the Russians with meddling in the presidential election under §30121, he soon would have faced questions about why he didn’t indict Steele–and Glenn Simpson, Perkins, Coie, Clinton campaign officials, and perhaps Clinton–for the same offense.

It was in order to avoid that pitfall, I suspect, that Mueller overlooked the most relevant federal offense that the Russians committed, and instead charged them with a vague “conspiracy to defraud,” along with wire fraud, bank fraud and identity theft. The first charge is entirely discretionary on Mueller’s part, and Steele didn’t commit wire fraud, bank fraud or identity theft.

I think that is why Mueller chose not to indict the Russians for meddling in a U.S. presidential election.

[emphasis added]
- #39

Inactive
Larry Koler
@LarryKoler

10:48 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

Larry Koler (View Comment):
Just want to understand something: This series of indictments wasn’t based on any evidence of Trump and his campaign of colluding. OK, which indictments will be based on that kind of evidence?

I didn’t read any clear exculpatory remarks for Trump and his campaign. It’s just that so far nothing is forthcoming. Stay tuned for more later.

Can you guys shed any light on the wording in the press briefings?

I can’t but John Hinderaker at PowerLine has some ideas (with discussion.)

I don’t doubt that election lawyers could come up with defenses for Christopher Steele, were he to be charged with violating §30121. But that is a can of worms that Mueller didn’t want to open. Too many people know the facts behind the Steele dossier, and if he had charged the Russians with meddling in the presidential election under §30121, he soon would have faced questions about why he didn’t indict Steele–and Glenn Simpson, Perkins, Coie, Clinton campaign officials, and perhaps Clinton–for the same offense.

It was in order to avoid that pitfall, I suspect, that Mueller overlooked the most relevant federal offense that the Russians committed, and instead charged them with a vague “conspiracy to defraud,” along with wire fraud, bank fraud and identity theft. The first charge is entirely discretionary on Mueller’s part, and Steele didn’t commit wire fraud, bank fraud or identity theft.

I think that is why Mueller chose not to indict the Russians for meddling in a U.S. presidential election.

[emphasis added]

So, Mueller is looking for easy wins — trying to make his “investigation” look worthwhile.
- #40

Inactive
Ontheleftcoast
@Ontheleftcoast

11:00 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

Larry Koler (View Comment):

Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

Larry Koler (View Comment):
Just want to understand something: This series of indictments wasn’t based on any evidence of Trump and his campaign of colluding. OK, which indictments will be based on that kind of evidence?

I didn’t read any clear exculpatory remarks for Trump and his campaign. It’s just that so far nothing is forthcoming. Stay tuned for more later.

Can you guys shed any light on the wording in the press briefings?

I can’t but John Hinderaker at PowerLine has some ideas (with discussion.)

I don’t doubt that election lawyers could come up with defenses for Christopher Steele, were he to be charged with violating §30121. But that is a can of worms that Mueller didn’t want to open. Too many people know the facts behind the Steele dossier, and if he had charged the Russians with meddling in the presidential election under §30121, he soon would have faced questions about why he didn’t indict Steele–and Glenn Simpson, Perkins, Coie, Clinton campaign officials, and perhaps Clinton–for the same offense.

It was in order to avoid that pitfall, I suspect, that Mueller overlooked the most relevant federal offense that the Russians committed, and instead charged them with a vague “conspiracy to defraud,” along with wire fraud, bank fraud and identity theft. The first charge is entirely discretionary on Mueller’s part, and Steele didn’t commit wire fraud, bank fraud or identity theft.

I think that is why Mueller chose not to indict the Russians for meddling in a U.S. presidential election.

[emphasis added]

So, Mueller is looking for easy wins — trying to make his “investigation” look worthwhile.

Yeah. But for cheap thrills I much prefer this:
- #41

Inactive
Ontheleftcoast
@Ontheleftcoast

11:27 AM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

There are some other people that right now it looks like Mueller is very carefully not indicting. Jack Cashill:

Most importantly, perhaps, the Mueller investigation has established that meddling by foreign nationals in a U.S. election is real and problematic.  This being so, the DOJ and FBI might want to turn their attention to the role Mexican nationals played in the 2016 election.  They will not have to dig deep to find evidence….

Project Veritas managed to get journalist Allison Maass an internship at Democracy Partners.  In answer to Maass’s question about a practice known generically as “bird-dogging,” Creamer† explained his group’s hardball version thereof.  “You’re trying to actually confront people,” Creamer answered.  “The thing that makes the best television is, of course, the target: angry people.  That’s great TV.  Now, Trump – you don’t … maybe you want to get people to do something in advance to cause problems for him, and … I guess these guys are the DREAMers.  They’re just pros at this.”

“What do you mean by DREAMers?” Angela asked to get Creamer on record.

“DREAMers are the category of people brought here as children, as immigrants,” said Creamer, neglecting to say they came here illegally.

“So there’s, like, a specific group of DREAMers?” asked Maass.

“Well, there are organizations out there,” Creamer responded.  He identified a fellow named Cesar Vargas as the best of the organizers.  “This crew is spectacular at it,” Creamer added.  He explained that DREAMers have “a lot more legitimacy” because they are not specifically “operatives of the DNC or of the campaigns.”  Their presence at rallies, he believed, made for “good optics.”

“So Hillary is aware of all the work that you guys do, I hope?” Allison asked.

“Oh yeah,” said Creamer.  “Yes.  The campaign is fully in it.”

As Project Veritas learned, Vargas was a New York lawyer, the co-founder of the Dream Action Coalition, and a DREAMer himself.  “Only in the Democratic Party could an illegal alien achieve such heights without disguising his illegality,” O’Keefe writes.  Apparently, Vargas had known Creamer for years.

† Bob Creamer… is a big-time Democratic player.  He is married to Chicago-area congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and is close to both the Obamas and the Clintons.  According to visitor logs, Creamer made more than 340 trips to the White House during the Obama years, with 45 of those meetings including the president in attendance.
- #42

Coolidge
CarolJoy
@CarolJoy

6:43 PM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

Dorrk (View Comment):

Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
So, any time a non-American posts an opinion online about US politics, it’s criminal fraud.

Good to know.

Rather, it sounds like running a business from within the US with a covert intent to affect US politics, and using stolen social media identities to do so, is criminal fraud.

But uh wouldn’t it be necessary to make the pertinent Facebook ad buys before the election rather than after the election in order for anyone anywhere to decide the thirteen Russians wanted to affect election results? I mean, Mr Goldman himself (VP Of Facebook Ad Buys) has gone on the record as stating that the ad buys in question did not occur until after the election.

And above and beyond this “13 Ruskies” business, maybe if the FBI had been more concerned about the 39 reports on Nikolas Cruz than on trying to undermine the Trump Presidency, some students in Florida wouldn’t have had their lives ended this past week.
- #43

Inactive
Ontheleftcoast
@Ontheleftcoast

9:39 PM EST ⋅ Feb 18, 2018

It just keeps getting better:

4chan has a thread alleging Robert Mueller and his high-priced sham investigators got all the names and the idea for his Russian indictment from a 2015 Radio Free Europe article.

We plugged the article into Google translate (It’s in Ukrainian), and the article reads like the Mueller indictment.

See the original. It kinda looks like it’s true.

How much was Mueller’s budget again? We wuz robbed.

Unless of course it’s a really elaborate 4chan hoax…
- #44