Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data (opens in new tab)

> It almost feels like a kind of gaslighting, like you're trying to confuse people and muddy the waters.

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.

> all the markings of a successful psyops campaign

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.

Not to trot out the "what if this involved the DNC, the GOP would call for blood" meme, but it's certainly justified to feel outrage over a consultant for a party colluding with a foreign entity to influence an election. It's equally possible that the party knew about the actions of their contractor, since they were on their payroll.

Especially since the "collusion" occurred after the breach.

---

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.

“Fairly recently” in this case meaning “within hours of release” – CrowdStrike was already publicly connecting the dots to military intelligence by June 15th:

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.

The intelligence agencies looked at the evidence and claim it was the Russians, and somehow tied it back to the Russian government.

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?

Unfortunately no. All we have right now is the highest "levels of confidence" from our major intelligence agencies with their belief that Russian-promoted hacking agencies hacked the DNC, and released that information to wikileaks in order to make Hillary look worse.

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

Yes. Multiple times over now. Same group involved with election hackery were also phishing my peers after they caused Moscow trouble regarding MH17 and Syria[1].

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-...

No, no concrete evidence was ever presented. The entire premise of this huge ongoing media sensation has still not been proven and begs for quality, in-depth investigative journalism, but only fringe ultra-right or ultra-left media outlets seem to take any interest in this. The likes of New Yorker or NYT Magazine seem utterly uninterested in digging, or readily assume this as a proven fact, for no apparent reason. Except maybe "what's wrong with blindly trusting CIA and NSA to be truthful?"

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...

Insofar as a political party is benefiting from the bad actions of members, I'm not going to feel bad about it at this point.

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.

This stance MIGHT make sense if the hacked RNC documents were also leaked. Surprisingly (or not) those files were not leaked out.[1] Sure looks like "truth" was not the element that was in Russia's interests.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-...

RTA

>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.

I think it's very clear the parent is questioning the original actions that took place and not the confession/coming-clean itself.

https://outline.com/hswuDt For the Wall Street Journal article text

It has some dates in the screenshots and more accurately portrays the timeline.

He lied in his confirmation hearing after being pressed on an issue. Then admitted he was not truthful after it was publicized. Lots of people (especially in Gov) get away with that sort of stuff without conviction. That seems to have been a large point of the last election no? Different set of rules for everyone else and all that.

I'd say my posts were drenched in bias from the very start. I'm amazed you missed it ;)

What if the DNC did some really not okay things? Nah, you're right, we shouldn't know about them because the DNC wouldn't want that...

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.

You could if I was running for President. What a dumb thing to say.

Not that I agree with gp but a political party vs personal is a little different.