Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 322 posts

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#251

Post by the_optimist »

tylerhou wrote: post #250
the_optimist wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. You say it yourself. What exactly are you trying to rebut here?

The original poster said: > in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election? and > there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many…

You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours.

Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#252

Post by tored »

tw04 wrote: post #247
tored wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the punishment should be for giving mostly outdated, partially public and top line polling data (Trump 50% vs Clinton 48%) to Russians (as in citizens)?

I would need you to go back and edit your posts insinuating there was no proof before I have any interest in continuing the conversation. I get the impression you're more interested in trolling than having a conversation based in facts.

Please point me to when I said there was no proof for Manafort giving Kilimnik polling data. (I didn't, what I was skeptic about was that Manafort gave Russian Intelligence sensitive campaign data and that there was connection from the Trump campaign to Russian Intelligence).

Now, please answer my question.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#253

Post by gebruikersnaam »

tored wrote: post #234
gebruikersnaam wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you comment on the part from the Treasury Department, and not the WP piece. The latter references the Senate committee, stating that Kilimnik received highly sensitive campaign data and designated him as a Russian agent. If anything needs skepticism its people like Mate and Greenwald.

What type of information was shared from the Trump campaign? Polling data and strategy to beat Hillary Clinton. Gates has testified that the polling data was non-sensitive and also dated. I think the only real significant claim the Senate report does is when says the DNC leaks of 2016 was done by GRU and then sent to WikiLeaks and report says "Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU's hack and leak operation targ…

> I think

What you think is irrelevant, US intelligence classifies the data as sensitive. The fact is that Manafort lied about sharing the data with Kilimnik, that Barr tried to keep it a secret.

But lets see what the Senate report actually says:

"It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era."

Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#254

Post by janandonly »

Seriously: why would a public figure, who knows she will be the target of the FBI, use her own name to make an Apple ID? Or didn't she and did the agency use her phone number and SIM card and IMEI to track her to whatever device she happend to be using?

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#256

Post by tylerhou »

the_optimist wrote: post #251
tylerhou wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original poster said: > in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election? and > there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many…

You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.

My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download.

> The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.")

They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government.

> On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.)

> The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#257

Post by p_j_w »

mc32 wrote: post #8

Oh boy, that ever useful boogeyman >“In December 2019, the Washington Post reported that Elbakyan was being investigated by the US Justice Department on suspicion that she “may” be working with Russian intelligence to “steal U.S. military secrets...” When you start trotting that out, you know it’s a witch-hunt because if they had real reasons they’d have stated them, since they don’t they offer vague insinuations cou…

>weasel words like may and suspicion

On the other hand, do we want law enforcement to NOT use words like this, as though everyone they suspect of committing a crime is definitely guilty? I personally think it's preferable that they keep those "weasel words" in there until the whole "due process" thing has run it's course.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#258

Post by the_optimist »

tylerhou wrote: post #256
the_optimist wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.

My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download . > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras A…

You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior is specified by law. Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless.

> "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election"

Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations, so desperate were they to find a crime.

Re: FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims

#259

Post by tored »

gebruikersnaam wrote: post #253
tored wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of information was shared from the Trump campaign? Polling data and strategy to beat Hillary Clinton. Gates has testified that the polling data was non-sensitive and also dated. I think the only real significant claim the Senate report does is when says the DNC leaks of 2016 was done by GRU and then sent to WikiLeaks and report says "Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU's hack and leak operation targ…

> I think What you think is irrelevant, US intelligence classifies the data as sensitive. The fact is that Manafort lied about sharing the data with Kilimnik, that Barr tried to keep it a secret. But lets see what the Senate report actually says: "It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral pro…

> US intelligence classifies the data as sensitive.

Where can I read about that classification for this polling data?

That part of the report your are quoting is from the addendum of the senators Heinrich, Feinstein, Wyden, Harris and Bennet, all five are members of the Democratic party, so it is not what the report concludes, it just their viewpoints. Nice try.

What the report does concludes is

"The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight info the Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat."

Likely is something you use when you don't have hard evidence.

Post reply on HN