| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| The WSJ: The Russia Indictments: Why Now? |
| 2018-07-17 |
| We've already discussed some of the reasons, but here's another from the WSJ. [WSJ] 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. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #4 Yet the plain effect of the announcement was to raise further doubts about the wisdom of the meeting‐and perhaps to shape its agenda. Donald Trump doesn't do "plain effects". I have been forced to the conclusion that trump can make lemonade out of lemons faster than any other politician / celebrity. No matter what you deal him say an off suit seven deuce, he will find a way to make it a winning hand. They never lay a glove on him (to mix a metaphor) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-07-17 16:27 |
| #3 The 30,000 Clinton emails? They're 'now' part of an 'ongoing criminal investigation' involving a consortium of evil Russians. Sorry, you cannot see them. Add to that the DNC hacking, the Awans, DWS and all the rest. See those documents, no we're sorry. They are now all part of the on-going Russian indictments. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-07-17 12:50 |
| #2 By tradition, evidence is necessary in court of American law. Compartmentalized info does not qualify as 'you'll have to take my word for it' in a just court of law. Given who'd play that line, let's just say, no, we don't believe you. It's just another play of 'Squirrel' |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-07-17 11:53 |
| #1 The point likely was not merely to inflict damage but also to send a warning. The Russians would have had the ability to blackmail Clinton, and still do. Death by 30,000 emails, a 'Russian' insurance policy. The 30,000 Clinton emails? They're 'now' part of an 'ongoing criminal investigation' involving a consortium of evil Russians. Sorry, you cannot see them. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-07-17 08:30 |