Mueller may well have used great forensics as part of his investigation (thus the addition of Ryan Dickey to the team). But he's not showing them and won't ever have to here.
Show this thread
Q: Why do people claim the Internet Research Agency indictment shows awesome forensics? It shows nothing of the sort. It shows one email that could be collected under 702, and Facebook's own analysis, plus a vague nod to IDing VPNs.
-
-
-
Following up on my forensics comment. There is this small reference to the use of cryptocurrencies. But Mueller's not SHOWING how they know that or where the money flowed.pic.twitter.com/LYgZDgMIV4
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think there's a lot more than that. Just by way of eg, para 38. How is that provable in evidence? Don't have a witness to speak to that
-
You do have the unnamed person who traveled to the US in Nov 2014 as a witness, and possibly others (some IRA insiders have complained they didn't get a call). But that's also intercepts, not forensics.
-
Oh OK, completely misunderstood what you meant, ref to one email and 702.
-
I'm just saying I don't think this indictment demanded the full extent of Dickey's abilities.
-
Yes my misunderstanding. Agree fully with that, suspect he has plenty else to work on.
-
Yup. There will be forensics. Mueller might even be forced to show them, if anything goes to trial. But we haven't seen them yet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Real question: Why are you tweeting this? What's the point you're trying to make?
-
I'm trying to make the point that numerous people are misrepresenting what the indictment showed, and based off that misrepresentation, misunderstood the indictment.
-
Since this will never come to trial, it falls into the category of 'poisoning the well'--misinformation. We'll never know the facts behind it, but it will be repeated endlessly in order to further demonize Russia--again without evidence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because it fits w the “ohh you better hurry and flip” narrative they’ve been pushing for months.
-
With the third guilty plea expected shortly, it doesn’t seem like a narrative being pushed as much as a legal necessity.
-
Fourth.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Cuz many people don’t understand how things like this work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The New York Times did this story in 2015, basically.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
People don't understand that an indictment does not set out ALL the facts - just enough to indict. Oh so much more is there, I'm sure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think most people are not aware of (a) how hard/easy various forms of electronic sleuthing are, or (b) the scope of our (NSA) capabilities
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And a Russian journo is claiming most of the info comes from a 2-year-old article he wrote anyway. Who cares, as long as it’s true, strong evidence, and is followed by a big wallop of Trump, family, cronies, GOP Congress and maybe Hugh Hewitt.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s the emotional impact of the “I’m going to be late getting home because of work” email. That’s relatable to anybody and feels like the US was all over everything the IRA was doing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.