we re going to be joined next by a former fbi special agent who was one of the first people to warn about what this indictment says actually happened to our election, and he warned about it in eerily prescient detail months before any of us knew. he s here, next. for all the people who sneeze around dust. there s flonase sensimist allergy relief. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don t. it s more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. flonase sensimist.
terms of interaction on in our elections, right? with bots, with buying ads, all these things that are somewhat ambiguous in terms of our laws. mr. mueller has made it clear these are breaking a law. and i think that will deter russia from doing this in the future. now, there aren t people charged here who appear to be direct employees of the russian government. or at least it s not clear. there s an agency that is charged, this sort of internet research agency, which is run by a close ally of vladimir putin. there are two other organizations charged, which are business interests, which appear to be funding sources for this agency, ask then all these people charged, both that oligarch who runs that agency and a number of other people who appear to have been directly involved in the operation. does this when you look at this indictment, does it look like a russian government, russian intelligence operation, or is this something something hybrid, something particularly russian? h
criminal conspiracy that involved a number of chargeable criminal acts they believe they can prove in court. totally new advance in this special counsel investigation. and it brings me to some questions. question one. how did they get all this stuff? question two. i thought i mentioned this a moment ago. i thought, if they were going to bring criminal charges against any russians, it would be for hacking into the democrats computers. or maybe for hacking into state voter rolls. given that those things are not in this indictment at all, should we expect those things won t be charged or should we expect that more russians will be criminally indicted for those hacking attacks, as well. third question. the indictment says a number of times that there are other people associated with conspiracy who aren t named in the indictment. like this. quote, from in or around 2014 to the present, defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other and
joining us now clint watts. thank you for being with us and trying to let us know earlier than anybody else did. it s been an interesting journey. it was hard to convince people four years ago when we got started on this. when you read the indictment today and there were so many things that matched up with basically what you had described, what you d seen trails of online, what you surmised about how they might be being controlled or coordinated within russia, did you see anything in the indictment that was truly a surprise or that made you think this was bigger or different than you expected? there was only one thing. it was highly consistent with what we saw. we started tracking them in 2014 and the reason we knew it was connected to russia is because they initially came to us in
pleasure to be with you always. what we got today from this indictment is a very detailed, sort of lurid description at length with lots of details of a foreign intelligence operation that targeted the u.s. public on a large scale with large stakes. has there ever been a foreign intelligence operation that affected the u.s. public and u.s. politics in this way? well, i think what we saw today, rachel, really took a step toward the possibility that this is the biggest covert action operation against american interests that we may have ever seen.