Maybe we have different definitions of "Russiagate", but I don't think anyone doubts Russian (or Chinese, American, Iranian, Israeli...) state-sponsored cyberattacks are a thing.
...because this is a SOP for global super powers. I don't think that the Russians do anything that the Americans don't do better and more secretly.
SOP= Standard Operating Procedure
America may do bad things, but these specific bad things generally aren't actually an attack vector on China or Russia.
Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm having trouble parsing your comment. Would you be willing to say it differently?
"I will keep this [stored/saved/bookmarked] so that I can post it as counterargument under any comment claiming that 'Russiagate' didn't actually happen."
As to the efficacy of this counterargument, see the sibling comments of yours.
If they actually cared about catching these people, they'd keep the indictments secret so that they might go to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US.
They can have the trial without arrests. It happens all the time.
If convicted, then they are sanctioned, or face some other externally-viable penalty. Often through restricting their ability to travel to allied countries and use the banking systems outside their home country.
Even a public defender being present requires you to affirmatively agree to them being your lawyer, or else you defend yourself at trial.
There's no way to have a trial in the US without them being present.
The same way it was done all those times when American people sued the Iranian government in American courts. This is not new ground. This has been going on for at least half a century.
I am sure the authorities involved are well aware of these people's travel patterns when making these decisions.
If you're never going to catch someone, might as well name-and-shame them -- and send a warning to anyone else who might want to commit the same crimes.
When the announcement itself heavily impedes catching and trying the targets of the investigation, the announcement itself is the end goal.
So you're claiming if this was kept secret the odds of catching the person would increase dramatically?
What stats do you base this on?
>as would be standard under such situations
Where is this standard? There are plenty of indictments issued all the time followed by arrests. What evidence do you have that unsealed indictments has a higher arrest rate?
We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others.
So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote.
I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically charged indictments exists. Which leads one to the idea that of making this indictment public is contrary to the standard goals of prosecuting a crime, then there's a different goal in mind. That goal is intrinsically linked to making public declarations you can't execute on.
I can't think of a better definition of propaganda.
There are benefits to it - it opens doors, gets other law enforcement involved, can lead to public awareness to help apprehend, etc.
I think you formed an opinion not based on the evidence.
What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"?
Like what's specifically different about them versus Assange that makes it more likely to bring them to trial by publicly announcing the indictment?
It lets other countries know we're looking for someone. For example, here [1] is the US indictment from 2015 for Russian national Aleksei Yurievich Burkov. This let other countries know we wanted him. He was arrested later that year in Israel, and held because he was indicted by an ally country. He was extradited to the US in early 2020, tried, and sentenced to a long prison term.
Care to explain how public awareness does not get people arrested? Even from Russia?
There are plenty of cases like this. I see very few arrests and extraditions followed by public indictments. Do some searching in the DOJ court cases.
I'm done here. You form a lot of opinions based on very little data, and seem uninterested in solid statistical evidence before making claims, which is what I care about. Unfounded opinions are not useful to me.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14431846/united-states-...
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.326720...
That's why he went to such a US friendly country like Israel in the first place; he didn't know for sure there was an indictment filed for him.
We don't need to unseal indictments in order to coordinate with other countries' law enforcement. We have mechanisms for privately working with them without making public announcements.
Indictment unsealed after arrest.
>Romano Pisciotti
Indictment unsealed after arrest.
>Viktor Bout
Indictment unsealed after arrest.
El Chapo and Ira Einhorn both fled after being made aware of their indictments.
The case for it being propaganda goes something like this: Barr's DoJ is making this charge publicly released so that the US can appear to be "tough on Russia." Despite Trump failing to condemn Navalny's Novichok poisoning or taking action regarding the intel on Russian blood-bounties on US soldiers. This would follow the pattern of other pro-Trump (painting him as a victim, or strong-man where convenient) politicized DoJ announcements such as 9 ballots being found in the trash, including noting that 7 of them were cast for Trump.
https://www.axios.com/trump-russia-bounties-taliban-putin-ca... https://www.axios.com/trump-alexei-navalny-poisoning-russia-... https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/revised-statement-us-at...
Or is everything involving Russia now its own "Russiagate"?
It is not technically collusion.
-- Reort on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
It's not possible to come to a legal conclusion on a question which lacks a legal definition.
So the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian election interference, of which there was a breathtaking amount[2]. It's also telling that Trump, who never has spared an unkind word for anyone, has never spoken ill of Russia for his entire term.
It's also worth noting that the special counsel was never allowed to indict the President, or even say that indictable conduct occurred, due to Justice Department policy. The absolute strongest available language that they could use was that their report didn't exonerate the President, and that's exactly what the report said.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-tr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...
How does this end up on Wikipedia?
If you're interested in more, there's the very sizable list, "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
I am from NL, and I will raise you : our current Prime Minister promised all citizens € 1000. Guess what? We never got it.
Pretty basic garden variety bribery.
Is there any reason to believe the project would not have been approved without the alleged favors?