12 Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted for Hacking the Clinton Campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html

by jbegley • 8 years ago

57 21 8 years ago

creaghpatr4• 8 years ago

Serious question: If this case goes to trial, which is unlikely, will the defendants be allowed to subpoena the DNC server, which to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency?

notfromhere• 8 years ago

The FBI had images; you don't need a physical server

vuln• 8 years ago

This is the first time I am hearing of this. Could you please cite a source for this information?

creaghpatr4• 8 years ago

Sure, but can they subpoena the server, or even the images?

frockington• 8 years ago

Sounds like a lose/lose for the DNC. Either it is completely ignored, or the sever's contents may be made public

g0dg0d• 8 years ago

This case will NEVER go to trail and that's the point of Mueller filing it. He knows he has to get someone for something and indicting 12 Russians for crimes he can't ever prove is a win for his team. What I'd like to see is the proof that these Russians ACTUALLY did the hacking. How do we know that THESE specific individuals committed these crimes? We don't, Mueller won't/can't prove that but that's the point. It's charge anyone for anything at this point.

manyoso• 8 years ago

Mueller did not bring this indictment. He presented the evidence to a Grand Jury of your fellow citizens. Those fellow citizens saw enough evidence to convince them to return the indictments.

If the individuals indicted ever stand for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, then we will see the evidence as it will be a public trial albeit with any evidence that will reveal national security secrets redacted from public view.

This is exactly how our justice system is supposed to work.

WrathOfJay• 8 years ago

What if there is evidence that they, in fact, did this? Everyone should be very concerned about this, whether the outcome played in favor of or damaged your particular party's side. This would be an attack on our democracy from a foreign government. How Trump handles this news is going to be very telling on where his loyalties are (beyond just himself).

cepth• 8 years ago

You can't "subpoena" evidence, you subpoena live witnesses, or people to produce evidence.

Since Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors have to turn over any potentially favorable evidence to the defense. The defense can of course ask to see the evidence in any criminal case.

In a civil case, as the defense counsel you would have a chance to review the evidence in the discovery phase.

creaghpatr4• 8 years ago

Gotcha, that makes sense.

olefoo• 8 years ago

to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency

Given that the FBI has examined it and has forensic images of it's disks. This statement is false.

Most likely if any of these cases move to trial, the FBI's forensic examiner will be called to testify as to what was found if it has relevant information and that is what will be entered into the record.

I would like to note that your phrasing sounds rather like a constructed talking point; intended to cast a frame on events with a favorable construction towards one party in this dispute.

I would remind all readers that HN is merely another social media forum and is thus equally susceptible to information operations and propaganda campaigns designed to lead it's influential audience down certain paths of thought and to avoid others.

Be aware of phrases that are intended to foster certain attitudes; especially as in this case one that seems designed to attribute mal-intent to the _victim_ of the crime.

creaghpatr4• 8 years ago

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_i...

FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.

Crowdstrike is not the FBI or any government agency. Do you have a source that proves a government agency examined the server or an image of the server? Because you seem awfully confident that the FBI has examined it.

alacritythief• 8 years ago

Copy of the indictment that details the actions/methods of the hackers: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf

gorbachev• 8 years ago

Count Eleven in the indictment is the most serious one of the lot. The DOJ alleges there were attempts to hack election machines.

aphextron• 8 years ago

Why is this flagged? Is talking about hackers on hacker news going too far?

kbenson3• 8 years ago

Likely because the comments here were pretty low-quality from the get-go, so people are attempting to head off flame wars ahead of time.

GW150914• 8 years ago

It’s unfortunate that the worst of a community can kill a story just by acting badly. The most easily riled and offended shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what’s discussed on any site.

12 Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted for Hacking the Clinton Campaign

Related Stories