The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
can someone c/p this Mukasey article about the Russian indictments?
| razzle-dazzle crotch | 07/18/18 |
| thriller insecure address | 07/18/18 |
| peach bossy center faggotry | 07/18/18 |
| razzle-dazzle crotch | 07/18/18 |
| rose outnumbered tanning salon halford | 07/18/18 |
| Azure kitchen | 07/18/18 |
| thriller insecure address | 07/18/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 18th, 2018 3:56 PM Author: razzle-dazzle crotch The Russia Indictments: Why Now? The point of the hacking appears to have been to hurt President Clinton, not elect President Trump. By Michael B. Mukasey July 16, 2018 6:03 p.m. ET The indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents last week, on charges they hacked into Democratic National Committee and other servers during the 2016 campaign, raises questions about the timing of the announcement and the work of the hackers themselves. The news came on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit. Why then?
The president was told of the indictments before he traveled. Yet the plain effect of the announcement was to raise further doubts about the wisdom of the meeting—and perhaps to shape its agenda. Neither...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-russia-indictments-why-now-1531778599 |
Date: July 18th, 2018 6:13 PM Author: thriller insecure address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36454854) |
|
Date: July 18th, 2018 6:20 PM Author: peach bossy center faggotry Cookie Notice We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. To find out more, including how to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY DJIA25199.29 0.32%▲ S&P 5002815.62 0.22%▲ Nasdaq7854.44 -0.01%▼ U.S. 10 Yr-2/32 Yield2.873%▼ Crude Oil68.91 0.22%▲ Euro1.1644 0.03%▲ Subscribe NowSign In The Wall Street Journal U.S. Edition July 18, 2018
Today's PaperVideo Home World U.S. Politics Economy Business Tech Markets Opinion Life & Arts Real Estate WSJ. Magazine Search
Link copied… OPINION COMMENTARY The Russia Indictments: Why Now? The point of the hacking appears to have been to hurt President Clinton, not elect President Trump. Close
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., July 13. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., July 13. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES By Michael B. Mukasey July 16, 2018 6:03 p.m. ET 576 COMMENTS The indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents last week, on charges they hacked into Democratic National Committee and other servers during the 2016 campaign, raises questions about the timing of the announcement and the work of the hackers themselves. The news came on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit. Why then?
The president was told of the indictments before he traveled. Yet the plain effect of the announcement was to raise further doubts about the wisdom of the meeting—and perhaps to shape its agenda. Neither is the business of the special counsel or anyone else at the Justice Department. The department has a longstanding policy, not directly applicable here but at least analogous, that candidates should not be charged close to an election, absent urgent need, lest the charges themselves affect the outcome. The general principle would seem to apply: Prosecutors are supposed to consider the impact of their actions on significant events outside the criminal-justice system, and to act with due diffidence.
From a law-enforcement standpoint, there was nothing urgent about these indictments. All 12 defendants are in Russia; none are likely ever to see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.
Alternative strategies were available. In 2008 Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, known to law enforcement as the “Merchant of Death” and the defendant in a sealed indictment, was lured in a sting by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Thailand, where he was seized. The Thais, to their great credit, resisted heavy Russian pressure to release him. Instead they fulfilled their treaty obligations and granted a U.S. extradition request.
It has been argued that the objective of last week’s indictments was not to prosecute the defendants but to “name and shame” them. They were named, and even their military intelligence units disclosed—but shamed? In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian defector to the U.K., was poisoned in London with polonium from a Russian nuclear facility. Litvinenko had charged that Vladimir Putin was directly responsible for bombing a Moscow apartment building in 1999, an event used as a pretext for the invasion of Chechnya.
Andrei Lugovoi, implicated in the assassination, fled the U.K. and returned to Russia. Not only did Moscow refuse a British extradition request, but Mr. Putin decorated Mr. Lugovoi for “services to the nation.” Mr. Lugovoi was given a seat in the Russian Parliament in 2007. On that record, the 12 indicted hackers are likelier to be lionized than ostracized.
Recall also that the only basis for appointing a special counsel under applicable regulations was the conflict of interest and special circumstance presented by a Justice Department investigation into possibly unlawful conduct by the president’s campaign. Thus the initial order appointing Robert Mueller directs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. ” Thus far, numerous Russians have been charged with crimes related to the campaign, and several “individuals associated with the campaign” have been charged with crimes unrelated to the charges against the Russians or to the Trump campaign. No “links” or “coordination” has been charged or even suggested.
Turning to the crime charged, and assuming that the 12 current Russian defendants are guilty, why did they do what they did, in the way that they did?
Despite the wide-eyed, golly-Mr.-Science tone in much of the news coverage, the indictment doesn’t portray cutting-edge Russian intelligence capabilities. The defendants all are said to be members of GRU, Russia’s main military intelligence unit. It is comprised largely of former special-forces types who are looked down upon by their more sophisticated competitors in the SVR, successor to Mr. Putin’s alma mater, the KGB. Their acts, as portrayed in the indictment, obviously were detected—in exquisite detail—by U.S. intelligence services. GRU’s phishing venture, although widespread, was primitive compared with the SVR’s capabilities.
Why would Mr. Putin, an SVR alumnus, give GRU a mission meant to be highly covert? Was this a serious attempt to swing the election to Donald Trump?
At the time of the hacking, virtually no one gave Mr. Trump any chance of winning. Mr. Putin is a thug, but he is not reckless. It seems unlikely he would place a high-stakes bet on a sure loser. Rather, he likely sought to embarrass the person certain to be the new president, assuring that she took office as damaged goods.
Why leave fingerprints? If the only goal was to inflict damage, the new president would have been not only damaged, but also resentful. Even the person who happily posed with a mislabeled “reset” button in frothier days likely would have turned sour.
The point likely was not merely to inflict damage but also to send a warning. Consider the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized and vulnerable email server. It found that the bureau had concluded the server could well have been penetrated without detection. Recall also that some of the people hacked by GRU agents were aware of that server and mentioned it in messages they sent, so that the Russians too were aware of it. The SVR certainly was capable of an undetected hack.
There are some 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton did not turn over, on the claim that they were personal and involved such trivia as yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding. If they instead contained damaging information—say, regarding Clinton Foundation fundraising—the new president would have taken office in the shadow of a sword dangling from a string held by the Russians.
As we watch the drama of an investigation into whether the president or those close to him committed crimes to help the Russian government, it seems useful to keep in mind not only the possibilities but also the plausibilities.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and a U.S. district judge (1988-2006).
Appeared in the July 17, 2018, print edition.
Recommended Videos https://m.wsj.net/video/20180718/071818haircut2/071818haircut2_115x65.jpg How to Spot a High-End Men's Haircut https://m.wsj.net/video/20180718/071818thailand002/071818thailand002_115x65.jpg Thai Cave Rescue Boys Recount Their Ordeal https://m.wsj.net/video/20180716/071618seib/071618seib_115x65.jpg Why Didn't Trump Confront Putin Publicly? https://m.wsj.net/video/20180717/071718trumpremarks1/071718trumpremarks1_115x65.jpg Trump, in a Reversal, Says Russia Meddled in 2016 Election https://m.wsj.net/video/20180715/071218lawncare/071218lawncare_115x65.jpg One Man's Obsession With Lawn Care Most Popular Articles The Most Important Factors for a Comfortable Flight The Most Important Factors for a Comfortable Flight Vote Joe Crowley, for Working Families Opinion: Vote Joe Crowley, for Working Families Retirement Bills in Congress Could Alter 401(k) Plans Retirement Bills in Congress Could Alter 401(k) Plans EU’s Google Fine Threatens to Shake Mobile Industry EU’s Google Fine Threatens to Shake Mobile Industry Texas Instruments CEO Resigns After Ethics Violations Texas Instruments CEO Resigns After Ethics Violations SHOW COMMENTS (576) The Wall Street Journal U.S. Edition Subscribe NowSign In BACK TO TOP « WSJ Membership
WSJ+ Membership Benefits Digital Subscription Print Subscription Print and Digital Subscription Why Subscribe? Corporate Subscriptions Professor Journal Student Journal WSJ Amenity Program Customer Service
Customer Center Contact Us Notice to Subscribers Tools & Features
Emails & Alerts Guides My News RSS Feeds Topics Video Center Watchlist Podcasts Ads
Advertise Advertise Locally Commercial Real Estate Ads Place a Classified Ad Sell Your Business Sell Your Home Recruitment & Career Ads More
Content Partnerships Corrections Jobs at WSJ News Archive Register for Free Reprints Google+ YouTube Podcasts Snapchat Google Play App Store Dow Jones ProductsBarron'sBigChartsDJXDow Jones NewswiresFactivaFinancial NewsMansion GlobalMarketWatchPrivate Marketsrealtor.comRisk & ComplianceWSJ ConferenceWSJ Pro Central BankingWSJ VideoWSJ Wine Privacy PolicyCookie PolicyCopyright PolicyData PolicySubscriber Agreement & Terms of UseYour Ad Choices Copyright ©2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
 |
Date: July 18th, 2018 7:20 PM Author: razzle-dazzle crotch thank. a voice of reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36455207) |
|
Date: July 18th, 2018 7:30 PM Author: rose outnumbered tanning salon halford Wow so some newspapers have retained an element of sanity on this topic. Good to see. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36455277) |
|
Date: July 18th, 2018 8:27 PM Author: Azure kitchen WSJ is legit the only level-headed news source left in the country (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36455533) |
|
Date: July 18th, 2018 8:27 PM Author: thriller insecure address Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4029457&forum_id=2#36455527) |