What exactly did they do?

[Care4all]

Ops! I forgot.

Hillary is honest, fair minded, and all about doing the right thing.

LMFAO!

how'd she get rich over the uranium 1 deal gipper? NOT A DIME from Bill Clinton's Charity went in to the personal bank account of the Clintons.... so I call bull crud, to the nth degree!

They do not even take a salary from the foundation Charity...

And Hillary was a Senator when 90% of the money was donated to the foundation's charity....

Not even a thought that she would be Secretary of State at the time.

In addition, it was 9 separate agencies that made the decision, NOT Hillary, in addition to President Obama the only person with veto power.

So spare me your utter, MINDLESS, gibberish.... you should be embarrassed for that kind of crud!

I just don’t get it. You think Hillary is clean but Trump a criminal. How can you hold those two opinions within your mind?

I never said that, YOU are just trying to change the topic....

with a useless 'what about-ism'.... or a 'slight of hand or look over there' thingy, by changing the topic OFF of Trump and the thread topic.... I try not to play in those games, though I admit, some times I am caught up in them...

I do not doubt there is some dirt with Trump, but I KNOW Hillary is a crook. In a sane nation, she is in Supermax where she belongs.

I also know this whole Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election is entirely bogus. Secondly, there is no way Russia could impact our elections in any meaningful way. They use a few Facebook postings and the DNC media thinks that was enough...not likely.

Hillary had a campaign war chest of what? Several hundred million...and the Russians supposedly spent a million or two, but some people think Russia impacted the election. WTF!

Clinton spent $1.5 BILLION to Trump's $225 Million of his own money.

Clinton's $1.5 Billion is the all time record for the most money spent in a presidential campaign win or lose.

I don't know how much more I can take of your fake news..... sigh...

Clinton campaign spent $969 million NOT $1.5 billion

Clinton was NOT the all time high on spending,

Obama's campaign was....

Trump campaign spent $531 million NOT $225 Million.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

 

[Care4all]

Here is just one of the laws that the Trump campaign may have broken.




§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or


(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2, The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Prior Provisions
A prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title.

Another prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2, The Congress, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–187.

Amendments
2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–155 effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of Pub. L. 107–155, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title.

 

[Seawytch]

Still waiting for anyone to tell us exactly what the Russians did, how it influenced the election, where they did it, which votes were affected, and whether whatever they did had any affect on the final outcome.

All we hear is that the Russians got some data from the unsecured DNC servers and Hillary's illegal private unsecured server, and that that data somehow got released by wikileaks. Where is the crime? Where is the collusioin? How did any of this change the election?

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Still waiting for anyone to tell us exactly what the Russians did, how it influenced the election, where they did it, which votes were affected, and whether whatever they did had any affect on the final outcome.

All we hear is that the Russians got some data from the unsecured DNC servers and Hillary's illegal private unsecured server, and that that data somehow got released by wikileaks. Where is the crime? Where is the collusioin? How did any of this change the election?

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

 

[Kosh]

Still waiting for anyone to tell us exactly what the Russians did, how it influenced the election, where they did it, which votes were affected, and whether whatever they did had any affect on the final outcome.

All we hear is that the Russians got some data from the unsecured DNC servers and Hillary's illegal private unsecured server, and that that data somehow got released by wikileaks. Where is the crime? Where is the collusioin? How did any of this change the election?

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

Yet the FBI never had direct contact with said servers only information from a paid service, the DNC would never give their servers to the FBI because they had to fake the hacking in order to push the religious narrative which you now follow without question or hesitation.

Once the far left grows up and admit that Hilary lost because she was worse than Trump, the better off the world will be.

 

[The Original Tree]

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

Yet the FBI never had direct contact with said servers only information from a paid service, the DNC would never give their servers to the FBI because they had to fake the hacking in order to push the religious narrative which you now follow without question or hesitation.

Once the far left grows up and admit that Hilary lost because she was worse than Trump, the better off the world will be.

Let's also clarify that said hired hands, also had to retract nearly half of their statements about The DNC Server after Hillary Clinton got her "Get of of Jail Free" card from James "the fixer" Comey.

 

[Seawytch]

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

 

[Seawytch]

I love these threads

OP asks....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

He gets seven pages telling him what the Russians did and he comes back with.....Can anyone tell me what the Russians did?

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

Yet the FBI never had direct contact with said servers only information from a paid service, the DNC would never give their servers to the FBI because they had to fake the hacking in order to push the religious narrative which you now follow without question or hesitation.

Once the far left grows up and admit that Hilary lost because she was worse than Trump, the better off the world will be.

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump (and Kosh) Doesn’t

 

[Kosh]

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

Yet the FBI never had direct contact with said servers only information from a paid service, the DNC would never give their servers to the FBI because they had to fake the hacking in order to push the religious narrative which you now follow without question or hesitation.

Once the far left grows up and admit that Hilary lost because she was worse than Trump, the better off the world will be.

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump (and Kosh) Doesn’t

See how the far left posts links that does not fit their narrative?

How can anyone outside the special counsel know exactly know what Mueller knows?

See how the far left defeats their own narratives when you apply them to reality?

But they will never admit that Trump won because Hilary was worse than Trump.

They need the Russia boggy man, which paves the way for another Hilary run in 2020.

The far left drones say they do not like her, yet are helping pave the way for her to run again.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal, so they bought a few thousand dollars of facebook ads---------not illegal. How many votes were changed? Tell us or STFU.

If the Russians had a goal it was to divide us and get us screaming at each other, in that they succeeded---------again not illegal.


What was illegal under US law, however, was Obama trying to influence the brexit vote and the Israeli elections, but you don't care about that because you worship the Kenyan messiah over all else.

the only problem is that not one of you has answered the basic question. So they got into the DNC servers---not illegal,

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

 

[Kosh]

So the far left needs this Russia narrative to stick and yet in reality it is turning out to be bunk.

Trump is still president, the Russians did not hack the election system, the Russians did not change any votes.

The far left believes that the Russians convinced hard core far left religious cult members to vote for Trump!

 

[Care4all]

I forgot about Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign cheated with them too....

Mercer, the billionaire who owned them and was Trump's number 1 backer, broke the law as well....
Cambridge Analytica and Its Foreign National Staff Violated U.S. Laws

On March 17, the Observer of London and New York Times broke the story of Cambridge Analytica’s use of “private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission.” The more information that comes out about Cambridge Analytica, the more suspect the company’s methods appear. But those methods appear to have gone far beyond suspect and all the way to illegal when it comes to the laws governing the financing of our elections. That is why Common Cause today filed complaints with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging violations of U.S. campaign finance law that the company’s own lawyer warned them about.

The New York Times reported, based on documents reviewed and former employees interviewed, that Cambridge Analytica “was effectively a shell” and any contracts for U.S. election work won by Cambridge Analytica were serviced by a London-based firm called SCL Group. These documents and former employees made clear that such work was “overseen” by Alexander Nix, a British citizen who was the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica (suspended last week) and also a director of SCL Group. Most of SCL Group’s employees and contractors were Canadian, like now-famous whistleblower Christopher Wylie, or European.

U.S. federal campaign finance law prohibits any foreign national from “directly or indirectly” making a contribution, donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication in connection with any U.S. election. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1).

For decades, the FEC has interpreted the “directly or indirectly” language in this statutory ban broadly to include participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. Specifically, FEC regulation provides that a foreign national shall not directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any political committee with regard to the committee’s election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of expenditures or disbursements in connection with U.S. elections. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i).

Back in the early 1980s, the FEC issued advisory opinions permitting two corporations formed in Delaware, but wholly owned by foreign national individuals and corporations, to establish political committees (i.e., corporate “PACs”)—on the basis of a representation by the corporations that those who would exercise decision-making authority for the PACs’ activities would not be foreign nationals. FEC Ad. Ops. 1980-100 and 1982-10.

And in 1989, the FEC codified these advisory opinions into its regulations, “to clarify that foreign nationals may not participate in the election-related activities of others, including decisions regarding contributions or expenditures by political committees, corporations, labor organizations or other persons.”

In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act expanded the statutory foreign national ban in several ways and left intact the FEC’s longstanding interpretation that the ban prohibits foreign nationals from participating in decision-making regarding contributions and expenditures.

And in 2004, the FEC told a member of Congress via an advisory opinion that his foreign national fiancée was prohibited from participating in the congressman’s “decisions regarding his campaign activities” and that his fiancée “must also refrain from managing or participating in the decisions” of the congressman’s political committees. FEC Ad. Op. 2004-26.

Cambridge Analytica and its executives knew all of this—they knew that their foreign national staff could not participate in decision-making regarding political expenditures by the U.S. clients—because their lawyer explained it all to them in a 2014 memo. In the memo, obtained and published last week by NBC News, Cambridge Analytica’s lawyer, Mr. Laurence Levy, made clear that Alexander Nix would have to be “recused from substantive management” of any clients engaged in U.S. elections activities. Mr. Levy further advised Cambridge Analytica to “ensure that only US citizens are making decisions about US election activity,” managing the “work and decision making functions, relative to campaign messaging and expenditures,” and doing the “final analysis” and conveyance data to U.S. clients.

Reporting by NBC News and other outlets over the past week make clear that Cambridge Analytica ignored its lawyer’s advice. Former Canadian employee Christopher Wylie told NBC News that many foreign nationals worked on the campaigns in 2014, and many were embedded in the campaigns around the U.S. “It was not just me,” he said. “Like 20 other people were. We had Canadians, British, Eastern Europeans, Lithuanians, Germans, Romanians, Greeks. We weren’t just working on messaging. We were instructing campaigns on which messages go where and to who.” A second former senior Cambridge Analytica staffer corroborated Wylie’s statement.

 

[Care4all]

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

by all means, TELL US what YOU think happened....

 

[Seawytch]

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Oooh, a cliffhanger...do tell, do tell.

 

[Seawytch]

Another lie.

Hacking is a felony, dope.

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Come on HereWeGoAgain! You're killing me with the suspense. What happened? Was it this?

U.S. judge rejects firm's bid to see grand jury material in Russia...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

by all means, TELL US what YOU think happened....

They didnt get it dimwit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Oooh, a cliffhanger...do tell, do tell.

So you're saying you dont know?
I think it would be obvious even to a moron such as yourself.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

breaking into a secure server is a crime, looking at data on an unsecure server is not.

The DNC servers could be looked at by anyone with a little computer savvy. They were virtually open to the world.

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Come on HereWeGoAgain! You're killing me with the suspense. What happened? Was it this?

U.S. judge rejects firm's bid to see grand jury material in Russia...

Seems as if you already know.
Mewler couldnt deliver.

 

[Seawytch]

Hacking them was still a crime. Using the stolen data is a crime. Offering to accept stolen property, whether you actually receive the stolen property is a crime.

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Come on HereWeGoAgain! You're killing me with the suspense. What happened? Was it this?

U.S. judge rejects firm's bid to see grand jury material in Russia...

Seems as if you already know.
Mewler couldnt deliver.

You read that wrong, darlin'. The bad guys (Russians) lost in court to the good guys, the U.S.

Not "couldn't", didn't have to...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you want to convict Russia of a crime?

We've already indicated some of the Russians involved. While they may never be convicted, the indictment matters, especially if we find out about U.S.help.

The Russian lawyers showed up and asked for discovery...then guess what happened?

Come on HereWeGoAgain! You're killing me with the suspense. What happened? Was it this?

U.S. judge rejects firm's bid to see grand jury material in Russia...

Seems as if you already know.
Mewler couldnt deliver.

You read that wrong, darlin'. The bad guys (Russians) lost in court to the good guys, the U.S.

Not "couldn't", didn't have to...

That is illegal the defense is REQUIRED by our system of law to get FULL disclosure.