I used to do that in a weird way with a lightly paranoid coworker (he wasn't battling mental illness or anything, he was fine). He did have a lot of concerns about e-privacy in the 90s (legit forward thinking stuff) and I would send him emails through open mail relays like whitehouse.gov and such "Hey man I dropped off all the magic white powder stuff in your blue Honda Accord.". It was all in jest, he was fine last I heard.
> 1. Select a "victim" under investigation by all US law enforcement agencies involved in counterintelligence and a significant fraction of Western intelligence agencies in general
Fixed that for you.
Maybe they'll accuse you of financing terrorism in the end. It's your right to trust justice to never make mistakes.
That's quite unlikely, because of exactly what you pointed out. The reality is that this case could not and was not meant to be able to stand up to the rigors of a federal prosecution with good defense attorneys in a US court. People that could not be arrested or extradited were indicted for a reason - Mueller knew this case would never actually be litigated. This was Mueller's ham sandwich indictment for the day [1].
This indictment was meant for Mueller to justify his existence and the expenses that we, the taxpayers, have incurred on this investigation. He got a PR win that satisfied the media's need for headlines about Russian involvement in the election by putting together some broad strokes, knowing that he'd never have to actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/ind...
https://i.imgur.com/8BaL1w9_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f...
Guilty: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/05/22/ap_1703269051709...
Guilty: https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2018/02/19...
Guilty: https://i0.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/...
Guilty: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/02/21/us/21meuller_dc/2...
You see, that's how a system based on law and order works.
Oh and did I mention, Mueller and the vast majority of his team are career Republicans, were appointed by Republicans, and gave up multi-million dollar a year jobs to do this? You know, the DEEP STATE.
They didn't lie, they don't have to. Everything in this indictment may be what they believe happened. But these are broad strokes. It looks like any of these allegations would be difficult or impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Grand juries indict based on probable cause, which an entirely different (and far lower) standard. They have probable cause if a credible witness, such as an FBI agent, simply tells them that they believe something happened.
They strongly implied that Mueller probably lied because they didn't have to tell the truth and no one could prove it.
> This and your other comments seem to imply that you have some sort of angry agenda here.
I do have an agenda: Support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unlike most natural born Americans, I take my Oath of Allegiance very seriously.
> One person pointed out some facts that you seem to not like, and you basically screamed and didn't even read the comment you were replying to.
Bingo: I don't like facts that are completely disconnected from reality. By definition, they're not facts.
If screaming means rejecting abject bullshit, I'll die happy.
> But you cannot deny that none of the people in this indictment face any risk of being arrested, which means the allegations in this specific indictment will never be challenged or proven.
The first group of Russians that were indicted for social media manipulation have lawyers defending them in court despite the fact that there is zero chance of extradition.
I don't know what your definition of "never" is, but it can't possibly overlap with the English cognate.
The comment literally says:
"They didn't lie, they don't have to. Everything in this indictment may be what they believe happened".
How is that ambiguous in any way?
By definition, they're not facts.
Russia does not extradite its own citizens to the US. That seems to be an undisputed fact. It's also a fact that the people named in this indictment - the indictment being discussed in this thread and the only people relevant to these comments - are Russian citizens. Accordingly, there is a 0% chance that these people will see the inside of a courtroom to litigate these charges.
1. Select a victim 2. Every time you are about to make a Bitcoin transaction, send an email to the victim's address requesting the amount you are about to send. (Bonus point if you can get directly into the spam folder.) 3. Send bitcoins as you intended to do.
Now lay back and wait for your victim to be linked to your shady activities.
(I'm writing this as a critique of the technique used and conclusions reached in the article. Hopefully the investigation has something more robust.)