Not So Sophisticated

Having read the indictment of these thirteen or so individuals, I have to say it is pretty underwhelming. We’re supposed to believe these people were “highly sophisticated” in how they operated. We’re supposed to believe they reported to Putin, and we are supposed to believe Trump was in on it. And finally, we are supposed to believe they were indicted for “interfering/meddling” in the 2016 POTUS election. Yet none of this is supported by The Indictment.

First, lets dispense with the claim of sophistication. Here is what they did: they formed a corporation, used VPNs, purchased ads, and made social media posts. For those who don’t know what a VPN is, it is only some software that lets you encrypt your network traffic between two points.

Now that may sound “sophisticated”, but it isn’t. Your phone has this capability. Your computer has this capability. You can purchase VPN services from a wide range of providers just as you can purchase any other internet based service. This is standard technology and standard practice for anyone dealing with sensitive data or access. Clicking a few buttons is not sophisticated.

Creating a corporation isn’t sophisticated. Granted, I don’t know how I would do that in Russia, but I doubt navigating that would qualify as being sophisticated. I’m sure if I were so inclined I could hire a lawyer to do it for me. That doesn’t scream “sophisticated operation” either, however. Even having multiple shell corporations to distribute and hide funds isn’t sophisticated. Domestic PACs and companies do this.

How about the notion this was the act of the Russian government? It might be, but the indictment does nothing to claim it was. The only involvement the indictment indicates the Russian government had was that of registering the corporation itself. Now it may be the case that Putin personally directed the people who ran this. But the text of the indictment does nothing to support any connection to the Russian government at all. So absent such claims, they are nothign but fear mongering.

As to the crimes, what they were indicted on is a collection of failure to register, fraud, and conspiracy to defraud.

• Count 1: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
• Count 2: Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud

You see, any foreign national can post to social media in favor of a candidate or party. They can possibly hold unfunded rallies, but they can’t give money or buy political ads except in certain circumstances. But in all cases, they have to be, ahem, documented. Several of the defendants illegally entered the country (false pretenses) because they failed to properly document the reason for their visits. had any of these individuals obtained a “green card”, their electioneering would have been legal. This is why they are referred to as “Russian nationals” — once you have “permanent living status”, you’re no longer a foreign national. Let that sink in for a minute.

That is the first count. Let me be clear what this indictment is not for: actually interfering or influencing an election. This first count is the only one actually related the election itself, and it is all about not being properly documented and having entered the country in violation of its immigration and visa laws — the aforementioned defrauding of the government. They could have avoided count one with not even a whiff of “sophistication”.

The second count is bog standard identity theft and wire fraud. Things such as obtaining credit card details, bank account details, and stealing that money. That is illegal regardless of the purpose, and had they obtained a green card they would still be charged with the second count. But almost nobody would care. Just as no singificant media presence is currently talking about that half of the indictment.

So now we’ve dispensed with the main claims. But what else is “missing” from this indictment? Trump campaign involvement. The company was started in 2013. There was no Trump candidacy at that point to be involved with. Even through the latest accusations in the indictment, there isn’t a whiff of cooperation or even knowledge of this group’s activities by the Trump campaign.

Here is the closest we have:

On or about June 5, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, while posing as a U.S. grassroots activist, used the account @March_for_Trump to contact a volunteer for the Trump Campaign in New York. The volunteer agreed to provide signs for the “March for Trump” rally.

So the NY office was contacted by someone using an American identity. No evidence of foreknowledge of this. Nor do we get to know a sense of how significant this event was. Then we have:

In or around August 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used false U.S. personas to communicate with Trump Campaign staff involved in local community outreach about the “Florida Goes Trump” rallies.

Again, they targeted not the main campaign but small, local Trump campaigners. If there were any Americans knowingly involved they would be charged as well, since knowingly aiding a foreign national in violating those laws is also a crime. I see none in the indictment, do you? There is nothing involving any central Trump campaign staff — all small potatoes if you will.

Indeed, the closest thing we have to any understanding of the scale of the alleged events is as follows:

On or about August 4, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators created and purchased Facebook advertisements for the “Florida Goes Trump” rally. The advertisements reached over 59,000 Facebook users in Florida, and over 8,300 Facebook users responded to the advertisements by clicking on it, which routed users to the ORGANIZATION’s “Being Patriotic” page.

So some 59k saw the ad, and only 8.3k even clicked (intentionally or accidentally) the ad. Not exactly ground breaking. Presumably those who clicked it were already Trump supporters. Think about this, how many political ads for whichver candidate you oppose do you click? How many political ads on Facebook or Twitter promoting a candidate convince you to support them? I’d bet that number is zero.

If we assume for sake of discussion that some number of people will be convinced by a a tweet from some random Twitter account or a Facebook ad will cause you to a) stay home or b) support a different candidate, how large of an impact can that be? Very little, if any. Why?

Because that type of person is going to be swayed by any such tweet or advert. Who is to say they didn’t then see an ad for Hillary and cxhange their minds? Who is to say they didn’t see any of thousands of ads for each candidate and get swayed (repeatedly), rather than some advert paid for by a nefrious Russian national?

One would presume a even a marginally decent prosecutor puts the largest numbers in to obtain maximum effect. Clearly the FBI knows the amount spent on ads and has the data on their viewing and CTR, yet we only get to see this one tiny event’s advert data. These “fake events” that we are to believe swayed the American people seem to be trivial at best. I order to have any measurabe impact (assuming we coudl measure that) we would have to have some numbers. How many people attended these events? How much media coverage was generated? How many retweets/likes/shares happened?

Even with that data, however, there is a big, glaring problem with the assertion these idiots mattered. Effectiveness is never established. Of course, the indictment is not about whether they actually made difference, it is about wire fraud, identity theft, and lack of documentation. But nonetheless, questions need to be asked.

If someone organizes a political rally in favor of a particular candidate, but not involving the candidate, who is likely to go? The most likely would be people who already support him or her. Second up would be people who want to protest. Then we’d have media and curious people.

The media were apparently not interested enough to cover these events. Why should they when events with Trump were where the ratings were? Covering random tiny events like these costs money for the media. But what about the curious who do not already support a candidate?

They attend and leave with one of three things happening:

1. No change in opinion. Nobody there made a case for or against the candidate they found moving/credible.
2. A supporter at the event made an argument the attendee found moving enough to both commit to the candidate, and to not change their mind later.
3. A protester at the event made an argument the attendee found moving enough to both commit against candidate, and to not change their mind later.

There is zero evidence any of the second possibility occured in enough numbers to matter. Even if it did, some were undoubtedly in camp 3. Do we consider those who encountered anti-Trump people at these rallies/events and become anti-Trump as a result as having been “interfered with”? In both cases, it was not a Russian national who convinced someone to support or oppose Trump at these events, however many people showed up.

I expected any such indictment to be more substantial. We have larger examples of undocumented political activity in this country and violations every year. Even this indictment is small in that sense. We have direct violations by news stations, candidates, campaigns, committees, and so on every year. In that context, this indictment is rather underwhelming.

The scale is unimpressive, the alleged effect is unsupported, and half of it is basic wire fraud activities. If this were an old commercial, it would be asking where the meat is.