[moneybadger]

Except the Washington Post isn't releasing possibly faked or hacked emails about Breonna Taylor being shot in her sleep three weeks before an election in a blatant attempt to manufacture an October Surprise. Don't try and create false equivalency here.

[swebs]

>possibly faked or hacked emails

What makes that less credible than "anonymous sources"?

[rendall]

Respectfully, I beg to differ

The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. This is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence should be likewise extraordinary

4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles

If you're inclined to believe the Russia hacking allegations, this story will seem like a completely different, false equivalence, because one is true (the hacking allegations) and the other is false (the Hunter Biden allegation). But consider: there is as much hard evidence for one as the other, and both are damaging, destabilizing allegations

[Thorrez]

> 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles

There was an indictment by the federal government[1][2]. That's certainly more reliable than a computer repairman finding an email on a hard drive on an abandoned computer.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

[rendall]

An indictment is an allegation, as I said. An allegation is not proof

If you are indicted for a crime, the prosecutor must prove the allegations

If you are inclined to believe the allegation, your bar for proof will be quite low. Perhaps the accusation is enough.

For me, a destabilizing accusation like that requires more proof than anonymous CIA sources saying its true. I wish more Americans would put their dislike of Trump aside and demand that proof. It's not about Trump, it's about a destabilizing accusation from a government department. If they can do that about the President you don't like, they can do it about the President you do like

Again, the hard evidence, tangible and verifiable, is about the same for both

I am open to be proven wrong, believe me, but links to indictments is not proof

[Thorrez]

You said

> unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks.

A US government report is not anonymous. That's very clear who the source of that report is. It's the US government. I would also hesitate to call is unsubstantiated. There's a lot of substance in the indictment, including specific dates and times of actions, and names of the attackers.

> there is as much hard evidence for one as the other, and both are damaging, destabilizing allegations

No, there is more hard evidence for the DNC hack. If you want more hard evidence, see CrowdStrike's analysis[1], Google Search logs[2][3], ThreatConnect's analysis of email headers[4][5], Secureworks's analysis[6], Fidelis's analysis[7], FireEye's analysis[8].

[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24379210

[3] http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/roger-stone-aff...

[4] https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-rus...

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16653671

[6] https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe...

[7] https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-anal...

[8] https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/solutions/pd...

[rendall]

I know that you believe it's true, and so your bar for hard evidence is lower than if you were skeptical, but I personally don't find affidavits on "The Smoking Gun" convincing; neither am I impressed by Crowdstrike's blog saying they have evidence, and then providing a bunch of links to other people who also say they have evidence, much as you have done here

[8] mentions "forensic details in the malware". Great! I want to be convinced! That is hard evidence! However, [8] does not contain details.

What specific forensic details, though? I have followed that rabbit hole. There was a limited release of the forensic details: the unclassified, public forensic evidence does not and cannot show the allegations to be true. It doesn't refute them, either, but it only shows that someone used (outdated!) malware that is available to any script kiddie, not state-level superhackerware. Stuxnet it ain't.

There are allusions to classified evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that Russia and Putin were involved. So, again, if you are inclined to believe the story, then "The CIA and NSA have evidence, but it's classified" is enough. Maybe it's true? Unknown.

If you are disinclined to believe it, or want hard evidence before you decide, then it looks suspicious. Destabilizing governments and throwing FUD is what the CIA does. This is documented. That's its expertise. That's its hammer. It doesn't mean that they are lying this time, but ... I mean, come on, it's the CIA. Reasonable people can be suspicious that the spooks are lying, here. Perhaps they are partisan Democrats, distracting from the content of the emails. Perhaps they are never-Trump Republicans. Perhaps Trump is a Russian asset indeed. Who knows? They don't show their hand. Nor hard evidence.

Hard evidence is not "Trust us, we have names, dates and credible intelligence" with lots and lots of footnotes

Now that you know what hard evidence would convince me, would you mind going through that list of links and finding it? If it's not there, consider that hard evidence does not exist. So, to recap: specific forensic evidence is great! Specifically "forensic details in the malware". That. Show me that. Or something equivalent

Links to people saying they have reviewed the forensic evidence and concluded Russians were involved, testimony before Congress, CIA reports without that forensic evidence, HN discussions, affidavits and such are not it.

[Thorrez]

>but I personally don't find affidavits on "The Smoking Gun" convincing

Are you saying you think the affidavit is fake? Or that the info in the affidavit is not a strong indicator of Russia's involvement?

> but it only shows that someone used (outdated!) malware that is available to any script kiddie, not state-level superhackerware. Stuxnet it ain't.

Russia sometimes intentionally uses unsophisticated malware because it helps to make attribution harder.[1]

> Destabilizing governments and throwing FUD is what the CIA does.

Yes, but it's not what CrowdStrike, ThreatConnect, Secureworks, Fidelis, or FireEye do. Their business is to perform computer security investigations. Why would they jeopardize their business by publishing lies?

> Perhaps [the CIA] are partisan Democrats, distracting from the content of the emails. Perhaps they are never-Trump Republicans.

(a) Just because you're a partisan Democrat doesn't mean you do your job entirely wrong and fill your reports with lies. Same for never-Trump Republicans.

(b) The CIA is not a homogeneous unit. There are people there of various political backgrounds.

(c) Senator Richard Burr, who endorsed Trump[2], who was chosen by Trump to be a national security advisor[3], and who was accused of being "too close to Trump to lead an impartial investigation"[4], led a Senate committee that unanimously said the report was correct:

> A three-year review by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found that the intelligence community assessment, pinning blame on Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics.

> “The I.C.A. reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred,” said Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the panel’s chairman. “The committee found no reason to dispute the intelligence community’s conclusions.”[5]

Also, the CIA wasn't the only federal organization involved, the FBI was as well. That would make it harder for the CIA to introduce any lies into the investigation. And the DHS and ODNI agree with the conclusion.[6]

So you want a list of specific hard pieces of evidence. Here are some:

(a) The attackers registered a domain (misdepatrment.com) and pointed it to a known APT-28 command and control IP: 45.32.129.185.[7]

(b) The domain shared an https certificate with a previous attack by Russian APT-28, on Germany.[7]

(c) The malware contained a hardcoded IP (176.31.112.10) that was previously hardcoded in malware used in that attack on Germany.[7][8][9]

(d) A Guccifer 2.0 document contained metadata with the name of a famous Russian person.[7]

(e) A Guccifer 2.0 document contained a message indicating it was edited by a computer with Russian language settings.[7][10][11]

(f) The way Guccifer 2.0 spoke to reporters indicated he was a team of people, because his English skills changed.[7][12]

(g) APT-28 beginning in 2015 launched phishing attacks using a bit.ly account to target 1,800 Google accounts. In 2016, they used that exact same bit.ly account to target Hillary Clinton's campaign.[13][14]

(h) APT-28 previously had created false hacker personas, similar to Guccifer 2.0.[15]

(i) The SeaDaddy malware from the DNC had nearly identical code obfuscation techniques and methods to SeaDuke malware previously attributed to APT-29.[8][16][17]

(j) Guccifer 2.0 used a Russian VPN with a custom config. Possibly an indication that it's a custom government-only deployment of the VPN.[18][19]

(k) Guccifer 2.0 once didn't use the VPN, and the IP was from Moscow.[19]

[1] https://youtu.be/xoNSbm1aX_w?t=286

[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Burr

[3] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...

[4] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/richard-burr-donald-t...

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/us/politics/russian-inter...

[6] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-departme...

[7] https://www.vice.com/en/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-point-to-ru...

[8] https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-anal...

[9] https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49902/the-russian-emi...

[10] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...

[11] https://web.archive.org/web/20170919113908if_/https://twitte...

[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/06/h...

[13] https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe...

[14] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/06/us/russian-ha...

[15] https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-0-dnc-breach/

[16] https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/unit-42-technical-analys...

[17] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0053/

[18] https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-rus...

[19] https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-gucc...

[mellow-lake-day]

>4 years later, however, these remain allegations only

As the other user already pointed out this was has been proven. And they also have the exact unit and names of the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking.

Please stop spreading disinformation about this.

[rendall]

An indictment is an accusation, not a conviction

"Please stop spreading disinformation about this."

Alas, the disinformation is that it has been proven.

Absolutely happy to be incorrect, but, again, it is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for such a destabilizing claim is lacking

[mellow-lake-day]

How are you going to convict Russian intelligence officers? You think Russia will hand them over?

Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. If Putin is not willing to send over his officers who did that hacking, then why should the US government give up the evidence for nothing in return?

Revealing how America identified the Russian hackers would be extremely valuable for Putin and his KGB/GRU operatives. They can use this information to better their hacking operations in the future.

[rendall]

> Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. <

Then we are back to exactly what I said at the start: they remain allegations only. Nothing has been proven, as you said. One either believes anonymous sources within the CIA and the people who believe them, or one wants evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

Remember: it's not just about Russians, but the original allegation was that the Trump campaign was involved. That has been very quietly walked back.

The DNC was definitely hacked and the content of the emails were embarrassing to powerful people, but whenever the content of the emails are discussed, people start shouting about Russians and Trump's love of Putin. This is very convenient to these same powerful people

The email exposure could have been a revelatory renaissance for the DNC, a real moment of self-aware house-cleaning. I was really hoping they would slim down and become a truly effective opposition party. Instead, it's Russians.

Given the lack of evidence and the unprecedented political climate, particularly the distraction from the emails themselves, I would like more evidence than "Trust the DNC and the CIA and the NSA when we say: Trump colluded with Russians to get elected!"

Do new Presidents have a meeting with Head Spook who says "Support our illegal, unethical mass surveillance program or we'll make everyone think you like to get peed on"?

Every single American should demand that evidence even if they despise Trump. The same destabilizing allegation can be made against anyone without that requirement for evidence irrespective of political persuasion. I would be this oppositional on behalf of Clinton, Biden, Obama, anyone. You should too.

[mellow-lake-day]

>Remember: it's not just about Russians, but the original allegation was that the Trump campaign was involved. That has been very quietly walked back.

Well considering that Trump's attorney general William Barr shut down the investigation and is reversing Mueller's charges that is not surprising. So not only was there never a full investigation done but the mediocre investigation we had is being undone. We will never know the truth of Trump's and Putin's secret relationship until a proper investigation is done. Including Trump's finances.

https://www.justsecurity.org/69266/barr-is-dismantling-charg...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/08/mich...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-...

No one walked back on anything. It was simply not investigated since Republicans (especially people like Mitch McConnell) are putting party over country and not holding the president accountable.

DNC has many problems including mediocre security and treating candidates differently and picking favorites but that is not the topic of the discussion.

>Every single American should demand that evidence even if they despise Trump.

The problem with your entire premise of demanding evidence is that it's a red herring. This is not about producing evidence because any evidence produced you can label as fake or made up or false flag. Once evidence is provided the goal post is moved to evidence being made up or not credible. There is absolutely no benefit in the US government revealing evidence except for making Putin's team of hackers smarter. The people who believed that Russia did it --- will continue to believe it and that people who didn't --- well they will find new excuses for themselves.

[blisseyGo]

> possibly faked or hacked emails

What gives you the impression that this is the case? Hunter Biden's receipts from the computer repair shop are public for this too. I think bias might be clouding your judgement.

EDIT: Because HN isn't even allowing me to reply to the comment by user heartbreak, I will just edit this here:

He was NOT impeached for bribing Ukraine into fabricating exactly this sort of story. He was impeached because the democrats didn't want Biden's crimes exposed. “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime you’re being ruled by criminals” - Edward Snowden

The emails came from Hunter Biden’s laptop that he dropped off to get fixed. He never came back to get it therefore it became property of the shop. They spent money fixing it, waited for him to pick it up, he didn’t so by the terms of the agreement the shop owned it. All Hunter had to do is pay $85 and pick up his laptop. The NYT published illegally obtained tax returns of Trump. Why weren’t they censored?

[heartbreak]

Because the President was impeached nine months ago for bribing Ukraine into fabricating exactly this sort of story.

[nl]

> He was NOT impeached for bribing Ukraine into fabricating exactly this sort of story.

No, he was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress[1].

> the democrats didn't want Biden's crimes exposed

Biden hadn't even won the presidential nomination then, so this seems quite a stretch. Also there were no allegations against Joe Biden then, and the allegations against Hunter Biden seemed all to be very non-specific.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

[donmcronald]

> Hunter Biden's receipts from the computer repair shop are public for this too.

Where? I didn’t see those. How does he have public receipts for something he never paid for?

Edit: Never mind. I saw it. It’s a quote, not a receipt. I just can’t believe someone would take a laptop to a random, low quality based on the price, repair shop for data recovery like that. “Hi. Can you get my sex tape, crack smoking video, and incriminating, politically sensitive emails off this thing?”

[jcadam]

Drug addicts do dumb things all the time.

[nknezek]

source?

[zaroth]

The NY Post story allegedly has pictures of the receipt as an attachment to the FBI subpoena for the laptop.