Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things... Isn't that shooting the messenger? Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements?

edit: Downvotes for a serious question, hello Reddit, I hadn't seen you come in here.

edit2: No, apparently none of the information was wrong or fake - but that doesn't change people's feeling on it apparently.

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#6

Post by toufka » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

silveira wrote: post #3

Full indictment document: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

So GRU, during Moscow work-hours, searched for terms like: "worldwide known", "think twice about", "some hundred sheets", and "company's competence".

And those terms happen to all show up later that day in this post: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

We all here talked about that release at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11912412

Our top comment suggested, "The media (and CrowdStrike) blame Russians for it [0]. Heh... yet this blog and the hacker himself, says he did it alone. // Yes, APTs definitely do happen but I'd bet they happen a lot less frequently than the media and security companies would want us to believe."

Those same computers controlled the twitter accounts, @dceaks_ (https://twitter.com/dcleaks_?lang=en), @Guccifer_2 (https://twitter.com/Guccifer_2) and the now-suspended, @BaltimoreIsWhr.

Those computers also negotiated bitcoin transactions for VPN services, made numerous encouraging facebook posts, transferred data to WikiLeaks, and registered relevant domain names.

And finally those computers communicated with:

1) a candidate for US Congress,

2) a registered state lobbyist,

3) a reporter,

4) a senior member of the Trump campaign.

Additionally, on July 27, Trump suggested in his speech, "Russia, if you're listening. I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." And those same computers, that same day, "attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts... used by Clinton's personal office."

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#7

Post by asdfologist » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#8

Post by jabgrabdthrow » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

asdfologist wrote: post #7

[flagged]

The damaging info in the emails is damaging

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#9

Post by chickenfries » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #5

Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things... Isn't that shooting the messenger? Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? edit: Downvotes for a serious question, hello Reddit, I hadn't…

So let’s see you publish your inbox then. What are you suggesting, that attempts to hack the Secretary of State go unanswered?

Re: Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election

#10

Post by 24gttghh » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #5

Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things... Isn't that shooting the messenger? Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements? edit: Downvotes for a serious question, hello Reddit, I hadn't…

Yes their backroom dealings were/are unethical, and its exposure surely help them to lose the election, but was any of it actually illegal? To put it another way, evidence brought forward in a court of law supposedly has limits placed on how the evidence can be obtained. If someone obtains (in this case effectively commits a B&E to get it) damming information about a party, which while good that it is exposed, it doesn't instantly absolve the thief from prosecution.