
Florida GOP consultant admits he worked with Guccifer 2.0, analyzing hacked data - tcoppi
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/florida-gop-consultant-admits-he-worked-with-guccifer-2-0-analyzing-hacked-data/
======
baldeagle
Seems like this was closer to 'Lyft obtains a leaked copy of the Uber go to
market strategy for FL, TX, etc' than 'Waymo obtains notice that Uber bought
secrets'. As such, there was nothing moral/truth-y to be learned from it, but
a lot of tactical knowledge. I'm all for transparency, but this is more akin
to corporate espionage than whistle blowing.

I think this is trying to show second order effects of the hack, in that it
changed ground level tactics in addition to influencing hearts and minds. What
ever you believe about the source of the hack, this event damages the idea of
a noble hacker seeking to expose wrong doing.

------
pdkl95
The Russia/"hacked election" meme is amazing. With very little actual
_evidence_ , careful use of linguistic framing, and a lot of angry rhetoric on
all sides, the public was successfully scared into wasting their time and
energy fighting among themselves over hearsay and rumor, instead of addressing
_any_ of the numerous actual, known problems that are already known and far
more likely to impact the average citizen.

If there's actual _evidence_ of an actual _crime_ , then present it to the
public and the court. In the meantime, healthcare is still a huge mess,
regulatory capture is keeps getting worse (an isn't limited to the FCC),
systemic corruption continues to erode the public sector as politicians -
regardless of party affiliation - spend increasing amounts of time "dialing
for dollars"[1], wealth inequality continues to get worse, and the military-
industrial complex is still a money pump that starts the occasional war.

There is a lot of important work to do, but this _denial of service attack_
against everyone's political time and energy has been a very successful
distraction.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk)

~~~
hsod
With all the stuff that's come out over the past six months, I don't see how
you can dismiss it out of hand like this.

For anyone reading who is not super engaged with these matters, please know
that this is a lot more than just a "meme".

Here's a comprehensive timeline if you want to take a deep dive:
[https://lawfareblog.com/realnews-trump-et-laffaire-russe-
res...](https://lawfareblog.com/realnews-trump-et-laffaire-russe-resource-
page)

But I'll just list a simple sequence of three verifiable events that should
demonstrate clearly that there is at least something real here.

* On March 20, 2017 FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI was “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”" [0]

* On May 9, 2017 the President fired FBI Director Comey [1]

* On May 17, 2017 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (acting in this matter as AG due to Sessions' recusal) appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the investigation, effectively removing the President from it's chain of command. [2]

I'm not saying this is proof-positive that collusion occurred, but it's
sufficiently compelling.

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-
investiga...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-
investigation-trump-russia-comey.html) [1]:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-
comey-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-
fbi.html) [2]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-
muelle...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-
special-counsel-russia-investigation.html)

Edited to remove insinuations of bad faith

~~~
dang
> _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.

~~~
hsod
sorry, edited

------
luma
So the GOP is directly admitting to collusion with Russian agents in order to
disrupt US elections. Are we OK with this as a country?

~~~
uncle_d
Has anyone publicly presented any concrete evidence whatsoever that the
Russians were involved in any way in influencing the U.S. election as yet?

Just asking, for a friend :)

~~~
moduspol
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?

~~~
at-fates-hands
> They said it was the Russians trying to get Trump elected. Is that not good
> enough for you?

Only if it made sense. At nearly every angle you look at, it doesn't.

If the Russians wanted someone they could push around, then Clinton was their
candidate. She's the one who signed off on the Uranium deal, and had several
large donations she received as SCOTUS from the Russians. John Podesta (her
campaign chair) had financial interests in a Kremlin funded company, and was
also on several of the corporate the boards of said company.

Compared to Trump (some smoke, no hard evidence, lots of "anonymous sources"),
the ties between Clinton and the Russians are way stronger and have far more
substance to them. If this is the case, then why would the Russians want
someone they know to be a wild card and prone to being impulsive compared to
someone they already made deals with, and had far deeper, established
relationships with?

If they were going to influence the election and wanted a puppet, it makes
110% more sense to discredit Trump and put Hilary in office.

~~~
ItendToDisagree
Sources on any of this conjecture?

What large donations from Russia did Clinton receive? Were they comparable to
Trump's MANY funding streams from Russian banks? Or multiple of his campaign
advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having deep Russian ties?

Also wasn't Trump the guy falling all over himself to praise Putin/Russia both
on Twitter and in-person? Or explicitly asking for Russia to publish more
leaks during one of the presidential debates?

Seems like you have your information pretty mixed up (or simply made up).

Can you post a substantial source for any of your claims?

[http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-
russia/](http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/) (details
Trump's many ties to Russia and was written by a Republican to boot.)

~~~
cookiecaper
>Or multiple of his campaign advisers (not to mention his pick for NSA) having
deep Russian ties?

On this note, I just want to point out that Russia is the only European
country in the world's 10 most populous countries, and that Russia controls
more land than any other country on earth (almost twice as much as the second-
largest landholder, China).

It should be no surprise that Americans involved in international business
will have substantial connections to such a significant world entity.

It's really kind of silly to hear people holding any previous dealing in
Russia against anyone that has a remote connection to Donald Trump.

------
zentiggr
Ok, for a report with the possible meaning and impact as this, to have zero
dates, no timeframe at all, is either very cagey or very "rush this online!".
I'll assume oversight before incompetence. However, given the piece as
written, these communications could have happened years ago or yesterday
(hyperbole I know but ???)

~~~
mcphage
Are you talking about the ArsTechnica article, or its Wall Street Journal
source? (Which I can't read because of the paywall)

~~~
ItendToDisagree
[https://outline.com/hswuDt](https://outline.com/hswuDt) For the Wall Street
Journal article text

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

~~~
mcphage
Oh, nice! Thanks.

------
creaghpatr
Related: A federal prosecutor in Florida turned up dead on a beach this
morning.

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-
fo...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-ensues-federal-prosuctor-found-dead-
florida/story?id=47652909)

------
ItendToDisagree
1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that
sphere and has a 'European Russia'. Anecdotally most Russians I've met would
bristle at Russia being called a "European" territory.

2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you
would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those
dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the
Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were
normal interactions.

3) If you're taking large amounts of money (say for real estate deals) from
Russian state banks and oligarchs you're playing a dangerous game of being in
someone's pocket.

~~~
cookiecaper
>1) Russia is not a "European" country. Though it does exert influence in that
sphere and has a 'European Russia'.

As previously mentioned, Russia is by far the world's largest state. Though
their land area extends across Asia, Russian culture, customs, religion, and
heritage are undoubtedly Euro-centric. Almost 80% of Russian citizens live in
"European Russia" [0]. By every calculation except raw geography, Russia is
rightly classified European.

Moscow is about 1000 miles east of Berlin. It's 3000 miles west of Beijing.

>2) If Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc had non-shady dealings with Russia you
would think they wouldn't have to be so shady about how they present those
dealings. Sessions wouldn't have to explicitly commit perjury in front of the
Senate to try and hide his interactions with Russian officials if they were
normal interactions.

I really don't want descend into this unending pit of politically-motivated
"nuh-uh", "yuh-huh" accusations about imaginary events and anonymous sources,
but I'd at least suggest that you soften your tone re: Sessions. He has not
been charged with, let alone convicted of, perjury. You state it as if it's an
irrefutable reality.

I think that your bias is leaking through a little bit.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia)

~~~
ItendToDisagree
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 ;)

------
gragas
Why does this have a negative twist? Is it not a good thing that voters were
more informed of the darker sides of the DNC and the Democratic party before
voting?

~~~
DonbunEf7
Can I have all of your personal data? It's okay, I just want to be more
informed about your darker side before my next vote.

~~~
gragas
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.

~~~
GVIrish
Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in order
to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE
problem. By selectively disclosing information a hostile nation can change the
political landscape in the target nation to weaken alliances, change security
posture, change positions on treaties, and/or create general dysfunction.

This is not a case where the public is getting information about everyone,
it's a case where an adversary is attempting to illegally manipulate public
opinion to our detriment. The goal and the result is not the public making the
most informed decision, it's the public making a decision based on incomplete
information specifically disseminated to help a foreign agenda.

This can only be described as an attack on our democracy.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> Having a geopolitical adversary strategically hack political parties in
order to change the outcome of an election to suit their interests is a HUGE
problem

So you were ok with Obama sending a few hundred thousand dollars to try and
influence the Israeli elections to oust Netanyahu?

 _According to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI),
the State Department gave $349,276 in U.S. taxpayer-funded grants to a
political group in Israel to build a campaign operation, which subsequently
was used to try to influence Israelis to vote against conservative Benjamin
Netanyahu in the March 2015 election for prime minister._

[http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-
dept-350...](http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-
dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels)

~~~
vorotato
This is the definition of whataboutism. It wasn't okay when Russia did it, and
it wasn't okay when Obama did it. Saying Obama did it doesn't make something
okay?

