I think this is trying to show second order effects of the hack, in that it changed ground level tactics in addition to influencing hearts and minds. What ever you believe about the source of the hack, this event damages the idea of a noble hacker seeking to expose wrong doing.
If there's actual evidence of an actual crime, then present it to the public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess, regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC), systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians - regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war.
There is a lot of important work to do, but this denial of service attack against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful distraction.
For anyone reading who is not super engaged with these matters, please know that this is a lot more than just a "meme".
Here's a comprehensive timeline if you want to take a deep dive: https://lawfareblog.com/realnews-trump-et-laffaire-russe-res...
But I'll just list a simple sequence of three verifiable events that should demonstrate clearly that there is at least something real here.
* On March 20, 2017 FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”" [0]
* On May 9, 2017 the President fired FBI Director Comey [1]
* On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (acting in this matter as AG due to Sessions' recusal) appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the investigation, effectively removing the President from it's chain of command. [2]
I'm not saying this is proof-positive that collusion occurred, but it's sufficiently compelling.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investiga... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-f... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-muelle...
Edited to remove insinuations of bad faith
Please don't let such insinuations of bad faith creep into your comments on HN.
There is widespread disagreement about this matter (e.g. the GP comment was both upvoted and downvoted, obviously not all by trolls) and those who disagree need to remain civil on HN. That includes (a) responding to the argument and (b) assuming good faith.
Whisper campaign to erode public trust and increase partisan divide while diverting attention from more important matters.
If it WAS interference by any nation state (Russia or not; uncovered or not) it seems to have been pretty successful right?
Internet commenters are much too quick to sling such tropes at others whom they disagree with. Please don't do that here.
Insinuations of astroturfing or shillage are not allowed on HN without evidence, and this goes beyond even that.
It has some dates in the screenshots and more accurately portrays the timeline.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-fo...
2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in someone's pocket.
How exactly are these documents showing the "darker sides of the DNC"?
Of course I wouldn't like you to have all my personal data. But the point of an election is for the people to make the most informed decision, not for me to feel good.
It also says, "GOP campaign consultant." That's a third party contractor--not quite indicative of a high level conspiracy. I think that's a far, far cry from what you're claiming.
---
I should probably mention that if getting this data doesn't qualify as "receiving stolen property," it should. The consultant could learn a lot from Pepsi ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jul/07/marketingandpr... ), but there is a difference between coordinating with somebody to steal data and getting data that has already been stolen.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
A number of people find it easier to act as if this was a big post-election surprise but that's just wishful thinking to avoid having to consider the implications of many people knowing but not caring as long as it got the political outcome they desired or, in the case of the media, accepting responsibility for their coverage decisions.
Just asking, for a friend :)
The NSA leak weeks later that confirmed sophisticated and documented techniques for making hacks appear to come from somewhere else (e.g. by using existing known-Russian C&C servers) is unrelated, and it's apparently unfathomable to think anyone else would be able to use the same techniques.
Also, none of us have ever read history books, which are full of wars and witch hunts started over unverifiable claims by people in power that turned out to be mistaken (at best) or lies (at worst) to push their agenda.
So I'm not sure why you're asking for concrete evidence. They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good enough for you?
The caveat is that they aren't disclosing the methods by which they came to this conclusion, so we can't know 100% for sure. It's dependent on our belief in our intelligence agencies to be acting independently and presenting true, unbiased information.
Full-disclosure, I voted for Johnson, and while I am sympathetic to the leaks, had the DNC not been doing shady stuff, there wouldn't have been anything to leak. That being said, I personally believe in our intelligence agencies, so I think it's reasonable to believe that Russians were involved in the U.S. elections. But I hold the DNC more accountable for their loss than the Russians.
For those interested: [0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
[1] Link to the actual report: apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/
[2] From DHS: dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
This is an on-going prolific attack against civilians in addition to the usual military/political targets. Much as Ru MoD regularly targets civilians in Syria such as medics and emergency responders.
All part of Russia's war on the world.
[1] https://citizenlab.org/2017/05/tainted-leaks-disinformation-...
The closest to an in-depth critical look at the evidence presented by the government I've seen so far is probably this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-real...
I don't know that I would assign the actions of a GOP consultant to the entire GOP.
If you look at individual actions only, it is easy to write things off. But I am not a prosecutor, and when we cross some critical mass of "isolated incidents", I start thinking the "bad apples" have spoiled the whole barrel, to actually use that cliche correctly for a change.
I'm sure there's a member or three of the Penn State frathouse recently in the news who weren't culpable in that kid's death, too.
How is being more informed a bad thing?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...
>DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics.
This was not about informing voters, it was about specifically giving Republicans an advantage.
But then again IOKIYAR probably takes precedence here... And the Republicans are in charge of all the checks/balances at the moment.
As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in "European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is rightly classified European.
Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing.
>2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were normal interactions.
I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated "nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources, but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an irrefutable reality.
I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit.
I'd say my posts were drenched in bias from the very start. I'm amazed you missed it ;)
> ... sounds like it contains ...
I interpreted that as referring to the "Russia/'hacked election' meme" having psyops-ish markings, not my paragraph. That seems to fit with the final comment about it appearing to be "pretty successful".
It's also irrelevant, because it was public knowledge by the time it was reported. My post is to debunk the assumption that the contractor knew the hacker was a foreign agent.
I think the strongest form of the bad apple argument comes not from the presence of a problem but rather the strength of counter-efforts.
The article alleges a GOP consultant worked with a hacker of unknown origin claiming to have opposition info.
The leaks (and Podesta's) revealed, though, a frankly disgusting level of cooperation between the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign. [1]
This whole idea that a contractor using hacked opposition info to his advantage in a way that may have unintentionally benefited Russian interests is in any way more scandalous than nearly all the mainstream media verifiably going to bat for Clinton campaign is selective outrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
Nevermind that the target of the hacks, hacks who share the same infrastructure, all focus on entities of Moscow's interest.
Navalny, MH17, DNC, Syria, Bellingcat. Gee wonder what the common thread here is.
You posted this comment 7 minutes after I posted the link. 6 minutes prior to that, you posted another comment in this thread, so I know you haven't immediately started reading the article. Since the article is quite long, I highly doubt that you've read it.
And no, none of the presented arguments there are "but Russians wouldn't possibly do that this way".
"“If the guys are really good,” says Chris Finan, CEO of Manifold Technology, “they’re not leaving much evidence or they’re leaving evidence to throw you off the scent entirely.” How plausible is it that Russian intelligence services would fail even to attempt such a fundamental step?"
"On the other hand, sloppiness on the part of developers is not entirely unknown. However, one would expect a nation-state to enforce strict software and document handling procedures and implement rigorous review processes."
"The strings in the code quite transparently indicate its intent, with no attempt at obfuscation. It seems an odd oversight for a nation-state operation, in which plausible deniability would be essential, to overlook that glaring point during software development."
Acting befuddled is not a reasonable means of helping to cast suspicions aside.
Nothing can change who these attacks, sharing the same infrastructure, targeted. Opponents of Russia's current ruling order. Very specific frame up jobs against Putin's political opposition and phishing against civilian analysts who just happened to be making news regarding MH17? Come on now.
Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't.
If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was also on several of the corporate the boards of said company.
Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"), the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established relationships with?
If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes 110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.
What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?
Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more leaks during one of the presidential debates?
Seems like you have your information pretty mixed up (or simply made up).
Can you post a substantial source for any of your claims?
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (details Trump's many ties to Russia and was written by a Republican to boot.)
On this note, I just want to point out that Russia is the only European country in the world's 10 most populous countries, and that Russia controls more land than any other country on earth (almost twice as much as the second-largest landholder, China).
It should be no surprise that Americans involved in international business will have substantial connections to such a significant world entity.
It's really kind of silly to hear people holding any previous dealing in Russia against anyone that has a remote connection to Donald Trump.
Generic answer for all questions of that general format.
NO!
This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone, it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda.
This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.
So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu?
According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-funded grants to a political group in Israel to build a campaign operation, which subsequently was used to try to influence Israelis to vote against conservative Benjamin Netanyahu in the March 2015 election for prime minister.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350...
Even from the article you linked, it says that "OneVoice did not use State Department funds directly for political activities, or seek State Department grants in anticipation of the Israeli elections" but that it indirectly allowed that non-profit to campaign against Netanyahu. Not exactly the same kettle of fish.
Just the same I don't support our government trying to fund political campaigns against our allies either.
I never claimed the truth was in Russia's interests. As I clearly said, it's in Russia's interests for the GOP to win. That would mean NOT leaking RNC documents.
I was very glad to know just how corrupt the DNC and the Democratic party were before I voted in November.
Unfortunately, you weren't given the opportunity to find out how corrupt the RNC and the Republican party were before you voted in November. But that's okay, half the picture being blocked from view I'm sure is just like seeing the whole picture, right?
How is being more informed a bad thing?"
Where did you 'clearly say' it was in Russia's interests for the GOP to win? It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up and no leak of RNC corruption could ever be big enough to sway you anyway.
>It sure sounds like you already had your mind made up
I'm just interested in making the most informed decision I can.
No, not always perfectly, but that's the ideal.
An outside, increasingly hostile, power, apparently having the inner-sanctum secrets on two major political parties, but choosing, selectively, to leak the goods on only one, is not evenly informing "the public" (or anyone else) on the true scope of issues at play.
One element of which is in fact that foreign adversary's exceptionally un-equal thumb on the scale. Though there's considerably more than that.
Your responses strike me as ill considered, at best, deliberately so at worst.
A good test is to see how you'd apply the rules or criteria were the situation reversed: the DNC colluding with, say, Russia or China, to hack the GOP, and to disclose damaging information in the immediate run-up to the election.
The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity, not smite enemies. The lines aren't sharply drawable, of course, and it's understandable if discussion crosses into political topics sometimes—but that's quite different from using the forum as a political or ideological platform. We use the 'primarily' test: if an account is primarily using HN that way, it's abusing the site and we ban it.
I guess you didn't check my submission history then. If you want to discuss incivility, trying to frame someone up to meet the metrics for banning seems awful uncivil.