« A Fascinating Set of Ground Rules for a Primary Challenger | Main | Cooper's Arrogant Condescension: Would Amazon Be a Mistake for North Carolina? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

These defendants will never see the inside of US Courtroom. 13 ham sandwiches


" A tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury , signifying nothing " ( as in nothing burger ) Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5 )

"The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University." LA Times

Wonder when Israel will indict US pols ( like Obama ) for interfering in their election process


The United States maintains diplomatic relations but does not have extradition treaty with Russia.

Mueller’s indictment today is the equivalent of nailing a bunch of Nigerian oil scammers. The Russians have been meddling in US elections (and probably those of other western nations, too) since the days of the Cold War. The only thing that’s changed is today they can sit home and work the Internet to sow their misdeeds. How different is the Russian agenda from that of CNN or MSNBC or the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times. Yes, the latter are all in the U.S., but their relentless, in the tank, advocacy , on behalf of Hillary Clinton was just as influential in terms of the lies and omissions as anything the Russians might have done. Plus, it wouldn’t surprise me in the end if we see these American outlets used and bought “unwittingly” by those they believed were kindred spirits but who, in reality, were secret agents of the Russian bear. Boo! At best, a third rate Internet fraud case pumped up to excuse Hillary’s loss. In time, it will become laughable. By the way, Obama’s FBI worked this case for two years before Trump entered the scene. Maybe we should add him to the thank you note to the Russians for saving us from Hillary.

BTW it was a it was a "talking indictment " which goes beyond laying out overt acts and facts sufficient to support the charges . They are frowned on by most federal courts and DOJ guidelines discourage their use because they contain too much extraneous info regarding details that may prejudice a fair trial and jury. They are useful, though, when a prosecutor has no intention trying the case but wants to tell a story just the same.

This is an example of life imitating art (wastefully)

The stuff of Natasha and Boris from 2010


As your source indicated, Fred, the appearance created at this point is everything...

The comments to this entry are closed.