Grand Jury Indicts Russian Officers for Hacking Related to the 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #102

dragonwriter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents This is not the only indictment by the special counsel office, and the statement of the offense in one of the guilty pleas in a prior indictment is directly about active collusion efforts. And I'm discussing what is at issue in the scandal, not merely what is covered by indictments that have already been issued. > the special counsel ha…

You've answered neither of my questions though, just given me reasons that this doesn't disprove your "active collaboration" claim. I don't think any of this does disprove it, but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia in this hack. I'm just wondering what, specifically, he did to "actively collaborate" and what the evidence of this is.

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by wahern » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #40

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…

You can sell a lie by saying true things. In fact, the best lies are mostly true - but the true parts don't add up to the overall picture, which is the lie. But the lie is the more believable because of the true (and verifiable!) parts.

Yesterday I was listening to a radio interview of the author of a recently published book on the 1903 Russian pogrom, "Pogrom: Kishinev and the Tilt of History".

(Interview: https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101866202/pogrom-revisits-inf...)

The author kept making the point that even though the 1903 pogrom was very well documented contemporaneously such that there really are no unresolved questions among historians about the facts of the events, both the victims and perpetrators (and their descendants) clung to erroneous mythologies, more so than other pogroms that were less well documented.

The author kept making the point that facts are complex and messy, whereas myths provide a simple, consistent narrative. The internal consistency of mythology can actually make them seem more true and even more factual. Bolster that basic quality with some convenient ties to the historical record, against the backdrop of the seeming inconsistency of reality (mixed motives, people contradicting themselves, and even sheer randomness) the truth is often much more difficult to believe. Certainly truth rarely offers answers as satisfying as myth.

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

#113

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #102

dragonwriter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents This is not the only indictment by the special counsel office, and the statement of the offense in one of the guilty pleas in a prior indictment is directly about active collusion efforts. And I'm discussing what is at issue in the scandal, not merely what is covered by indictments that have already been issued. > the special counsel ha…

You've answered neither of my questions though, just given me reasons that this doesn't disprove your "active collaboration" claim. I don't think any of this does disprove it, but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia in this hack. I'm just wondering what, specifically, he did to "actively collaborate" and what the evidence of this is.

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by mozumder » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #51

mozumder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statements are statements. Obama should have arrested Trump the moment he made this statement.

You'd have to pretty majorly change the US Constitution before that is even remotely legal.

Not really. Criminal conspiracy is already a crime.

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

#115

Post by pluto9 » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

abowlofpetunias wrote: post #36

hanshan wrote: post #13

>The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” >“Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections. Sounds like Don Quixote is fighting the internet now. Unless you just shut it down how is it possible to not have world wide "interfer…

Thanks for your genuine opinion, 4-day-old account in a heavily bombarded thread.

From the comment guidelines [1]:

> Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data.

Also, your own account is all of 40 days old and you have a grand total of 8 comments, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#116

Post by keketi » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

cmurf wrote: post #105

From the indictment with my comments in [] 22. On or about July 27 2016 the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a 3rd party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign. [July 27 2016 is the date on which Trump said on national TV "Ru…

> [July 27 2016 is the date on which Trump said on national TV "Russia if you're listening..." and invited Russia to commit a crime to hack and find Clinton's 'missing' emails.]

Trump's words were "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing"[1]. In my view, interpreting that as a call to commit a crime is a stretch.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-...

> [Trump claims the DNC did not turn over the hacked (physical) server to the FBI. And per this indictment it's clear it was a virtual server hosted in the cloud and at least Mueller's team does have quite a bit of forensic evidence to show how the theft occurred.]

Trump's claims are supported by Comey's testimony on March 20, 2017 that the FBI never got any kind of access, physical or virtual, to any DNC machine.

> HURD: [...] you have still been -- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.

> COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1703/20/cnr.07.html

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

#117

Post by wahern » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

crazynick4 wrote: post #59

rosser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship , you're paying a very selective kind of attention.

"things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes. > ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention. I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy. Antagonizing the Saudi government…

The hypocrisy bothers me as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Even though there are factions that fund terrorism, unlike, say, Iran with Hamas, we can complain (and do complain) to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia will actually try to do something about it, subject (as always) to their own internal power struggles. (Plus, it's not like sanctions convinced Iran to stop funding Hamas or Hezbollah.)

This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes.

America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.

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

#118

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #77

freehunter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even if it is a legitimate question or interest Perhaps, but you and I both know this is not a legitimate question or interest. It's a talking point used to deflect blame.

I asked the question, was the information released wrong or fake. Was it? Because if it's not wrong or fake, and it's damaging - none of that blame lies with the creators and only with the publisher? That seems odd.

> I asked the question, was the information released wrong or fake. Was it?

Yes, the information presented to the American public as part of the (still ongoing) Russian political influence operation aimed at destabilizing the US has often been, and continues to often be, both “wrong” and “fake”.

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

#119

Post by keketi » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

puzzle wrote: post #86

jdoliner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not; the issue is that a US Presidential campaign actively collaborated in an influence operation by a hostile foreign power directed against the US That's a bold claim given that this indictment is exclusively of Russian agents and the special counsel has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe [0]. When you say "active collaboration" what does that actually mean? And could you pres…

Yes, only Russian agents are indicted this time, but someone who might be Roger Stone makes a brief appearance (#44) in the document, too, probably to be targeted in future legal action.

The american person in #44 is indeed likely to be Roger Stone. Here's what Mr. Stone wrote on March 10, 2017[1] regarding his contact with Guccifer 2.0:

> All contact I had with the entity known as Gufficer 2 came after I had written an article that was published on August 5th 2016 by Breitbart News and vetted by their lead investigative reporter Lee Stranahan. That article came after the DNC and DCCC material had been released and identified the role of a hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2 based on our own sources.

> Therefore, any such “collaboration” would’ve also involved a time machine – something that I think Putin has not perfected yet.

> On August 14- some ten days- later I noted on my twitter feed that Guccifer 2.0 who had been suspended by Twitter had been reinstated. I did so because I abhor censorship. Then I did in fact have a short and innocuous Direct Message exchange with Guccifer 2.0. It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it. Not exactly 007 stuff even if Guccifer 2.0 was working for the Russkies.

These statements seem consistent with the information in the indictment.

[1] https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-smoking-gun-aims-...

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

#120

Post by update » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #94

mkempe wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that President Trump is an anti-American, Russian agent is insane. [added] I will not provide any reply or assistance if you further promote, hypothesize, or engage in crazy conspiracy theories.

Hypothetically, if a Russian agent became President of the USA, what would you expect him to do? Try to withdraw from as many international treaties as possible? Insult foreign heads of state and sabotage America's relationship with their allies? Refuse to enact sanctions against Russia? I don't think Trump is a Russian agent, but I wouldn't call the idea crazy

> Hypothetically, if a Russian agent became President of the USA, what would you expect him to do?

If a Russian agent became President of the USA, I would expect him to disarm american citizens and to reduce the power of the U.S. military.

e: if you're downvoting please explain why.