George Stepanopoulos just said the timing of this indictment...

[Raoul_Luke]

Simply cannot be coincidence. He flat out said it appears to be an attempt to "put pressure" on Trump to not make nice with Putin on Monday. This is a guy who has worked in the White House, and is not exactly a right wing "conspiracy theorist." He is speaking from an informed position on this matter. And what he is clearly alluding to is that there is, in fact, a deep state - that (obviously) feels powerful enough to push the President around.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Simply cannot be coincidence. He flat out said it appears to be an attempt to "put pressure" on Trump to not make nice with Putin on Monday. This is a guy who has worked in the White House, and is not exactly a right wing "conspiracy theorist." He is speaking from an informed position on this matter. And what he is clearly alluding to is that there is, in fact, a deep state - that (obviously) feels powerful enough to push the President around.

If that’s true, it was a remarkable display of patriotism, which clearly leaves you puzzled.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

If that’s true, it was a remarkable display of patriotism, which clearly leaves you puzzled.

If they in fact have proof, I would agree. Would you mind listing for me the proof that Lukashev was, in fact, the man behind the Podesta/DNC email hacks?

 

[RickWA]

If they in fact have proof, I would agree. Would you mind listing for me the proof that Lukashev was, in fact, the man behind the Podesta/DNC email hacks?

Bugsy's constant invoking of "patriot" and "patriotism" as weapon against those who don't agree with his Democratic Party-provided dogma shows just how illiberal he is.

Leftists in this forum are truly wretched, trending worse.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Bugsy's constant invoking of "patriot" and "patriotism" as weapon against those who don't agree with his Democratic Party-provided dogma shows just how illiberal he is.

Leftists in this forum are truly wretched, trending worse.

He will "patriotically" ignore my request for the list of evidence used to attribute the Podesta/DNC email hacks to Aleksey Lukashev. Because none was listed (or even alluded to) in the indictment. My guess is that it's exceedingly weak. This was a political indictment, not a legal one...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

If they in fact have proof, I would agree. Would you mind listing for me the proof that Lukashev was, in fact, the man behind the Podesta/DNC email hacks?

As you well know, the only evidence of which we’re aware is in the indictment. I suggest you read it. The actual underlying evidence consists of some of the most complex, technical cybersleuthing our law enforcement community has ever engaged in. I’m sure you and your fellow Putin/Trump defenders will demand the disclosure of all the sensitive sources and methods that allow us to track such crimes.

And it was over a year ago that our nation’s intel agencies unanimously concluded that the Kremlin was behind the illegal hackings and their fake news campaigns. I know your compulsive need to defend Putin will lead you to take Putin’s word, but patriots have no problem concluding that the Kremlin did it, and that they did it to get Trump elected.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

As you well know, the only evidence of which we’re aware is in the indictment. I suggest you read it. The actual underlying evidence consists of some of the most complex, technical cybersleuthing our law enforcement community has ever engaged in. I’m sure you and your fellow Putin/Trump defenders will demand the disclosure of all the sensitive sources and methods that allow us to track such crimes.

And it was over a year ago that our nation’s intel agencies unanimously concluded that the Kremlin was behind the illegal hackings and their fake news campaigns. I know your compulsive need to defend Putin will lead you to take Putin’s word, but patriots have no problem concluding that the Kremlin did it, and that they did it to get Trump elected.

So you admit you have no idea how they determined this ham sandwich, I mean Russian "spy" was the guy behind these hacks.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So you admit you have no idea how they determined this ham sandwich, I mean Russian "spy" was the guy behind these hacks.

Nope. Confront what I actually said, if you can.

Your need to defend Putin has you lying your ass off.

 

[georgephillip]

Simply cannot be coincidence. He flat out said it appears to be an attempt to "put pressure" on Trump to not make nice with Putin on Monday. This is a guy who has worked in the White House, and is not exactly a right wing "conspiracy theorist." He is speaking from an informed position on this matter. And what he is clearly alluding to is that there is, in fact, a deep state - that (obviously) feels powerful enough to push the President around.

Would you care to predict the winner of a chess match between Putin and Trump?

http://freechessvideos.com/chess-legend-slams-trump-in-any-game-of-wits-i-would-bet-on-putin-2/

 

[Spamature]

Simply cannot be coincidence. He flat out said it appears to be an attempt to "put pressure" on Trump to not make nice with Putin on Monday. This is a guy who has worked in the White House, and is not exactly a right wing "conspiracy theorist." He is speaking from an informed position on this matter. And what he is clearly alluding to is that there is, in fact, a deep state - that (obviously) feels powerful enough to push the President around.

So ? Who cares what he says. He's not on the team going after the traitors in our midst.

 

[middleview]

If they in fact have proof, I would agree. Would you mind listing for me the proof that Lukashev was, in fact, the man behind the Podesta/DNC email hacks?

If he had been on the grand jury he'd know what the evidence was. It was an indictment from the grand jury, right?

 

[middleview]

He will "patriotically" ignore my request for the list of evidence used to attribute the Podesta/DNC email hacks to Aleksey Lukashev. Because none was listed (or even alluded to) in the indictment. My guess is that it's exceedingly weak. This was a political indictment, not a legal one...

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-07-13/long-hidden-hackers-unmasked-by-us-special-counsel

 

[middleview]

Simply cannot be coincidence. He flat out said it appears to be an attempt to "put pressure" on Trump to not make nice with Putin on Monday. This is a guy who has worked in the White House, and is not exactly a right wing "conspiracy theorist." He is speaking from an informed position on this matter. And what he is clearly alluding to is that there is, in fact, a deep state - that (obviously) feels powerful enough to push the President around.

This was the perfect time to publish the indictments.....while Trump is meeting Putin he can find out if Putin intends to extradite the hackers who have been indicted.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-07-13/long-hidden-hackers-unmasked-by-us-special-counsel

Interesting. Can you point me to the passage in that article that illustrates how exactly they know Katenberg = Lukashev? I can't seem to find it in there.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

If he had been on the grand jury he'd know what the evidence was. It was an indictment from the grand jury, right?

"As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.'" — Solomon L. Wisenberg, "

https://www.wisenberglaw.com/White-Collar-Criminal-Defense/Grand-Jury-Investigations.shtml

 

[middleview]

"As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich.'" — Solomon L. Wisenberg, "

https://www.wisenberglaw.com/White-Collar-Criminal-Defense/Grand-Jury-Investigations.shtml

Then tell me why no attempt has been made to indict Hillary Clinton.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Then tell me why no attempt has been made to indict Hillary Clinton.

Your question answers itself...

 

[middleview]

Interesting. Can you point me to the passage in that article that illustrates how exactly they know Katenberg = Lukashev? I can't seem to find it in there.

It was that 19,000-line database that allowed the AP to reconstruct Katenberg's digital movements, logging every malicious link he and his colleagues created between March 2015 and May 2016.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It was that 19,000-line database that allowed the AP to reconstruct Katenberg's digital movements, logging every malicious link he and his colleagues created between March 2015 and May 2016.

Yes, that was "Secureworks'" claim (do you suppose this indictment is based on a private company's finding rather than the result of an actual, you know, FBI investigation?), that "Katenberg" was involved (which I certainly would accept as fact). Now, can you point to the part of this account that illustrates how they know Lukashev was "Katenberg?"

 

[middleview]

Your question answers itself...

Trump owns the DOJ. They have made no attempt to indict Hillary, Steele, Strzok, Page...none of the people you seem to think are part of a coup to bring down the Trump administration. The reason there has been no attempt is because they have nothing at all to present to the grand jury....

Same reason there has been no attempt to indict Hillary for her email server.