Jimbo wrote:First of all I said the indictment "seemed" powerful. Frankly I couldn't follow much of the legalese. I could assume it had meaning or it was jargon meant to be confusing to the average reader. I'm assuming it's bullshit.
Well, I'll tell you one thing: you can't "fool" judges with bullshit, obfuscatory legalese in federal court.
Somebody at The New Yorker wrote:The latest indictment issued by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, charged twelve members of the G.R.U., Russia’s military-intelligence directorate, with hacking and disseminating Democratic e-mails and other files during the election. It is a highly detailed document, in many ways remarkable. In it, we learn, for instance, that Western intelligence officers had penetrated the G.R.U. so thoroughly that they could track the keystrokes of individual Russian operatives at their desks in a Moscow building. We learn that these G.R.U. staff members essentially Googled vulnerabilities in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee before hacking into it. We learn that, from within the D.C.C.C., the G.R.U. hackers moved into the D.N.C. We learn that D.N.C. data were relayed to an American server in Illinois as they were being exfiltrated. We learn that G.R.U. officers used cryptocurrency to pay people around the world to provide things that the operation required—domain names, access to virtual private networks (V.P.N.s). The indictment may only be an accusation, but it hints at the remarkably granular forensic intelligence that has been gathered.
Either you think this stuff happened, or you think Mueller just made it all up.
Which scenario seems more likely to you?https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... -it-doesnt
(This article gets pretty deep into the weeds regarding the chain of custody of stolen emails, and I ultimately found it not very helpful, but I do think the basis for it is sound.)