4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 16 February 2018 08:54.

Washington Post, “4 things we learned from the indictment of 13 Russians in the Mueller investigation”, 16 Feb 2018:

This post has been updated.

We have the first indictment in the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III that actually has to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The special counsel on Friday indicted 13 Russians in connection with a large-scale troll farm effort aimed at influencing the election in violation of U.S. law.

The indictment of the Internet Research Agency comes on top of two Trump advisers having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos — and two more being indicted on charges of alleged financial crimes that predated the campaign — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Nobody is in custody and Russia does not extradite to the United States, but the document from the secretive Mueller investigation does shed plenty of light where there previously wasn’t any.

So what does the new indictment tell us? Here’s what we can say right away:

1. It doesn’t say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but doesn’t rule it out either.

Anybody looking for clues about the collusion investigation into the Trump campaign won’t find much to grab hold of. If anything, the indictment may hearten Trump allies in that it doesn’t draw a line to the campaign — which suggests there was a large-scale effort independent of any possible collusion. Perhaps that’s the real meddling effort, some folks in the White House may be telling themselves right now. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein even specified that Trump campaign officials who were contacted by the Russian nationals “did not know they were communicating with Russians.”

But that’s about as much insight as anyone can draw; we simply don’t know what else is coming down the pike, and any ties to Trump campaign officials may have been withheld from this indictment to avoid disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The president hasn’t even been interviewed yet, so we wouldn’t expect any ties to the campaign at this juncture.

Asked whether campaign officials had knowledge of the scheme or were duped, Rosenstein chose his words carefully. “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,” Rosenstein said.

The words “in this indictment” mean Rosenstein’s comments are pretty narrow.

Update:

In a statement, Trump and the White House suggested that the announcement “further indicates that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia.” Again, it doesn’t provide any direct indication.

2. It just got a lot harder for Trump to dismiss Mueller’s probe as a “witch hunt.”

At one point in the indictment, a price tag is put on the effort: $1.25 million in one month, as of September 2016. To put that in perspective, that’s as much as some entire presidential campaigns were spending monthly during the primaries. And that lends credence to the idea that this was a large-scale effort connected to the Russian government.

President Trump has often sought to downplay the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election — even suggesting he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assurances that it didn’t happen. This document lays it out in extensive detail.

The argument that this is a “witch hunt,” which Trump has argued and more than 8 in 10 Republicans believe, just became much more difficult to make. And the document would seem to make pretty clear that the Mueller investigation isn’t just targeted at taking down Trump, either.

3. We still have no idea whether Russia flipped the 2016 election (despite Pence’s claim).

In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn’t determine whether Russia’s interference effort changed the results of the 2016 election. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn’t win the race for Trump. But that’s not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn’t make a determination — just as the intelligence community’s report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it’s almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)

Some in the White House have misrepresented that intelligence community report, up to and including Trump, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Even this week, Pence said at an Axios event that it was “the universal conclusion of out intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.”

That’s just flat wrong. And you can bet that bogus claim will be repeated following Rosenstein’s comments today. The good news: Now, you know better.

Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment “further indicates ... that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected.” This is a bogus claim.

4. The effort wasn’t just pro-Trump or anti-Clinton.

The troll farm wasn’t just focused on Trump and Hillary Clinton. In fact, it picked sides in both primaries and opposed and supported multiple other candidates.

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment says. It says the troll farm had decided whom it was supporting by February 2016, when the primaries were getting off the ground, and it instructed its specialists to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.)”

It’s possible the primary advocacy was simply meant to boost Trump and hurt Clinton, but it’s notable that the troll farm effort played in those primaries too.


BBC
, “Russia-Trump inquiry: Russians charged over US 2016 election tampering”, 17 Feb 2018:

Thirteen Russians have been charged with interfering in the US 2016 election, in a major development in the FBI investigation.

Three of those named have also been accused of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five have been accused of aggravated identity theft.

The charges were made by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating alleged Russian meddling.

Three Russian companies are also named in the indictment.

One of them is the Internet Research Agency, based in St Petersburg, which the 37-page indictment said “had a strategic goal to sow discord in the US political system, including the 2016 US presidential election”.

Speaking at a news conference, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said there was no allegation that any American was “a knowing participant in this illegal activity” nor was it alleged that the meddling altered the election outcome.

- Seven key takeaways from the indictments

- The Trump-Russia saga in 200 words

- Full text of the Russia indictment

Mr Trump was briefed on the indictment earlier on Friday, the White House said.

The president later tweeted that his campaign had done “nothing wrong” and again denied colluding with Russia.

He also appeared to acknowledge Russian election meddling - something which he has in the past cast doubt on despite US intelligence agency assessments.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top Russian officials have repeatedly denied interfering in the US presidential election.

What does the indictment say?

It says a group of Russians:

- Posed as Americans, and opened financial accounts in their name
- Spent thousands of dollars a month buying political advertising
- Purchased US server space in an effort to hide their Russian affiliation
- Organised and promoted political rallies within the United States
- Posted political messages on social media accounts that impersonated real US citizens
- Promoted information that disparaged Hillary Clinton
- Received money from clients to post on US social media sites
- Created themed groups on social media on hot-button issues, particularly on Facebook and Instagram
- Operated with a monthly budget of as much as $1.25m (£890,000)
- Financed the building of a cage large enough to hold an actress portraying Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform

The indictment says those involved systematically monitored the success of their internet posts.

- The tactics of the Russian ‘troll farm’
- Trump Russia affair: Key questions answered
- Who’s who in Russia scandal?

It also says those named in the indictment had visited the US posing as American citizens and had begun discussing how to affect the election as early as 2014.

“By 2016, defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online persons to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election,” the indictment continues.

“They engaged in operations primarily to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

How has Russia reacted?

It called the allegations “absurd”.

“Thirteen people interfered with the US elections?” said Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman. “Thirteen against the billion-dollar budgets of the security services? Against espionage and counter-espionage, against new developments and technologies? Absurd? Yes.”

       
One of the men named in the indictment - Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is known as “Putin’s chef”, denied election tampering.

“The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see,” he was quoted as saying by Russian news agency Ria Novosti on Friday. “I have great respect for them. I’m not at all upset that I’m on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see him.”

Mr Prigozhin has been a friend of Mr Putin since the 1990s. He has built up a business empire and has been accused of using companies to diffuse pro-Kremlin opinions via fake internet identities.

_______________________________________________

Heat of investigation is increasing

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

On Friday, Robert Mueller’s team released a slate of indictments that lays bare what it asserts is the full shape of the Russian meddling apparatus.

And what an apparatus it was. In the run-up to the US presidential election “Project Lakhta”, as it was called, had an operating budget of more than $1m a month.

Russians associated with the organisation travelled to the US, posed as Americans and gathered information on where best to target its attempts to “sow discord” in the US political process. Swing states were identified and efforts, according to the indictment, were made to boost the prospects of Republican Donald Trump and undermine Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Although the indictment does not suggest collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, it says the meddling effort may have been aided by “unwitting individuals” associated with the Republican nominee.

The White House may breathe a sigh of relief with that particular revelation. But the heat is increasing, and the investigation isn’t over yet. At the very least, if Mr Mueller’s allegations hold up in court, it will become increasingly difficult for the president to argue that Russian meddling on his behalf is an unsubstantiated hoax.

Read Anthony’s key takeaways

___________________________________________

What do the social media companies say?

Politicians from both major parties have responded with calls for social media companies to do more to prevent political interference via their platforms.

Facebook said in a statement that it had worked “proactively” with Mr Mueller’s investigation, but admitted that it had “more to do to prevent further attacks”.

Twitter said the activities were “intolerable” and that it was working with investigators, but that “tech companies cannot defeat this novel, shared threat alone”.

What is the investigation about?

US intelligence agencies believe Russia tried to sway the 2016 presidential election in favour of Mr Trump.

In May last year, Mr Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate whether anyone from his campaign colluded in the effort.

As part of the inquiry, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been charged with conspiring to defraud the US in his dealings with Ukraine, and conspiracy to launder money.

A business associate of his, Rick Gates, was also charged with conspiracy to launder money. A third adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

This week President Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, was interviewed by Mr Mueller.

Mr Trump has been accused by opponents of trying to interfere with the investigation, which he denies.



Comments:


1

Posted by Uncomfortable Bear on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:23 | #

The Dutch were able to establish “persistence” in the Russian spy operation, “cozy bear.”

By “persistence” it is meant that they were able to enter undetected into a Russian network and spy over a protracted span of time:

The Daily Telegraph, “Dutch spies ‘caught Russian election hackers on camera’, 26 Jan 2018:

Dutch spies reportedly broke into computers used by a Russian hacking group that interfered in the US election, even watching the Kremlin-backed outfit on their own office surveillance cameras.

In an extraordinary counter-espionage operation agents in the Netherlands penetrated the systems of the Russian cyber unit known as Cozy Bear in mid-2014 and monitored them for at least a year.

They collected CTTV footage of individuals involved and pinpointed the location of the Russian group at a university building near Red Square in Moscow.

Dutch operatives informed the CIA and helped remove Cozy Bear from US State Department computers they had hacked into in late 2014.

American spies were reportedly so grateful they sent cake and flowers to their counterparts in the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service, known as AIVD.

The Dutch also monitored the Russian hackers as they tried to undermine unclassified computer systems in Congress and the White House.

Cozy Bear would later be identified as one of two Russian government-linked hacking groups that broke in to the Democratic National Committee’s computers, releasing emails embarrassing to Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 US presidential election.

The other Russian hacking group involves was known as Fancy Bear.

After receiving the information from the Netherlands the FBI began an investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election.

The Dutch role in the unmasking of Cozy Bear hackers was reported by the respected daily newspaper Volkskrant, and Dutch television current affairs programme Nieuwsuur.

Kajsa Ollongren, the Dutch Interior Minister, declined to confirm or deny the reports, but said she was “very happy that we have good security services in the Netherlands that do their work well”.

Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, dismissed the reports.

He said: “If the Dutch media want to fuel anti-Russian hysteria in the US, it’s an activity that can’t be called honourable.”

The details unearthed by the Dutch could provide key evidence for US investigators looking into Russian interference in the election.

However, that evidence could be limited as all but one of the two dozen Democrat officials whose emails were published were targeted by Fancy Bear, rather than Cozy Bear.


2

Posted by Uncomfortable Bear on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 14:23 | #

Washington Post, “A former Russian troll speaks: ‘It was like being in Orwell’s world”,

The indictment by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III of 13 Russians associated with a St. Petersburg online “troll factory” that allegedly interfered with the U.S. election has brought a sense of vindication to the handful of former employees who have already been speaking out about what they witnessed.

One of them, 43-year-old Marat Mindiyarov, a teacher by training, spoke by phone with The Washington Post on Saturday from the village outside St. Petersburg where he lives. Mindiyarov worked in a department for Russian domestic consumption. When he took a test in December 2014 to move to the factory’s “Facebook department” targeting the U.S. market, Mindiyarov recalled, he was asked to write an essay about Hillary Clinton. Here are lightly edited excerpts of the conversation.

What was your first reaction when you heard about the Mueller indictment?

I congratulate America that they achieved something — that they put forward an indictment rather than just writing about this. I congratulate Robert Mueller.

How did you end up at the troll factory?

I worked there from November 2014 to February 2015. I ended up there totally by accident — I happened to be unemployed, and this place had work right by my house. So I went there. I realized quickly that this was the kind of place where I only wanted to spend enough time until I got my salary and I could leave.

How did it feel inside?

I arrived there, and I immediately felt like a character in the book “1984” by George Orwell — a place where you have to write that white is black and black is white. Your first feeling, when you ended up there, was that you were in some kind of factory that turned lying, telling untruths, into an industrial assembly line. The volumes were colossal — there were huge numbers of people, 300 to 400, and they were all writing absolute untruths. It was like being in Orwell’s world.

What sorts of untruths did you write?

My untruths amounted to posting comments. I worked in the commenting department — I had to comment on the news. No one asked me my opinion. My opinions were already written for me, and I had to write in my own words that which I was ordered to write.

For example?

When I was there, there were sanctions [by the European Union and the United States in response to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine] and the ruble started falling. I was writing everything that was the opposite: how wonderful our life was, how wonderful it is that the ruble was strengthening, and that kind of absurdity. That sanctions were going to make us stronger and so on and so forth.

Where were you writing this?

We were commenting on Russian sites — all sorts of them, LiveJournal for example, and all the Russian news websites. Wherever a given news item appeared on Russian websites, trolls were immediately created to provide the illusion of support.

What was the working environment like — was it really like a factory?

There were two shifts of 12 hours, day and night. You had to arrive exactly on time, that is, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. There were production norms, for example, 135 comments of 200 characters each. … You come in and spend all day in a room with the blinds closed and 20 computers. There were multiple such rooms spread over four floors. It was like a production line, everyone was busy, everyone was writing something. You had the feeling that you had arrived in a factory rather than a creative place.

How did the trolling work?

You got a list of topics to write about. Every piece of news was taken care of by three trolls each, and the three of us would make up an act. We had to make it look like we were not trolls but real people. One of the three trolls would write something negative about the news, the other two would respond, “You are wrong,” and post links and such. And the negative one would eventually act convinced. Those are the kinds of plays we had to act out.

Do you think it worked?

Who really reads the comments under news articles, anyway? Especially when they were so obviously fake. People working there had no literary interest or abilities. These were mechanical texts. It was a colossal labor of monkeys, it was pointless. For Russian audiences, at least. But for Americans, it appears it did work. They aren’t used to this kind of trickery. They live in a society in which it’s accepted to answer for your words. And here — I was amazed how everyone was absolutely sure of their impunity, even as they wrote incredibly offensive comments. They were sure that with the anonymity of the Internet, no one would find them.

How much would you get paid?

Around 40,000 rubles a month [about $700 at the current exchange rate]. We’d work 12-hour days, two days on, two days off.

Did you know that the factory was also targeting the United States?

We didn’t visit other departments, but I knew there was a “Facebook department.” … It wasn’t a secret. We all had essentially the same topics, they were focused on American readers and we were focused on Russians.

How did you know about it?

I speak English, and they asked me if I would like to transfer to the Facebook department. The pay there was two times as high. I said, “Well, let me try.” I failed the test because you had to know English perfectly. The reader must not have the feeling that you are a foreigner. The language demands were in fact very high, they were demanding high-end translators, basically.

What was this test like?

First, they tested your knowledge of English. I first had to write something about, “What do you think about vegetarians?” or something like that. Then it was, “What do you think of Hillary Clinton? What chances does she have to win in the U.S. election?” You had to write at great length about this. … The main thing was showing that you are able to show that you can represent yourself as an American. … I failed the test because you had to know English perfectly.

And what were the people like who worked in the American department?

I would see them on smoking breaks. … They were totally modern-looking young people, like hipsters, wearing fashionable clothes with stylish haircuts and modern devices. They were so modern that you wouldn’t think they could do something like this.

Why did you leave?

I left for moral reasons. I was ashamed to work there.

From what you’ve seen them do in the U.S. campaign, does it look like they used the same kinds of tactics that you saw, or has their sophistication increased?

Their level grew, without question. Back then they were just beginning, and then they started with more complicated fake-news tactics. … Back then, we didn’t arrange events.

Had you heard that Yevgeny Prigozhin was behind the factory’s operations?

Today’s WorldView newsletter

What’s most important from where the world meets Washington

Of course I heard it, and I think it’s true. But the trolls there mainly scolded him. He’s known as the “main chef” of the Kremlin, and yet in this huge building, there was no cafe, no cafeteria, nothing! … Everyone brought their own little jars and little flasks.

What do you think will be the repercussions of this indictment in Russia?

I think the factory will continue to exist and everything will remains as it was. … The people on the list of indictments have nothing to fear as long as they are in Russia.


3

Posted by Russian trolls and bots on Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:11 | #

Russian Trolls on American social media: no small effort


4

Posted by Guccifer 2.0 on Sun, 15 Jul 2018 09:18 | #

Washington Post, The latest Mueller indictments provide a template for what could be coming next,

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Friday indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officials for election hacking is the politically and tactically savvy next step in his investigation. It also provides a template for indictments that could still be coming — this time potentially including charges against Americans.

Recall that this past February, Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for interfering with the 2016 election, primarily through the use of fake social media accounts. That indictment left two key questions: 1) What about the known Russian hacking of Democratic emails; and 2) did any associates of the Trump campaign knowingly participate in the Russian misconduct?

Friday’s indictment answers the first question. It details the hacking by Russian intelligence officials into computers owned by Democratic political organizations and the Clinton campaign to steal emails and campaign documents. It describes how the Russians coordinated the release of the stolen materials in an effort to damage Clinton, including working through a company identified as “Organization 1” (presumably WikiLeaks) and using fake online personas such as “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” It charges they used fake email accounts, multiple servers and other methods to cover their tracks. And it alleges they attacked election-related computers in a number of states.

Mueller’s strategy and timing are politically astute. By bringing a second election-related indictment against only Russian nationals, he has further insulated his investigation against partisan attacks. The indictment provides a sober counterpoint to the D.C. histrionics about FBI text messages and “witch hunts.” No serious person can dismiss the importance of what Mueller has found. Coupled with the February indictment, these charges provide a startling account of Russian attacks against the United States. Every American, regardless of party, should be outraged and deeply concerned.

But the second question still remains: Did any Americans — including Trump campaign members — knowingly take part in the Russian misconduct? And as with the first Russia charges, this indictment leaves that question unanswered. When announcing the indictment, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein was careful to note that it does not allege that any Americans knowingly participated in these crimes. The White House was also quick to point out that the indictment does not claim that members of the president’s campaign were involved.

But as Rosenstein also noted, Mueller’s investigation continues. And if Mueller does have evidence of American involvement in any of the Russian wrongdoing, that would be the logical next shoe to drop. Although no Americans are charged in this indictment, there is plenty of evidence that a number at the very least benefited from these Russians’ efforts. For example, the indictment charges that the hackers, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent stolen documents to a candidate for Congress that related to the candidate’s opponent. Guccifer 2.0 also allegedly sent stolen data concerning Democratic donors to a state lobbyist and sent documents about Black Lives Matter to a journalist. Perhaps most important, the indictment charges that Guccifer 2.0 offered assistance to a person — widely assumed to be longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone — who was in “regular contact with senior members” of the Trump campaign.

Beyond the pages of this indictment, we already have other reports of Trump advisers connected to the Russian activities. For example, we know George Papadopoulos was in contact with various Russians and received information about Russians having emails that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton. We know Donald Trump Jr. and other top campaign officials took the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 with Russians offering damaging information about Clinton. And we know that Stone, in addition to communicating with Guccifer 2.0, was reportedly in contact with WikiLeaks at the time it was releasing the hacked emails in the weeks leading up to the election.

Whether these or other contacts with the Russians were criminal will turn on the knowledge and intent of the Trump officials involved. Mueller has once again charged a conspiracy — the criminal-law version of “collusion.” It’s not surprising that no Americans were included in this indictment; there has never really been a suggestion that Americans were involved in the hacking itself. But if members of the Trump campaign engaged in a separate conspiracy with the Russian hackers to make use of the stolen information, they would be exposed to similar charges — including conspiracy to defraud the United States or conspiracy to violate federal election laws.

While the political maelstrom in Washington swirls, Mueller soldiers on with his meticulous investigation. He has largely written the story of the Russian interference with the election. Now we wait to see whether his next chapter includes any Trump officials in starring roles.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Defence of Polish honour by Morawiecki government
Previous entry: “What We Don’t Know - Motive.” Likely: revenge against societal incoherence, lack of accountability

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:13. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:09. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:24. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:16. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:58. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:34. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:29. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:27. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:38. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:54. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:47. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Patriotic Alternative given the black spot' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What lies at the core' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:19. (View)

affection-tone