9 ms·

Well, maybe something is damning, but if you believe that these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GR

Well, maybe something is damning, but if you believe that these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain" I have a cheap sunny beach in Greenland for sale. Or if you believe that the US spies had somehow full access to this info and are not afraid to compromise their sources by these revelations. Or, finally, if you believe that the US security agencies including Mueller himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller#Director_of_the_FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller#Director_of_the... are to be trusted on anything at all.

throwaway5752 8y ago
What is your explanation of those ledger entries? Was Mueller setting up Russia before he was named Special Counsel? Also, I read the indictment (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Muellerindictment.pdf https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller...) but I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? I assumed they used stolen identities, like it seems to state in count 10's paragraph 59 and 60, and uses multiple accounts across multiple exchanges to obscure the money trail (paragraph 63). edit: It's common knowledge who Robert Mueller is. He's been a public figure for decades, and nobody ever made any effort conceal his background. Why are you providing me a wikipedia link?
- uxp 8y ago
  I don't think there has been any public release of information confirming the evidence revealed in the indictment. Indictments are supposed to be somewhat hyperbolic in appearance (not literally, but figuratively). They aren't supposed to lie, but at the same time they will omit key facts explaining how or why they know or suspect person X did action Y. Those facts will be revealed to the defense or during trial. Unfortunately, these indictments will never result in a trial or pre-trial discovery on part of the defense, so the public may never know the reasons. That said, the Dutch were able to watch[0] Unit 26165 (a/k/a Cozy Bear, APT29) on CCTV, so it doesn't seem entirely implausible that the NSA or some other FVEY group was capable of retrieving emails from whatever webmail provider Unit 26165 was using (appears to be yandex and mail.com in the indictment). 0: https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Sure, I agree with you on all counts. My point was more that the poster I was replying to either has 1) something not in the indictment 2) some non-yet-public information, or 3) has made something up. I thought it might be 3, but wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    > information confirming the evidence People will never be satisfied. If/When the full emails quoted in the indictment are released, they will point out that e-mails are just UTF-8 characters in a file that anybody could have created. There simply is no evidence, nor is it even possible for there to be any evidence, that people could verify at home. Even if the official Russian "Certificate of Excellence in Hacking Democracy", printed on Russia's own polonium-laced paper, affixed with "Putin's Seal of Outrageous Heterosexuality" self-appointed sceptics will complain that all they can access is a photo, and the FBI isn't letting them stop by and inspect the original.
- igivanov 8y ago
  >I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? that was sarcasm, sorry, I forgot it doesn't go well here. there is nothing in the indictment about how they were able to identify particular perpetrators including their full names. >I assumed they used stolen identities, No one in Russia uses their full names with patronymics spelled out in paper mail or e-mail or in official paperwork, except in e.g. a job application or similar i.e. where one must be fully identified. So unless it's a bad case of a Hollywood movie script, those could have come only from hacked internal databases. I am not sure a spy agency would thus reveal it has hacked those internal databases or had a mole in GRU. And on top of that they would be somehow able to match a record in that database with a hacker out there - a truly miraculous feat. On the other hand if those are stolen identities, there are no hints of that in the indictment. They are presented as true identities. And still, full patronymics just don't compute. >Why are you providing me a wikipedia link? What do you want me to provide to prove that he is not to be trusted? My own investigation?
reefoctopus 8y ago
Dutch intelligence watched them do it. They were able to watch people coming and going through a security camera. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  The interesting thing about the article is its sourcing: > according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos: > It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but some skepticism is in order.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    That's what grand juries, juries, and transparent trials are all about. The first set of Russians indicted months ago have had lawyers representing them in front of a judge this entire time, despite the fact that there is no Russia-US extradition treaty and zero chance of then facing trial. The Office of Special Counsel is fully aware of that fact and yet they keep going, despite the risk that a judge could force them to reveal evidence, sources, and methods that would undermine the entire investigation. This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
    - oldgradstudent 8y ago
      Indictments are not evidence. It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that no actual evidence has been presented (yet) in the trial of the first batch of Russians. I'll maintain skepticism until after discovery and cross examination. > This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries. I think this is a very kind way of describing the Iraq fiasco. The US intelligence agencies claimed there were WMDs, the UK intelligence services produced the Dodgy Dossier[1], and don't get me started about what the Israeli intelligence claimed (I was stupid enough to believe them and prepare the bomb shelter for a chemical attack). The one thing I learned is that claims by intelligence agencies or anonymous sources in those agencies are meaningless until hard evidence is provided.

throwaway5752 8y ago

What is your explanation of those ledger entries? Was Mueller setting up Russia before he was named Special Counsel? Also, I read the indictment (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Muellerindictment.pdf https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller...) but I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? I assumed they used stolen identities, like it seems to state in count 10's paragraph 59 and 60, and uses multiple accounts across multiple exchanges to obscure the money trail (paragraph 63). edit: It's common knowledge who Robert Mueller is. He's been a public figure for decades, and nobody ever made any effort conceal his background. Why are you providing me a wikipedia link?

uxp 8y ago
I don't think there has been any public release of information confirming the evidence revealed in the indictment. Indictments are supposed to be somewhat hyperbolic in appearance (not literally, but figuratively). They aren't supposed to lie, but at the same time they will omit key facts explaining how or why they know or suspect person X did action Y. Those facts will be revealed to the defense or during trial. Unfortunately, these indictments will never result in a trial or pre-trial discovery on part of the defense, so the public may never know the reasons. That said, the Dutch were able to watch[0] Unit 26165 (a/k/a Cozy Bear, APT29) on CCTV, so it doesn't seem entirely implausible that the NSA or some other FVEY group was capable of retrieving emails from whatever webmail provider Unit 26165 was using (appears to be yandex and mail.com in the indictment). 0: https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Sure, I agree with you on all counts. My point was more that the poster I was replying to either has 1) something not in the indictment 2) some non-yet-public information, or 3) has made something up. I thought it might be 3, but wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt.
- matt4077 8y ago
  > information confirming the evidence People will never be satisfied. If/When the full emails quoted in the indictment are released, they will point out that e-mails are just UTF-8 characters in a file that anybody could have created. There simply is no evidence, nor is it even possible for there to be any evidence, that people could verify at home. Even if the official Russian "Certificate of Excellence in Hacking Democracy", printed on Russia's own polonium-laced paper, affixed with "Putin's Seal of Outrageous Heterosexuality" self-appointed sceptics will complain that all they can access is a photo, and the FBI isn't letting them stop by and inspect the original.
igivanov 8y ago
>I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? that was sarcasm, sorry, I forgot it doesn't go well here. there is nothing in the indictment about how they were able to identify particular perpetrators including their full names. >I assumed they used stolen identities, No one in Russia uses their full names with patronymics spelled out in paper mail or e-mail or in official paperwork, except in e.g. a job application or similar i.e. where one must be fully identified. So unless it's a bad case of a Hollywood movie script, those could have come only from hacked internal databases. I am not sure a spy agency would thus reveal it has hacked those internal databases or had a mole in GRU. And on top of that they would be somehow able to match a record in that database with a hacker out there - a truly miraculous feat. On the other hand if those are stolen identities, there are no hints of that in the indictment. They are presented as true identities. And still, full patronymics just don't compute. >Why are you providing me a wikipedia link? What do you want me to provide to prove that he is not to be trusted? My own investigation?

reefoctopus 8y ago

Dutch intelligence watched them do it. They were able to watch people coming and going through a security camera. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...

oldgradstudent 8y ago
The interesting thing about the article is its sourcing: > according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos: > It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but some skepticism is in order.
- civilitty 8y ago
  That's what grand juries, juries, and transparent trials are all about. The first set of Russians indicted months ago have had lawyers representing them in front of a judge this entire time, despite the fact that there is no Russia-US extradition treaty and zero chance of then facing trial. The Office of Special Counsel is fully aware of that fact and yet they keep going, despite the risk that a judge could force them to reveal evidence, sources, and methods that would undermine the entire investigation. This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
  - oldgradstudent 8y ago
    Indictments are not evidence. It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that no actual evidence has been presented (yet) in the trial of the first batch of Russians. I'll maintain skepticism until after discovery and cross examination. > This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries. I think this is a very kind way of describing the Iraq fiasco. The US intelligence agencies claimed there were WMDs, the UK intelligence services produced the Dodgy Dossier[1], and don't get me started about what the Israeli intelligence claimed (I was stupid enough to believe them and prepare the bomb shelter for a chemical attack). The one thing I learned is that claims by intelligence agencies or anonymous sources in those agencies are meaningless until hard evidence is provided.