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

#71

Post by mkempe » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #66

Replying to an unfortunately killed comment which raised common, potentially legitimate (given the success of various spin efforts) though naive and poorly informed questions: > Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? It's the Russian election meddling scandal, the hacking was just one piece of it, and, yes, much of the information fed to…

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.

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

#72

Post by okmokmz » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #57

neeksHN wrote: post #54

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…

If it never goes to trial? The only hope is filing a FOIA request, which will probably be denied for 20-50 years.

>The only hope is filing a FOIA request, which will probably be denied for 20-50 years.

Either that, or they'll send you a bunch of documents that look something like this

https://static.businessinsider.com/image/4cc59ba2cadcbbbf5f0...

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

#73

Post by civilitty » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

jrs95 wrote: post #58

civilitty wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I could not glean from the indictment is how they could possibly have identified these 12 people individually. The government must have some other sigint or humint for that? Will this ever make it to trial so that evidence can be revealed? These indictments are the result of a massive counterintelligence operation spanning many agencies from several nations. In this case specifically, the AIVD (Dutch intel) ha…

If the evidence used here was obtained via intelligence services partly through hacking, and there is no real "defense" to speak of, why should we take this to be valid? How can we be sure that elements of this evidence haven't been fabricated or tampered with?

The defendants will have the opportunity to dispute the evidence and challenge the legality of its acquisition before a judge and then several layers of appeals courts. What we know is that the prosecutors have already done their due diligence, that warrants were granted after judicial review, and that the evidence obtained from those warrants was enough to convince a grand jury to indict, regardless of whether the highly classified intel used to get that evidence was genuine or not.

More importantly we know that the career Republicans running the office of special counsel, who incidentally all left multi-million dollar a year jobs to be at the center of the most politically charged, controversial, and scrutinized investigations in American history, have staked their reputations and careers on the truth of all of the documents they have filed in court, under oath.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

mkempe wrote: post #71

dragonwriter wrote: post #66

Replying to an unfortunately killed comment which raised common, potentially legitimate (given the success of various spin efforts) though naive and poorly informed questions: > Just checking... But in the Russian Hacking Scandal... Was any of the information released to the public wrong or fake? It's the Russian election meddling scandal, the hacking was just one piece of it, and, yes, much of the information fed to…

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.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

Mouse47 wrote: post #19

24gttghh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doe…

Can you point out instances of unethical behavior or "backroom dealings"? Frankly I haven't personally seen anything out of place other than uncharitable readings by the right...

A good example of unethical can be seen by reading Clinton's leaked Wall Street speeches where her private options is wildly different than her public.

Unethical that while the DNC is well within their right to push the candidate most likely to win, their public impression of fair voting was not at all that to Bernie supporters. Nor did the DNC disclose just how much the Clinton campaign was funding operations before her being selected as candidate.

Also unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups to an unvetted third civilian party with no security access. Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info.

I'm not sure having media push the articles the campaign writes with the promise of greater access is ethical.

Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine? IDK. Maybe that's "opposition research"... It's hard to tell where that line is.

... Unless you don't think those things happened.

edit: More downvotes, but all of those things happened. Sorry HN, seeming more like Reddit every day :(

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

#76

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

neeksHN wrote: post #54

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…

> Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to release the evidence used to attribute the defendants

If you meant “ever”, then yes, but that would require the indicted individuals actually be arrested and brought before the court, which, while not impossible, is improbable without a change of government in both the US and Russia.

If it didn't go to trial, and it's classified (which it almost certainly is) or otherwise not subject to FOIA (which as sensitive, even if it not classified, information related to an open criminal case, which it will be until the case is resolved, it will continue to be at a minimum, it would seem exempt from) there won't be any likely compulsory process. Maybe Congress could pry it out of DoJ and make it public, by at least the current leadership send willing to stand up to intense pressure including public impeachment threats from the same party in Congress on at least some sensitive investigation information, so it's not clear that would work, either.

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

#77

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #48

frockington wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker news has sadly become more like Reddit. "Wrongthink" or questions will be down voted to preserve the narrative, even if it is a legitimate question or interest

>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.

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

#78

Post by ssully » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

mkempe wrote: post #50

local_yokel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should Germany have answered the Obama-sanctioned eavesdropping on Angela Merkel's phone?

Obviously Germany should sue Obama and a group of his accomplices. [added] I see double, down-voting standards. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We all agree that criminals should be charged, and that someone who organizes and benefits from criminal activity is criminal too. As America charges GRU agents, and thus targets their boss Putin, the same should be done for known actions by NSA agents, a…

I am assuming the downvotes are for you lack of distinction between two.

Eavesdropping and spying, even amongst allies, is basically an open secret or just an activity everyone assumes the other is doing.

Actively influencing an election is much more serious and not something you would expect your allies to be doing in your country. If Obama was doing that to Germany then I expect there would have been a real shit show.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:31 PM UTC

mkempe wrote: post #68

neeksHN wrote: post #54

> At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens. > This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division. Assuming this never goes to trial, could the DOJ ever be compelled to releas…

Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence used to charge them?

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by Varcht » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 6:31 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.