DNC and DCCC Hacks

[wct097]

When they first announced that the DNC had been hacked by the Russian government, I didn't believe them. Not because I don't think the Russians are capable of doing it, but because I didn't think the DNC was competent enough to ascertain who had hacked them on their own. I'm still not convinced they or their cybersecurity company were.

That said, I've read the latest Mueller indictment and I'm now convinced that the Russian government was behind the hacks, Guccifer 2.0, and DCleaks. The indictment is impressive and I have to hand it to the special council in the detail they provided. It's a good read. I think everyone should read it.

On the non-legal, non-technical front, I'd love to know which congressional candidate contacted Guccifer 2.0 and asked for (and received) stolen info about their opponent. Likewise, I'm curious who the individual with regular contact with the high level Trump campaign staffers was. I'm guessing Roger Stone given his media disclosures of late.

I'm also interested in the concept of criminally charging foreign military actors in US courts. Is that typical? Is that what they'd do with a non-offical spy getting caught in the US? Likewise, I'm very interested in the investigative techniques they used to unearth some of the detail they provided in the indictment.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf

 

[BirdOPrey5]

I read through page 16 before skimming. It's a detailed narrative but it still lacks any actual proof any of this actually happened the way they say it did. You just blindly trusting them?

They've had more than enough time to write any detailed story they wanted.

 

[wct097]

I read through page 16 before skimming. It's a detailed narrative but it still lacks any actual proof any of this actually happened the way they say it did. You just blindly trusting them?

They've had more than enough time to write any detailed story they wanted.

I trust a court filing substantially more than a political operative holding a press conference or any news outlet reporting it. Attorneys have a higher standard and indeed can be sanctioned and/or disbarred for knowingly falsifying a court filing.

They can still be scumbags and can make questionable leaps of assumption in the filings, but they're pretty damned specific in that one. I don't know that it translates to a guilty verdict or not, but I think they pretty much have to have the evidence to support it since they used a grand jury to review it and give a stamp of approval.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

I trust a court filing substantially more than a political operative holding a press conference or any news outlet reporting it. Attorneys have a higher standard and indeed can be sanctioned and/or disbarred for knowingly falsifying a court filing.

So the person tells the attorney this is what happened, the attorney doesn't know. They don't do first person investigation.

 

[wct097]

So the person tells the attorney this is what happened, the attorney doesn't know. They don't do first person investigation.

Occams Razor.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

Like a DC area grand jury wasn't coming back with an indictment on anything even remotely damaging to Trump. We all know the saying about grand juries and ham sandwiches.

 

[wct097]

Like a DC area grand jury wasn't coming back with an indictment on anything even remotely damaging to Trump. We all know the saying about grand juries and ham sandwiches.

I don't read it as remotely damaging to Trump. You have to be grasping at straws to make that argument. It's more damaging to the Dems because it paints them as complete idiots. The only thing that could be construed as damaging to Trump is that someone who regularly talked to campaign officials contacted Guiccifer 2.0 and or DCleaks. That's not illegal and doesn't suggest collusion because Guiccifer 2.0 claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker and DCleaks claimed to be Americans.

Also, I'm not convinced that the allegations beyond the actual hacking efforts constitute a violation of the law that they can get a guilty verdict on.

 

[wct097]

Bottom line for me. I understand viewing anything like this with a healthy does of skepticism, but the narrative is compelling and has enough specific details and technical information to tip the scales in favor of Muellers narrative for me.

That doesn't mean that I support Mueller's probe, trying to leverage Manafort, or going after Trump based on any of the information that has been made public. I think he has an uphill battle with Manafort, especially with the whole extension of the statute of limitations used to delay charging him and the fact that the FBI hadn't pursued it until he needed the leverage. I think it the judge upholds his motion to suppress that argument, Manafort basically has a ready made appeal.

 

[wct097]

Roger Stone confirmed that he believes he is the person referenced in the indictment.

Roger Stone says hes the US person mentioned in Mueller indictment - ABC News

Personally I think this is all for show on the OSC side of things. The indictments are largely meaningless and don't accomplish anything of consequence.

 

[themonk]

I keep hoping the Russians send a lawyer in to respond to the charges like they did the other stuff. It'll force the OSC to have their shit in line and less of a show.

 

[wct097]

I keep hoping the Russians send a lawyer in to respond to the charges like they did the other stuff. It'll force the OSC to have their shit in line and less of a show.

Unlikely. Unlike corporations, individuals cannot "appear" solely through council. Any individual charged would need to appear in person and be subject to arrest. The OSC made some pretty ridiculous demands when the Russian company appeared through it's attorneys. It's almost like they don't understand that an officer in the company legally cannot appear in court on behalf of the company. I'm sure they know that, given that and first year law student would know it, but their pleading was utterly ridiculous.