I’ve been looking thru twitter and that’s one name that keeps coming up…or perhaps Roger Stone. Pundits were talking about Roger Stone having not been interviewed by Mueller to date, which they believe means that he is closer to being indicted (and therefore a bigger suspect) than Don Jr.
Yes, what a story…
The Main Intelligence Directorate, better known by the acronym GRU from its Russian name, is the Kremlin’s military intelligence arm. Founded not long after the Bolshevik revolution, it plays a much larger role than its rough U.S. equivalent, the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Since this came out GRU, Russian Miltary Intelligence, wouldn’t this attack perhaps invoke Article 5 of NATO? Just wondering aloud…
It’s Roger Stone!! Good catch @dragonfly9 !
Aug. 14, 2016. Stone and Guccifer 2.0 begin having a conversation over Twitter direct messages.
Yes…in full definition of one country (as well as Britain, Ukraine) being attacked by an adversary - Russia, it would be considered something that NATO would get behind. And a good point…a perfect time for Article 5 to be invoked.
The Russian meddling is considered an act of terrorism from a hostile outside country (non-Nato.) Because Russia wants to expand and is a hostile nation towards all other nations (Nato) it constitutes a threat to most democratic nations.
But with T giving a nod to strong-man countries/read: dictators/autocrats, we are inching closer to being a Russian ‘friend.’ This is not the consensus of the majority of Americans though…
But here’s an article from Brookings
(The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative. The Washington Post has described Brookings as centrist and liberal.)
Russia is indeed a sponsor of terrorism. But designating it as such would be counterproductive, and a closer look at the question shows the limits of designation as a tool of U.S. foreign policy.
The criteria for being on the list is rather vague:
The case for adding Russia is surprisingly straightforward. Russia has killed dissidents in multiple countries—a form of international terrorism in that it involves violent activity outside Russia, a political motive, and a broader goal of intimidating other dissidents.
Russia also supports violent groups on the ground that use terrorism.
Russia has backed anti-regime separatist militias with money, training, weapons, and direct military support, and some of these groups have used violence against civilians notably downing in 2014 of a Malaysian commercial flight that killed all 298 people aboard.
Just as Trump added North Korea to the list, so too it is tempting to show U.S. disapproval of Russia’s many hostile actions by calling it a terrorist.
And so on…
Bottom line…Russia is complicated. They are open for business, but they threaten us and others. Sanctions, kicking out their diplomats and keeping our military around their borders has seemed like the best deterrent. Our Nato friends would stand up for it. But do we have only Trump with his own/Putin’s agenda to blame now for not recognizing this threat. T needs to CYA with Putin.
@dragonfly9
If there’s one thing we learned from today’s indictment is that senior officials within the Trump Campaign were colluding directly with the Russian hackers. 
Deny, deny, deny…
Wow - amazing timeline – brings it all together. It reads like a spy novel. I think you should receive a WTFulitzer! 
Do you think “Organization 1” is Wikileaks? If so, this proves that Julian Assange is not some “cyber hero,” but a traitor to western democracies and we need to hold him accountable for his crimes.
Also (again assuming this is Wikileaks), we need to find out if Trump knew about these communications between Wikileaks and Russian Intelligence. During the campaign Trump kept saying how much he loved Wikileaks – if he knew they were acting on behalf of Russian Intelligence, that means Trump was also acting on behalf of Russian Intelligence. Saying he loved Wikileaks was tantamount to saying he loved Russian Intelligence.
Yes, I believe Organization 1 is Wkikileaks.
Tone deaf…Tribal response
@dragonfly9 Of course, of course they would move on Rosenstein. They have no other moves aside from admitting that they wrongly placed their faith in Donald Trump, who is a major focus of a Federal Counterintelligence Investigation.
Questions are surfacing about whether the July 27th 2016 pronouncement about…“Russia of you are listening…” was an inquiry by T, or a message to hackers to proceed, or just an acknowledgement that the request had already been made.
The gaps we have in knowing what were the true intentions of the Prez, remain a mystery until we are further along with more indictments.
Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?
In a news conference in July 2016, Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
As it turns out, that same day, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.
The indictment did not address the question of whether the Russians’ actions were actually in response to Mr. Trump. It said nothing at all about Mr. Trump’s request for help from Russia — a remark that had unnerved American intelligence and law enforcement officials who were closely monitoring Russia’s efforts to influence the election.
Very true…
In this indictment the DOJ notes that this was the first time the hackers went after her personal server in her personal office. It’s different from the previous attacks, that only infiltrated members of the campaign.
I agree that this was the first direct hack, but the question as to whether the conspirators (DJT not named, only a member associated with T campaign, but he could be of course) were
A) acting in response to that televised request
or
B) had already received orders from T or the Conspirators…
Or
C) Just hacking because Putin wanted them to.
Version A & B are similar, but it questions the setting up of said hack. Nuanced, but pundits are questioning hypothetically how it was set up.
It’s probably one of the most remarkable parts of the indictment because of the overall appearance. It’s very suggestive that these instances are linked. The added phrase of “first-time”, is interesting, even though there are many firsts in this document.
There real money is in this language.
The pundits will have a field day with this one. 
The pundits are going into overdrive…!
And within minutes, Roger Stone already revealed himself.
All I can say is, “Yikes!” 
There are other remarkable things in this document.
This is a story about how they compromised the voting system.
Anyone know who this “reporter” may be?