How the Russia indictments inform the Mueller investigation

The 13 Russians charged in the IRA [Internet Research Agency, the Russian information warfare (troll) factory] indictment — which include Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the close Putin associate who owns the company, those in charge of the operation (which was not limited to US targeting), down to a few of the analysts who did the troll work — will never be extradited to the US, though the most senior among them will surely be sanctioned. Nor will Putin in any way retaliate against them — they were doing work he approved of! Further, by criminalizing “information warfare” (as the Russians admitted they were engaged in, and as we do too, under the same name) we risk our own information warriors being indicted in other countries.

So what purpose did the indictment serve? Here are some thoughts:

  Marcy Wheeler

There are some important points in this article, among them the idea that foreigners trolling our elections isn't illegal unless they hide their identities, which the Russians did, and how that ties to Manafort/Gates' failure to register as foreign agents. That sounds to me like the whole operation could have been perfectly legal if the Trump cabal (and its Russian allies) had registered with the USG. Very interesting, if true. I can imagine a disclaimer such as "This ad paid for by the Kremlin" might be problematic in a campaign, but what about "This ad paid for by Israel"? That might actually have a positive effect in large circles.

Of course, the money laundering and identity theft would still be illegal.

Wheeler makes this observation, which may have particular importance:

The description of a IRA-organized event at Trump Tower the day after WikiLeaks dropped the DNC emails, in particular, suggests the possibility of a great deal of coordination, coordination with people in the US.

Or a truck load of coincidence. Not that it would make a difference to whether this was all done to influence the election, but would you organize rallies to be held the day after the public gets a whiff of incriminating Clinton emails, or would you allow more time for that to become more widely known so as to get more attendance? Or am I missing Wheeler's point?

At this point, I have no problem believing the Trump cabal, including Trump himself, coordinated, colluded, or whatever word (legal or not) you like to use to suggest a knowing, possibly traitorous relationship with the Kremlin, via Russian mobsters. There's just too much evidence to pretend it was all innocent campaign behavior.

Continue reading Wheeler's article.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.