...Last I heard, the indicted hackers haven't answered the charges in court...
Originally Posted by Dev Null
Last I heard (
apologies for the dreaded copy-pasta, but I know how you just gobble that shite up):
On May 28, Judge Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in the Mueller Report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the
social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by
Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a
Kremlin-run operation. Concerned that the Mueller Report could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants' right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.
“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government. Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.” The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government" and “alleges only private conduct by private actors."
Friedrich further directed the prosecution to make clear that its allegations are simply that and “remain unproven.” She also admonished Mueller’s team from expressing "an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence."
The next day Mueller made a public conciliatory "clarification", which he said had nothing o do with the rear chewing he received the day before...
What happens next, I dunno. But I think the interactions will center around what is allowed across the internet, aka social media, as it relates to political free speech etc. Here is an example (
in the dreaded copy-pasta):
The Washington Post reported in 2015 that David Brock’s Correct The Record would work directly with the Clinton Campaign, “testing the legal limits” of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct The Record skirt campaign finance law?
The Washington Post tells us: “by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation.” And post online, Brock’s PAC did: “disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said.”
Sadly, not really, good ol' upstanding citizen David Brock has other "issues", i.e. dead bodies, to contend with these days...
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
