Mueller Grand Jury Indictment Does Not Prove Russia Hacked DNC

My new vid re: #12Russians indictment with textual discussion below:

The video I made discusses what a grand jury indictment is and what it is is not. It is not proof that a crime was committed. It only is the opinion of a majority of grand jurors that probable cause exists of a crime based upon what Mueller presented to them. In other words, based on the selective information and testimony presented to the Federal Grand Jury by Muller as the Special Prosecutor, only a majority of the Grand Jurors needs to find that it was more likely than not that the crimes alleged in the indictment were committed by the defendants. Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proceduredefendants can object to the grand jury process and to specific grand jurors. However, in the case of the 12 Russians named in the indictment, since they were not notified they were under investigation, they obviously had no opportunity to raise objections either to the grand jury proceeding itself, or to specific grand jurors.

Now in the US there are two ways to obtain an indictment against an alleged criminal defendant. One is a Preliminary Hearing in open court before a judge where the prosecution presents only enough evidence through testimony to show probable cause that a crime was committed by a specific perpetrator or group of perpetrators. The Judge usually controls the hearing, and typically may ask questions of witnesses. In addition, the attorneys for witnesses called and for the alleged criminal defendant are allowed to cross-examine those witnesses.

The other method is a Grand Jury which is a secretive proceeding. See, FRCP 6(e)(2). Grand Juries are solely under the control of the prosecutor. Prosecutors select who sits on a Grand Jury and can exclude anyone for "cause" even after that person has been selected. As previously noted regarding the Mueller Grand Jury, for example, no defendant could object to the grand jury process nor to any grand juror.

Thus, it's unlikely any person who voted for or supported Trump, had any prior association with Trump or his affiliates, or who had any connection to Russia or its citizens, would be allowed to stay a juror by Mueller and his team. Those jurors would be removed for cause by Mueller, because support for Trump and any association with Trump, Russia, etc. be considered considered evidence of possible bias. However, on the other hand, people who are biased against Trump or Russia would be unlikely to be excluded from the Grand Jury. So, it's highly likely the Grand Jury, which signed off on the indictment, included a number of jurors who were biased against Russia, the Russian government and/or Trump and his associates.

Federal Grand Juries meet at the discretion of the prosecutor. The prosecutor may present anything to them via witnesses, even information that would not be admissible in court at a trial because it violates the Federal Rules of Evidence. In short, a Grand Jury may look at practically anything they like during their proceedings. Furthermore, a prosecutor has no obligation to present all evidence in his or her possession to the Grand Jury. Specifically, prosecutors rarely ever present evidence that tends to show their case is weak, or any exculpatory evidence (i.e., evidence that shows defendants did not commit the crimes alleged - the exception being cases where the prosecutor wants to find no crime was committed such as what occurred in the Michael Brown shooting case in Ferguson MO).

Thus, federal criminal indictments prove nothing other than a prosecutor (in this case Mueller) has convinced at least 12 jurors out of a possible 23 that he provided enough information to them to establish that probable cause exists to charge the twelve Russians with the crimes set forth on the indictment.

Since it extremely unlikely that any information or evidence that would cast doubt on their decision was shown to the members of the Grand Jury, the allegations in the indictment do prove that the individuals indicted committed any crimes. To do that, a trial must be held, and as we know, Russia has no extradition treaty with the United States, nor is it likely (as Mueller well knows) that the Russia would agree to extradition of members of its intelligence services, just as the US government would never agree to extradition of members of the US intelligence community accused of crimes in other countries.

As we have seen in the first case where Mueller indicted Russian individuals and companies of trying to influence the election via a troll farm on Facebook, once one of the defendants appeared in court and accepted US jurisdiction and pleaded not guilty, Mueller and his team have done the best to delay the proceeding and to prevent that defendant from obtaining disclosure of the evidence Mueller has in his files regarding that indictment.

For those who wish to read more about the allegations contained in the Mueller indictment of the 12 Russians here are some links to articles I recommend:

Adam Carter in Disobedient Media: "Mueller’s Latest Indictment Contradicts Evidence In The Public Domain"

Joe Lauria in Consortium News: "Clinging to Collusion: Why Evidence Will Probably Never Be Produced in the Indictments of ‘Russian Agents’"

Mark McCarty in Medium: "Mueller’s New Indictment — Do the Feds Take Us for Idiots?!"

Scott Ritter in Truthdig: "Indictment of 12 Russians: Under the Shiny Wrapping, a Political Act"

In addition here's a link to the pdf. file of the #12Russians Indictment:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/80-netyksho-et-al-indictment/ba0...

Share
up
21 users have voted.

Comments

up
3 users have voted.

chuck utzman

You can blame me. I did not vote for Her Heinous.

detroitmechworks's picture

@chuckutzman While the PTB want to think of it as OOOH, 12 indictments, when he actually just got one group of people to agree with him. Not even ALL of them. Just most of them. And he could get rid of any he didn't think were going to agree with him. Because of course he fucking can.

Ugh, I'll go with my own BS stories than the government's rather boring line of same old shit.

up
4 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

@detroitmechworks rather than an argument for or against.
I was about to post that too.

the allegations in the indictment do not prove that the individuals indicted committed any crimes.

The bold added by me as what I thought Steven meant to say.

up
4 users have voted.
detroitmechworks's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness with regards to the title. My brain's weird. Smile

up
3 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

helped the Russians. Perhaps it copped a plea deal?

I try to explain to people we live, at least as far as media goes, in an environment functionally indistinguishable from '30s Soviet Union. And yeah, Stalin had fact-checkers too. I'm stunned by how many intelligent people claim to not see that -- blinded by Trump hate to the real treason going on here.

up
11 users have voted.

@jim p for our owners in that way, that's one reason I highly doubt anything near impeachment comes to pass. He's still very useful in that respect. For now, although with this latest BS I am starting to wonder how long he's useful for them.

up
9 users have voted.
edg's picture

What's most illuminating about the indictments is that they're of members of GRU, which is Military Intelligence. They're responsible for tracking US and other military movements, weaponry, etc. They would NOT do DNC server hacking or state voting machine hacking. If that were done, it would most likely be by SVR, the Foreign Intelligence Service that reports directly to Putin or possibly by FSB, which is responsible for counter-intelligence.

The fact that Mueller indicted 12 people with no connection to or responsibility for political espionage just shows how phony this whole thing is.

up
8 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

...dropping the story on Friday before the Helsinki Summit? Trying to sabotage any positive outcomes of the meeting.

The other odd issue to me is the failure to discuss the DNC LEAKS rather than describe it as a hack. Binny has provided the only real evidence I've heard.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any “hacked” emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/06/why-the-dnc-emails-were-leaked-n...

Here's an anonymous review of Binny's revelations...just listen to the first few minutes of this 15 min clip for more evidence of the leak...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HCEtmhZfbQ

Maintaining the deep state Russia boogieman allows for funding multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers and the like.
DNC.jpg

up
6 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”