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 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."
> 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, "attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts... used by Clinton's personal office."
Anyone who has seen the actual video for that blurb that doesn’t take it as a joke should re-evaluate their sense of humor.
Perhaps that is why other heads of state choose their words carefully... there are places where snark, innuendo and sarcasm are in poor taste.
What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way? Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way? What are the limits? Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?
To bring this back to hacker news, would you prefer a language syntax where you could insert meaningless statements that the interpreter or compiler could selectively decide to execute or not based on some non deterministic property? Lord knows we have enough problems with UB in C already ;)
> Perhaps that is why other heads of state choose their words carefully... there are places where snark, innuendo and sarcasm are in poor taste.
Sure but what constitutes crossing the line is debatable. Plus he wasn't a head of state at the time, he held no office whatsoever and was only a candidate in arguably the dirtiest election of most people's lives.
> What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way?
I thought it was funny and enjoyed the line. As a human I generally enjoy laughing so yes it enhanced my life.
> Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way?
I'd wager others thought it was amusing as well and that may have lead to a more positive opinion of Trump which in turn may have lead to greater voter turn out. A sense of humor can connect with a lot of people. Those that agree with his policies and agenda for the country would see things that lead to his election, such as demonstrating a sense of humor, as positive things.
> What are the limits?
There's no specific rule, it's up to the public to decide. Harping on Clinton's missing emails and private server setup was a go-to topic for Trump including commenting about how it was likely a hacking target by foreign governments. Joking about one of those governments providing the emails as evidence is (IMHO) well within bounds.
> Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?
There's definitely a lot of hyperbole in Strozk's texts but even stripping that away I wouldn't want him anywhere near an investigation of a political ally or adversary. It's the same reason you wouldn't want him on a jury. It's not that people aren't allowed to have opinions or even strong opinions. It's that once there's been a demonstration of animus or bias the end product will be tainted.
> To bring this back to hacker news, would you prefer a language syntax where you could insert meaningless statements that the interpreter or compiler could selectively decide to execute or not based on some non deterministic property? Lord knows we have enough problems with UB in C already ;)
Politics, and more generally human interaction, is non-deterministic. As much as I love strong typing and well formed expressions, I wouldn't want the entire world outside of software to be like that. There's beauty in the non-determinism.
Incredibly short sighted given the timing of Trump's comment, the suspicious nature of his campaign's behavior, and Russia's involvement in releasing propaganda designed to help elect Trump.
A reasonable person could look at his behavior and think that he was hiding his corruption in plain sight.
> Trump and his campaign tried to claim he was kidding. He was not. At that same press conference, minutes later, I asked if it gave him "pause" to ask a foreign government to hack into the emails of any American citizen. He said no and then accused me of trying to "save" Clinton.
The indictment doesn't assert an APT, just plain-old spearphish, steal password, install backdoor. If this was the GRU they didn't need their top men. 100% consistent with the "it could have been anybody, and probably multiple attackers got in" theory.
Note that the communications with the politicians and reporters are all a month or more after the leaks and their contents were public knowledge.
The backdoors (plural) were continuously relaying to a command+control server for a period of months. APT is justifiable as it refers to the entire process--coordinated penetration, continuous monitoring, and repeated exfiltration.
Furthermore, the public leaks _began_ before much of the direct communication, but the direct communication included material that had not yet been publicly leaked. The public leaks didn't occur all at once. They were staged to maximize impact.
The indictment is a reminder of just how much data can be pieced together about a person's online activity, at least with considerable resources and seemingly proper court authorized warrants. From web searches, to emails, twitter posts, block chain transactions, all of it could be correlated together. The searching for specific phrases that then appeared in a text is particularly damning.
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?
> 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) hacked the GRU offices where a large part of the hacking was carried out and managed to exfiltrate significant amounts of evidence including CCTV security footage of GRU officers coming and going [1]. The evidence proving the crimes for the purposes of a conviction will be made public but unless lawyers for the defendants come to challenge the warrants and get them unsealed, the evidence that led to the public stuff will likely stay secret for decades.
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.
Knowing the details is very different from having access to the physical evidence that led to that knowledge. The latter can very often be used to trace intelligence operatives and expose the methods they use - either of which could have life or death consequences for the operatives themselves, the informants and dissidents they work with, and Americans working in the area in general.
For example, when it was exposed that the CIA was using a vaccination program in Pakistan to test for the DNA of known terrorists, their associates, and families, the backlash led to the death of many aid works and a massive drop in vaccinations in the country.
He publicly supported the claim it was the DNC and every day it looks like Wikileaks was just being used as an information laundering service for the Russians.
I had not been aware the the government had ever obtained access to the DNC server. I assume that will be a key piece of evidence for prosecution and for defense, so they must finally have it. That's good. Would have been better two years ago, but good that they have it now.
I'm going to guess it's the usual reminder that statements in indictments are a description of the story the prosecutor plans to tell, not what they can actually prove. They are allowed to leave out anything that isn't consistent with their story.
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 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.
I don't believe any of the emails came from the secretary of state... or are you saying she was using that account illegally to conduct state business?
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, and their boss Obama at the time.
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.
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.
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...
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 would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum.
I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
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.
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 :(
>unethical would be the private email server set up to push unecrypted backups
Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)?
>Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info
You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP?
>Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine?
Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
Wow. Dude, how many of the HN people are running their own servers in order to bypass FOIA compliance at the State Department?
Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work?
I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.
>Isn't the larger issue that the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton did and said things that weren't aligned with their public statements?
No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.
>And still, Rule of Law requires that those who enforce the law, follow the law.
Countries that believe the US interferes with their elections are free to try to do what the US is doing, and attempt to prosecute a case against whomever they can catch.
Otherwise... what conclusion are we meant to reach? That countries which engage in espionage or which interfere with other countries' elections shouldn't have espionage laws or should allow any interference in their own? There's no argument of equivocation one could make to excuse or exonerate Russia in this case that doesn't also do the same for the US.
I could be wrong, but "Hacking an election" is not by definition illegal per say. However, accessing a computer illegally or defrauding people with the intention to meddle in an election is indeed illegal.
If <insert country here> had an election and the US-CIA had hackers put malicious code in their voting machines, and that country had laws against tampering with voting machines, then I would fully expect that country to indict those involved. Obviously in a geopolitical environment, that usually means through sanctions or some other means.
If US embassy in Korea did anything similar to influence Korean election, and if it was found out, you can be assured that people will throw some major shit and there will be protests, both on the streets and in the national assembly, and heads will start rolling.
America understands this, and does not try to influence Korean election (or, if they still do, they are really careful not to get caught), because the risk of it backfiring is simply too much.
...And South Korea was basically America's puppet state during the majority of its existence.
I'm going to do my best to have a good faith argument. I agree with the assertion that the US elections should be free from foreign influence, however, Russia is accused of simply bringing unfavorable things to light, it doesn't seem like they invented/constructed anything, they just amplified prexisting tensions - they're accused of organizing anti-Trump rallies and espousing pro-BLM views, certainly that's unacceptable influencing but it's not a dynamic because of the Russians.
But the Russians weren't the only ones who did this, the President of Mexico was firmly against Trump and I recognize that as an unacceptable foreign influence. How do you recognize the difference between acceptable and unacceptable foreign influence and was the President of Mexico acting in a way that was acceptable?
It is mind boggling to me that people are shocked at this. It has been going on for decades, going back to at least the time the USSR tried to help Kennedy win the election.
What happened was expected at every election, it's on the DNC and FBI for not protecting their servers.
Never mind the joke being on the Russians as Trump is turning out to be several times tougher on them than Hillary would likely have been, even going so far as to start threatening their European gas pipelines.
>Never mind the joke being on the Russians as Trump is turning out to be several times tougher on them than Hillary would likely have been, even going so far as to start threatening their European gas pipelines.
That's odd. During the campaign, I distinctly remember Hillary being described as an insane bloodthirsty war hawk who was going to plunge us into World War 3 against Russia at the first opportunity, and Trump as the reasonable man who understood Russia and just wanted to do business.
Trump is destroying the alliance, starting trade wars, and squandering any moral advantage western democracies may have in eastern discourse with his many behavior failings.
If that's tough on Russia you have to explain how.
I can’t quite figure this out either. The only thing that I would call meddling was their propaganda campaign. We shouldn’t care about the leaked emails. If the RNC had their mail spool dumped, Dems wouldn’t give a shit about this and would be saying that Republicans are just mad that they got caught.
Wow man, a puff piece article written directly before an election of how good and noble one candidate is. Not exactly hard hitting proof there.
Not even counting that the DNC of 2000 is the same in 2018. Or that Hillary was as good (or bad) a candidate as Gore.
Edit: I think a more fair reference would be looking at Clinton's past to see if there was anything ever questionable or sketchy. Like for instance... Did Clinton ask CNN's Donna Brazil to not send any more debate questions that would be asked later that week? No, she didn't.
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
You're deliberately missing the point and watering down the argument, and you know it. That question is not asked in good faith, it is not asked to start a conversation, it is asked only to obfuscate the truth and cause trouble.
The only thing that matters is, has US law enforcement conducted investigations, and of those investigations, which ones have produced evidence of actual crimes having been committed?
Your whataboutism doesn't change anything. It doesn't uncommit the crimes, it doesn't rescind the indictments, and it doesn't reverse the guilty pleas. US law enforcement has found evidence of crimes and some of those criminals have pled guilty. Some of them are sitting in jail right now.
Sorry, what was your question again? Because what I heard you ask was "why are the admitted criminals in jail and not the victims?"
> 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”.
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".
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.
>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 "interference" on the world wide web? Perhaps we need to think about how the instantaneous global communications network is obsolescing the concept of the nation state which was formed as a result of the printing press.
>Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us.
That sounds like a fitting description of mass media/news corporations everywhere.
Wow, when a foreign government tries to influence our elections, you handwave it away, but when American journalists weigh in on politics, suddenly they're being "adversarial".
Think long and hard about what you're saying here. You're dismissing foreign interference, but critisizing domestic political involvement.
The key difference here is that Russia isn't the United States and has no say in our policies, while American journalists are citizens and voters who have a societal duty to participate the democracy. When the former gets involved in an election, we call it "foreign interference", when the latter gets involved we call it "democracy".
So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?
>So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?
That's a false dichotomy which implies you missed my point. There is no such thing as sovereign democracy in a globalized world with omnipresence and instantaneous communication.
> 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.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
There's been a longstanding struggle between the design principles of cryptocurrency - i.e. private payments - and the public policy goals of monitoring our payments infrastructure for criminal activity. What are cryptocurrency advocates saying now about e.g. FinCEN's jurisdiction over exchanges? Is KYC now standard? Do they submit SARs? Do they agree with the principles, or are they opposed to any sort of oversight?
Really? And you know this how? Just because the Chinese or Russian government's don't make a public spectacle, doesn't mean they haven't indicted US citizens for espionage. I'm willing to bet there's more than one US government employee who would be arrested the second they cleared customs in one or both of those countries.
Based on your post history, I can't tell if you're a troll or actually believe what you're saying, but 30 seconds on google would alleviate you of your ignorance.
This has ALREADY HAPPENED. Russia has enticed people they secretly indicted on spy charges back to Russia, and then stuck them in prison.
> 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 release the evidence used to attribute the defendants? Or will it remain "pending arraignment" indefinitely?
I'd love to see an in-depth technical analysis of how they were able to substantiate these allegations
> Are the accused allowed to examine the evidence use to charge them?
If they actually are arrested or surrender themselves to face the charges, yes, mostly. That is, they are entitled to not only what the prosecution will use at trial, but to have any exculpatory evidence in the hands of the government proactively turned over, and to have compulsory means of securing any relevant evidence, physical or testimonial, from any person subject to the court.
But that's likely moot in this case; these defendants seem unlikely to be brought before the court, voluntarily or involuntarily.
Thanks. I'm asking because apparently the other Russian group previously charged by Mueller et al has hired lawyers who seem to be easily winning the case in court, without any Russian national having to appear. Apparently for lack of evidence and lack of legal substance.
> 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.
My guess is that Russia will fund one charged guy to hire a a top US lawyer and fight the charges.
A Russian company--allegedly doing Russia's dirty work--hired top US lawyers and they are giving DOJ a heartburn...they must share evidence (can tell how it was obtained) and get ready to go to trial. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/09/concord-manag...
I think the US intelligence community is competent and influential enough to get the DOJ to drop the charges before Russia gained significant knowledge that way.
Great, but how does this accomplish anything. As GRU officers, I highly doubt they would ever travel to the US in the first place, which means they can't be punished in any meaningful way.
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 public in the course of that operation was false.
Some of that has been covered in the special counsel’s previous indictment of Russian organizations and individuals involved in the propaganda end of the operation.
> Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things
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 is itself part of a larger operation being conducted not only the US but the entire Western Alliance), that that influence operation was integral to the success of the Presidential campaign, and that the US President (who is, by virtue of that position, also effective head of a major US political party) may, therefore, effectively be an agent of a hostile foreign power working against the interests of the US and her allies.
His policies are fairly anti-western alliance, which has defined America for nearly a century. It's unlikely he's a Russian agent but he certainly seems to be influenced by at least one. His son definitely attempted to work with the Russian government to help get Trump elected, even though he knew they were doing something illegal.
At least some of that seems in the past. Presently, Schindler has good coverage of the details here [1], which details what a generous reading of mkempe's point is trying to say -- let's not go over-board.
I haven't read all the indictments and so might be wrong, but at this point I think it would be speculation. Time will almost certainly tell for sure. The wikipedia definition of the term seems easy to agree on — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)
Manafort's actions in Ukraine paint him as a Russian asset in my mind (http://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukr...). You're correct that this doesn't prove he was acting on behalf of Russia when he offered to work on Trump's campaign for free though. That is speculation on my part, but seems fairly likely.
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
If the agent is known to be an agent, Congress can quickly impeach him. During an election, all parties are highly incentivized to find dirt on the others, which helps increase the likelihood of discovery. No system is perfect, but directly voting in an agent is generally unlikely.
But that only works if Congress has an incentive to vote to impeach. If we're in a hypothetical situation where we know the president to be a foreign agent, assuming that people in Congress are not similarly compromised, at the very least they are members of the same political party as the president. Impeaching one of their own would have political consequences, and Trump's approval rating still shows a pretty decent base who like him.
It would be basically political suicide for any Republican to vote to impeach because many Americans don't believe Trump is an agent, don't believe he did anything wrong, and still agree with his policies and agenda.
Congress has the ability to impeach, but not the will.
> If the agent is known to be an agent, Congress can quickly impeach him.
Of course, for members of his party concerned about the danger such public knowledge would do to their own personal political position and their party, the incentive if they know he is a foreign agent is to actively blur and distract from the issue to prevent the public from getting a clear understanding.
EDIT: This might result, say, in the bizarre spectacle of Congress members and of that party continuously attacking the credibility of individuals and institutions which have traditionally favored (or who are members of) that party simply because they are faithfully pursuing (or insufficiently sabotaging) an investigation of the operation in which the President is involved.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It seems like a no-brainer that an enemy force (Russia in this instance) would want to disarm the people they plan to attack/control.
The OP asked what I'd expect from a Russian Agent as President, and that's what I'd expect one of the first steps to be. I _wouldn't_ expect a russian agent who became president of the U.S. to fight for the 2nd Amendment/arming of citizens and to push for the EU to increase their military spending.
I'm not convinced disarming citizens would be a good move for an agent. It would cost a lot of political capital to pull off, and the benefit only materialized in the unlikely event of physically occupying the US (which would be decades in the future). Keeping guns readily available also seems to come at a cost to health and safety of the population, benefitting the goals of a Russian agent.
Weakening the U.S. military sounds like a more worthwile goal. Reducing their budget would be one way to do that, but that's easily undone. I would go for more a more sublte approach to inflict better long-term damage. Try to restructure and reprioritise to get less done with more money. Try to get rid of important military installations abroad. Try to burn bridges with allies to make sure the US military has to take a larger burden in foreign interventions. If you're feeling really bold, try to establish entirely new arms of the military to further decrease effectiveness and increase spending. Try to do all of that in a way that's hard to undo by the next president.
> 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 present some evidence of it?
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.
There was a meeting with a foreign ambassador offering to collaborate which was met with enthusiasm by trumps people who we are to believe knew nothing about this even though he was in the same building a few floors above.
He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.
According to the indictment, Russia kicked off a set of hacking attempts a few hours after Trump made that request. The timing creates an appearance of cooperation that is not ideal.
Republicans have argued that Trump was joking. The fact that Russia appears to have promptly complied with Trump's request complicates the situation.
You need to realize that just because he isn't a 'target' at this time, it does not mean he cannot become a target in the future. Right now he is considered a subject of the investigation and his behavior/actions are under scrutiny of the Mueller investigation. If Trump is elevated to target of the investigation, then that means the Mueller investigation has significant evidence that a crime was committed.
Considering how many high level people in Trump's close orbit have been indicted or investigated it would be extremely difficult for him to have not known about any of this occurring in his campaign.
> George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime.
[...]
> So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election.
Wrong. What Papadopoulos plead guilty lying to the FBI about was specifically collaborating with Russians known to and believed by him to be connected with the Russian government while he was a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, on matters related to the campaign. See the “Statement of Offense” filed with his plea:
I have seen his statement of offense document. In fact I linked to it in my own post. The only crime listed in it is "18 U.S.C. §1001 (False Statements)". It's true that the contents of his lies relate to the collusion investigation, but still, there is no underlying crime charged or pleaded guilty to that relates to the 2016 election.
> 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 has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe
People read too much into that, because they tend to think that “target” is a broader term than it is, particularly, that it includes what is actually termed a “subject” rather than a “target”. That's notable because the special counsel has also explicitly said Trump is a subject of the investigation.
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.
> but you claim that he "actively collaborated" with Russia
No, I don't. The campaign is not a “he”, and I said that the collaboration by the campaign (and the potential that, if that is the case, the President is effectively a foreign agent) is the issue, that is, the subject of concern/debate, not that it's a fact (though at least one member of the campaign has already admitted to actively seeking to collaborate with Russia, and implicated other campaign officials, in his guilty plea to charges laid by the special counsel.)
Not sure why this is being downvoted. It is abundantly clear that the special counsel is being extremely conservative with their indictments and claims so as to not create the opportunity for opponents to dispute the claims.
The issue of target vs subject is a technical one by the special counsel and is intentionally twisted by the conservative media. It's like in any other legal trial: a verdict of "not guilty" is not an affirmation that the defendant is innocent, but rather that the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty.
Whereas most of SV embraces "move fast and break things", we should be thankful that the special counsel is not.
On the other hand these indictments will never go to trial, and the defendants will not be convicted and/or punished, so it’s a little too conservative for now.
The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target.
As for active collaboration? The DAG Rod Rosenstein told Trump these indictments were coming and their nature. And today Trump decides not to push back on Putin/Russia for these actions, but he impugned Robert Mueller with "rigged witch hunt" claims. Again. That is giving aid and comfort to Putin/Russia by papering over, giving them cover for, attacks/crimes on the United States, its people, its institutions, and at least two candidates.
He has been doing a variation on this for two years: maybe they did it, maybe they didn't, Putin denies it so we should believe that because Putin is a good guy and we should just get along, and maybe it was China and maybe it was a 400 pound fat man in a bed.
And what he is doing is two fold: Demanding Americans believe Trump over Mueller, which is hilarious, insane, and ridiculous. But that's just what this presidency has mostly given us in spades. And then demanding that American believe Putin over Mueller and U.S. intelligence agencies!
Trump says he will "ask the question" again to Putin. The false premise is that there is even a question but that too is active collaboration with Russia by accepting that Putin has a more reliable answer to give than Trump's own intelligence service, and his own DOJ, and the special counsel.
Active collaboration is happening in broad daylight.
> On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it.
In a federal grand jury investigation, a “subject” is very close to what is understood in the common vernacular as a “suspect” (but not a “prime suspect”) in a criminal investigation; someone whose conduct is being examined because of the distance of illegal activity, but against whom prosecutors do not have enough evidence of guilt that charges (or, socially, an attempt to indict) is imminent.
(1) CrowdStrike, for all intents and purposes, failed. Russia had access to dem servers for four months after they were hired
(2) Donors trying to use ActBlue (fairly major way dems raise money) were taken to a spoofed Russian site. Stealing democratic campaign donations feels like a very direct attack on the democratic process
"On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post..."
That has got to be one of the scarier things I've read in some time as to the depth and breadth of current surveillance.
Depth, certainly. Breadth, not necessarily (though I don't want to have much illusions regarding breadth). It could very well be that this information was gleaned from when the dutch hacked Cozy Bear. If that's the same group. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... (link copied from another comment)
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 "Russia if you're listening..." and invited Russia to commit a crime to hack and find Clinton's 'missing' emails.]
34. In or around Sep 2016 the Conspirators successfully gained access to DNC computers hosted on 3rd party cloud-computing services. These computers contained test applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators gathered data by creating backups, or snapshots, of the DNC's cloud-based systems using the cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
[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.]
43a. On or about Aug 15 2016, the Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0 recieved a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent.
[Let's pretend this candidate didn't know Guccifer 2.0 was the GRU. He still knew he was asking for and receiving illegally obtained documents.]
72. In or around July 2016, KOVALEV and his co-conspirators hacked the website of a state board of elections (SBOE 1) and stole information related to approximately 500,000 voters including names, addresses, party affiliation, social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers.
There are quite a few Americans "involved" either by being affected by ID theft by a crime organization purporting to be a government[1]; an American soliciting a foreign government to commit a crime the proceeds of which would likely benefit his campaign; and at least one American who solicited materials obtained in course of a crime who then received those materials to use against a competing candidate for Congress.
So the idea that American's aren't involved is nonsense. There are no Americans indicted for crimes in this particular filing, however.
[1] This is diplomatic. The less diplomatic version is that this is one nation attacking another, and is an act of war. That's how spy games get characterized when you get caught and revealed to the public.
> [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.
> [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.
Crowdstrike imaged the server and the FBI absolutely had access to the imaged server -- The mindless conspiracy theory is that the FBI needed the physical server.
> "The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.
Personally I have no doubt that many US persons (R.S. is probably one of them) sought the aid of Russia to elect Trump. They thought that Hillary was corrupt or whatever and Russia could unmask her. The fact that Russia did it, to them is irrelevant, the "truth" was revealed. I am also certain that the end didn't justify the means in this case, USA is right to through the kitchen sink at the people involved...we have elections every 2-4 years and a message should be sent. (USA did the same is not a moral equivalent to me)
Rod Rosenstein said he briefed the president that this indictment was coming today. The president chose today to attack, from Buckinghamshire, Mueller and the probe as a rigged witch hunt yet again. The White House statement amounts to "it proves we did nothing, Americans weren't involved" but no statement pushing back on Russia at all. No condemnation at all.
But this is from a president who has said about Putin:
"He said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times"
"Every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that"
"And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it."
"I think he is very insulted by it."
The timing of this indictment is obvious to probably most people, but in particular to people who have studied or are professionals in international relations - it is to give the president the option to cancel the meeting in Helsinki. To give him the option to recalibrate and criticize Putin.
But instead what we've got so far is more "witch hunt" paranoid conspiratorial nonsense which is identical to the single public contribution of significance Trump produced before becoming president: five years of the racist lie of birtherism, followed by an admission otherwise while simultaneously lying again by blaming Clinton for having started the conspiracy. This is a man who will make up anything, do anything, lie about anything, and blame anyone for all of it without any reluctance whatsoever.
171 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 262 ms ] threadAnd 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."
Anyone who has seen the actual video for that blurb that doesn’t take it as a joke should re-evaluate their sense of humor.
But solicitation is also a crime.
What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way? Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way? What are the limits? Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?
To bring this back to hacker news, would you prefer a language syntax where you could insert meaningless statements that the interpreter or compiler could selectively decide to execute or not based on some non deterministic property? Lord knows we have enough problems with UB in C already ;)
Sure but what constitutes crossing the line is debatable. Plus he wasn't a head of state at the time, he held no office whatsoever and was only a candidate in arguably the dirtiest election of most people's lives.
> What is the purpose of said “joke”? Did it enhance your life in some way?
I thought it was funny and enjoyed the line. As a human I generally enjoy laughing so yes it enhanced my life.
> Did it advance the interests of the USA in some way?
I'd wager others thought it was amusing as well and that may have lead to a more positive opinion of Trump which in turn may have lead to greater voter turn out. A sense of humor can connect with a lot of people. Those that agree with his policies and agenda for the country would see things that lead to his election, such as demonstrating a sense of humor, as positive things.
> What are the limits?
There's no specific rule, it's up to the public to decide. Harping on Clinton's missing emails and private server setup was a go-to topic for Trump including commenting about how it was likely a hacking target by foreign governments. Joking about one of those governments providing the emails as evidence is (IMHO) well within bounds.
> Would you consider Strozk’s texts as “jokes” as well? Why or why not?
There's definitely a lot of hyperbole in Strozk's texts but even stripping that away I wouldn't want him anywhere near an investigation of a political ally or adversary. It's the same reason you wouldn't want him on a jury. It's not that people aren't allowed to have opinions or even strong opinions. It's that once there's been a demonstration of animus or bias the end product will be tainted.
> To bring this back to hacker news, would you prefer a language syntax where you could insert meaningless statements that the interpreter or compiler could selectively decide to execute or not based on some non deterministic property? Lord knows we have enough problems with UB in C already ;)
Politics, and more generally human interaction, is non-deterministic. As much as I love strong typing and well formed expressions, I wouldn't want the entire world outside of software to be like that. There's beauty in the non-determinism.
A reasonable person could look at his behavior and think that he was hiding his corruption in plain sight.
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/1017814447782580224
Note that the communications with the politicians and reporters are all a month or more after the leaks and their contents were public knowledge.
Furthermore, the public leaks _began_ before much of the direct communication, but the direct communication included material that had not yet been publicly leaked. The public leaks didn't occur all at once. They were staged to maximize impact.
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) hacked the GRU offices where a large part of the hacking was carried out and managed to exfiltrate significant amounts of evidence including CCTV security footage of GRU officers coming and going [1]. The evidence proving the crimes for the purposes of a conviction will be made public but unless lawyers for the defendants come to challenge the warrants and get them unsealed, the evidence that led to the public stuff will likely stay secret for decades.
[1] https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
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.
What would be at risk by sharing what is absolutely known to exist?
For example, when it was exposed that the CIA was using a vaccination program in Pakistan to test for the DNA of known terrorists, their associates, and families, the backlash led to the death of many aid works and a massive drop in vaccinations in the country.
He publicly supported the claim it was the DNC and every day it looks like Wikileaks was just being used as an information laundering service for the Russians.
It's possible that the DNC email server was compromised multiple times.
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.
[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, and their boss Obama at the time.
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.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...
> ..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 would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum.
I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
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.
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 :(
Running one's own email server is not unethical, in fact, many on HN do just that. I can't say I've ever seen the allegation about "unecrypted backups," but I'm not sure of the relevance in any case. Care to elaborate (and cite)?
>Not to mention sending classified materials to Anthont Wiener's laptop, and generally mishandling classified info
You're on HN, so can we assume you understand how email servers work? IMAP/SMTP?
>Was it ethical to fund a known phony dossier through Fusion GPS, the British, and Ukraine?
Why would anyone pay for phony information instead of just making it up?
Yes, I do know how IMAP works. Why were classified files being forwarded to Wiener's laptop? He didn't have clearance for that information to be on his computer. Do you know how security clearance and handing of classified documents work?
I'm trying not to be aggressive with you, but man, that was some flimsy argument there.
No, the larger issue would still be a foreign power attempting to influence an American election by illegal means. That doesn't actually stop becoming illegal or an issue of national security because one doesn't like the party being targeted.
And yet the rest of the world still complains when America does it.
If it's a problem when America does it, it's a problem when Russia does it.
>Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.
Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them.
>Laws are also meaningless if no one enforces them.
And still, Rule of Law requires that those who enforce the law, follow the law.
Countries that believe the US interferes with their elections are free to try to do what the US is doing, and attempt to prosecute a case against whomever they can catch.
Otherwise... what conclusion are we meant to reach? That countries which engage in espionage or which interfere with other countries' elections shouldn't have espionage laws or should allow any interference in their own? There's no argument of equivocation one could make to excuse or exonerate Russia in this case that doesn't also do the same for the US.
The truth to that statement has to do with power and influence. The average Joe isn't gonna get out of a speeding ticket by saying everyone speeds.
If <insert country here> had an election and the US-CIA had hackers put malicious code in their voting machines, and that country had laws against tampering with voting machines, then I would fully expect that country to indict those involved. Obviously in a geopolitical environment, that usually means through sanctions or some other means.
America understands this, and does not try to influence Korean election (or, if they still do, they are really careful not to get caught), because the risk of it backfiring is simply too much.
...And South Korea was basically America's puppet state during the majority of its existence.
But the Russians weren't the only ones who did this, the President of Mexico was firmly against Trump and I recognize that as an unacceptable foreign influence. How do you recognize the difference between acceptable and unacceptable foreign influence and was the President of Mexico acting in a way that was acceptable?
What happened was expected at every election, it's on the DNC and FBI for not protecting their servers.
Never mind the joke being on the Russians as Trump is turning out to be several times tougher on them than Hillary would likely have been, even going so far as to start threatening their European gas pipelines.
That's odd. During the campaign, I distinctly remember Hillary being described as an insane bloodthirsty war hawk who was going to plunge us into World War 3 against Russia at the first opportunity, and Trump as the reasonable man who understood Russia and just wanted to do business.
Not even counting that the DNC of 2000 is the same in 2018. Or that Hillary was as good (or bad) a candidate as Gore.
Edit: I think a more fair reference would be looking at Clinton's past to see if there was anything ever questionable or sketchy. Like for instance... Did Clinton ask CNN's Donna Brazil to not send any more debate questions that would be asked later that week? No, she didn't.
Perhaps, but you and I both know this is not a legitimate question or interest. It's a talking point used to deflect blame.
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.
The only thing that matters is, has US law enforcement conducted investigations, and of those investigations, which ones have produced evidence of actual crimes having been committed?
Your whataboutism doesn't change anything. It doesn't uncommit the crimes, it doesn't rescind the indictments, and it doesn't reverse the guilty pleas. US law enforcement has found evidence of crimes and some of those criminals have pled guilty. Some of them are sitting in jail right now.
Sorry, what was your question again? Because what I heard you ask was "why are the admitted criminals in jail and not the victims?"
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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”.
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth
(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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>“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 "interference" on the world wide web? Perhaps we need to think about how the instantaneous global communications network is obsolescing the concept of the nation state which was formed as a result of the printing press.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gutenberg_Galaxy
>Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us.
That sounds like a fitting description of mass media/news corporations everywhere.
Think long and hard about what you're saying here. You're dismissing foreign interference, but critisizing domestic political involvement.
The key difference here is that Russia isn't the United States and has no say in our policies, while American journalists are citizens and voters who have a societal duty to participate the democracy. When the former gets involved in an election, we call it "foreign interference", when the latter gets involved we call it "democracy".
So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?
That's a false dichotomy which implies you missed my point. There is no such thing as sovereign democracy in a globalized world with omnipresence and instantaneous communication.
> 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
Reminder: the NSA has been hacking into governments and businesses all over the world.
Start?
It's hardly as if US intelligence officers have never previously been charged by foreign governments.
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/04/14/spain-to-indict-the-bus...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/05/cia-long-his...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/15/us-army-and-cia-...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/12/0...
This has ALREADY HAPPENED. Russia has enticed people they secretly indicted on spy charges back to Russia, and then stuck them in prison.
https://abcnews.go.com/WN/russian-spies-swap-cold-home/story...
These Russian spies in the US were not US IC agents.
Farce, idiocy, or trolling, I can't tell.
> 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 release the evidence used to attribute the defendants? Or will it remain "pending arraignment" indefinitely?
I'd love to see an in-depth technical analysis of how they were able to substantiate these allegations
Either that, or they'll send you a bunch of documents that look something like this
https://static.businessinsider.com/image/4cc59ba2cadcbbbf5f0...
If they actually are arrested or surrender themselves to face the charges, yes, mostly. That is, they are entitled to not only what the prosecution will use at trial, but to have any exculpatory evidence in the hands of the government proactively turned over, and to have compulsory means of securing any relevant evidence, physical or testimonial, from any person subject to the court.
But that's likely moot in this case; these defendants seem unlikely to be brought before the court, voluntarily or involuntarily.
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.
A Russian company--allegedly doing Russia's dirty work--hired top US lawyers and they are giving DOJ a heartburn...they must share evidence (can tell how it was obtained) and get ready to go to trial. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/09/concord-manag...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/operation-ghost-stories-ins...
> 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 public in the course of that operation was false.
Some of that has been covered in the special counsel’s previous indictment of Russian organizations and individuals involved in the propaganda end of the operation.
> Because if the issue is that "Russia meddled!" by showing true things
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 is itself part of a larger operation being conducted not only the US but the entire Western Alliance), that that influence operation was integral to the success of the Presidential campaign, and that the US President (who is, by virtue of that position, also effective head of a major US political party) may, therefore, effectively be an agent of a hostile foreign power working against the interests of the US and her allies.
[added] I will not provide any reply or assistance if you further promote, hypothesize, or engage in crazy conspiracy theories.
1. http://observer.com/2018/07/putin-conflict-poland-ukraine-na...
I don't think anything in my comment was particularly inflammatory.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent, but I wouldn't call the idea crazy
It would be basically political suicide for any Republican to vote to impeach because many Americans don't believe Trump is an agent, don't believe he did anything wrong, and still agree with his policies and agenda.
Congress has the ability to impeach, but not the will.
Of course, for members of his party concerned about the danger such public knowledge would do to their own personal political position and their party, the incentive if they know he is a foreign agent is to actively blur and distract from the issue to prevent the public from getting a clear understanding.
EDIT: This might result, say, in the bizarre spectacle of Congress members and of that party continuously attacking the credibility of individuals and institutions which have traditionally favored (or who are members of) that party simply because they are faithfully pursuing (or insufficiently sabotaging) an investigation of the operation in which the President is involved.
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.
It seems like a no-brainer that an enemy force (Russia in this instance) would want to disarm the people they plan to attack/control.
The OP asked what I'd expect from a Russian Agent as President, and that's what I'd expect one of the first steps to be. I _wouldn't_ expect a russian agent who became president of the U.S. to fight for the 2nd Amendment/arming of citizens and to push for the EU to increase their military spending.
Sure, it could happen, but I wouldn't expect it.
Weakening the U.S. military sounds like a more worthwile goal. Reducing their budget would be one way to do that, but that's easily undone. I would go for more a more sublte approach to inflict better long-term damage. Try to restructure and reprioritise to get less done with more money. Try to get rid of important military installations abroad. Try to burn bridges with allies to make sure the US military has to take a larger burden in foreign interventions. If you're feeling really bold, try to establish entirely new arms of the military to further decrease effectiveness and increase spending. Try to do all of that in a way that's hard to undo by the next president.
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 present some evidence of it?
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/rosenstei...
> 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-...
He then went on TV and called for the Russians to hack Hillary.
Republicans have argued that Trump was joking. The fact that Russia appears to have promptly complied with Trump's request complicates the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_campaign%E2%80%93Russian...
Considering how many high level people in Trump's close orbit have been indicted or investigated it would be extremely difficult for him to have not known about any of this occurring in his campaign.
Paul Manafort: Indicted for a number of financial crimes unrelated to the 2016 election. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download and https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download
Richard Gates: As above.
George Papadopoulos: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
Michael Flynn: Plead guilty to lying to the FBI without an underlying crime. https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election.
[...]
> So far there is no indictment or guilty plea among Trump's associates related to the 2016 election.
Wrong. What Papadopoulos plead guilty lying to the FBI about was specifically collaborating with Russians known to and believed by him to be connected with the Russian government while he was a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, on matters related to the campaign. See the “Statement of Offense” filed with his plea:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
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 has explicitly stated that said President is not a target of the probe
People read too much into that, because they tend to think that “target” is a broader term than it is, particularly, that it includes what is actually termed a “subject” rather than a “target”. That's notable because the special counsel has also explicitly said Trump is a subject of the investigation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trump-t...
No, I don't. The campaign is not a “he”, and I said that the collaboration by the campaign (and the potential that, if that is the case, the President is effectively a foreign agent) is the issue, that is, the subject of concern/debate, not that it's a fact (though at least one member of the campaign has already admitted to actively seeking to collaborate with Russia, and implicated other campaign officials, in his guilty plea to charges laid by the special counsel.)
The issue of target vs subject is a technical one by the special counsel and is intentionally twisted by the conservative media. It's like in any other legal trial: a verdict of "not guilty" is not an affirmation that the defendant is innocent, but rather that the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant was guilty.
Whereas most of SV embraces "move fast and break things", we should be thankful that the special counsel is not.
As for active collaboration? The DAG Rod Rosenstein told Trump these indictments were coming and their nature. And today Trump decides not to push back on Putin/Russia for these actions, but he impugned Robert Mueller with "rigged witch hunt" claims. Again. That is giving aid and comfort to Putin/Russia by papering over, giving them cover for, attacks/crimes on the United States, its people, its institutions, and at least two candidates.
He has been doing a variation on this for two years: maybe they did it, maybe they didn't, Putin denies it so we should believe that because Putin is a good guy and we should just get along, and maybe it was China and maybe it was a 400 pound fat man in a bed.
And what he is doing is two fold: Demanding Americans believe Trump over Mueller, which is hilarious, insane, and ridiculous. But that's just what this presidency has mostly given us in spades. And then demanding that American believe Putin over Mueller and U.S. intelligence agencies!
Trump says he will "ask the question" again to Putin. The false premise is that there is even a question but that too is active collaboration with Russia by accepting that Putin has a more reliable answer to give than Trump's own intelligence service, and his own DOJ, and the special counsel.
Active collaboration is happening in broad daylight.
In a federal grand jury investigation, a “subject” is very close to what is understood in the common vernacular as a “suspect” (but not a “prime suspect”) in a criminal investigation; someone whose conduct is being examined because of the distance of illegal activity, but against whom prosecutors do not have enough evidence of guilt that charges (or, socially, an attempt to indict) is imminent.
> The president is a subject of the probe, which is the ambiguous position of possibly being a witness or eventually becoming a target.
(1) CrowdStrike, for all intents and purposes, failed. Russia had access to dem servers for four months after they were hired
(2) Donors trying to use ActBlue (fairly major way dems raise money) were taken to a spoofed Russian site. Stealing democratic campaign donations feels like a very direct attack on the democratic process
That has got to be one of the scarier things I've read in some time as to the depth and breadth of current surveillance.
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 "Russia if you're listening..." and invited Russia to commit a crime to hack and find Clinton's 'missing' emails.]
34. In or around Sep 2016 the Conspirators successfully gained access to DNC computers hosted on 3rd party cloud-computing services. These computers contained test applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators gathered data by creating backups, or snapshots, of the DNC's cloud-based systems using the cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
[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.]
43a. On or about Aug 15 2016, the Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0 recieved a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent.
[Let's pretend this candidate didn't know Guccifer 2.0 was the GRU. He still knew he was asking for and receiving illegally obtained documents.]
72. In or around July 2016, KOVALEV and his co-conspirators hacked the website of a state board of elections (SBOE 1) and stole information related to approximately 500,000 voters including names, addresses, party affiliation, social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers.
There are quite a few Americans "involved" either by being affected by ID theft by a crime organization purporting to be a government[1]; an American soliciting a foreign government to commit a crime the proceeds of which would likely benefit his campaign; and at least one American who solicited materials obtained in course of a crime who then received those materials to use against a competing candidate for Congress.
So the idea that American's aren't involved is nonsense. There are no Americans indicted for crimes in this particular filing, however.
[1] This is diplomatic. The less diplomatic version is that this is one nation attacking another, and is an act of war. That's how spy games get characterized when you get caught and revealed to the public.
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
> "The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.
But this is from a president who has said about Putin:
"He said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times"
"Every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that"
"And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it."
"I think he is very insulted by it."
The timing of this indictment is obvious to probably most people, but in particular to people who have studied or are professionals in international relations - it is to give the president the option to cancel the meeting in Helsinki. To give him the option to recalibrate and criticize Putin.
But instead what we've got so far is more "witch hunt" paranoid conspiratorial nonsense which is identical to the single public contribution of significance Trump produced before becoming president: five years of the racist lie of birtherism, followed by an admission otherwise while simultaneously lying again by blaming Clinton for having started the conspiracy. This is a man who will make up anything, do anything, lie about anything, and blame anyone for all of it without any reluctance whatsoever.
And it will continue that way.
a) Russian intelligence tried to hack Hillary's personal email system for the first time on July 27 2016.
b) Russian cutout Joseph Mifsud told George Papadopoulos on April 26 2016 that Russia already had thousands of her emails.