U.S. Prosecutors Consider Charging Russian Officials in DNC Hacking Case

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

www.wsj.com...

So much for the "it was some fat guy in his bathrobe sitting in a basement" theory. Think about it: Donald Trump's own Justice Department admits that Russians were responsible for the DNC hacks. This ties in with Russian agents promising to get dirt on Clinton, and Trump announcing that something big was coming two days after Don Jr.met with people claiming to be representative of the Russian government.

Could be but I'll wait for the indictments because ..........

according to people familiar with the investigation

source that demands subscription !

originally posted by: DJW001

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

www.wsj.com...

So much for the "it was some fat guy in his bathrobe sitting in a basement" theory. Think about it: Donald Trump's own Justice Department admits that Russians were responsible for the DNC hacks. This ties in with Russian agents promising to get dirt on Clinton, and Trump announcing that something big was coming two days after Don Jr.met with people claiming to be representative of the Russian government.

How exactly do you charge a country with a crime? Are we going to lock the country of Russia up and throw away the key?? Are these Russian "officials" going to be extradited from Moscow to face charges here in the U.S.?

This is just political grand standing at best. Make up some charge and attempt at prosecuting as a way to say "see, we're serious about Russia interference"! Give me a break!

originally posted by: xuenchen
Could be but I'll wait for the indictments because ..........

according to people familiar with the investigation

source that demands subscription !

Go to the library and read the copy your taxes pay for. The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reliable center right news sources. They would not print this story if their source were not reliable.

a reply to: DJW001

Well why not post the whole article then ?

Why make it so hard for people to see ?

Why tell people to go to a library ?

Sounds extra authoritarian.

Thanks but no thanks just the same.

a reply to: GuidedKill

The Justice Department is going to charge six individuals with crimes. They are Russian, and presumably committed these crimes in the service of the Russian government. The Department will no doubt file extradition requests, which will no doubt be denied. What will be interesting is how the President will react. Will he condemn the act of espionage or not?

a reply to: GuidedKill

They'll have to sanction some Russians and tell them not to operate a computer anymore.

That'll show 'em.

a reply to: xuenchen

Good grief. Here:

www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: GuidedKill

They'll have to sanction some Russians and tell them not to operate a computer anymore.

That'll show 'em.

So you are okay with espionage against the United States? If Russia does not extradite the alleged criminals, it could mean another round of sanctions. Are you okay with the Russian people having their economy undermined further? (I'm not.)

Julien needs to drop who his source was then. He says that the Russians didn't do it.

originally posted by: Tekaran
Julien needs to drop who his source was then. He says that the Russians didn't do it.

That's right. He should rise to the occasion and prove those poor Russians innocent. I doubt that will happen... anonymous sources and all that.

I suppose you can't blame any Russian hacker for this, I mean Podesta used the word password for his password - or something like that. I would imagine that he could have been hacked by anyone.

Also, I wonder if this is actually a ploy to get the DNC to finally turn over their servers. I find it hard to believe the FBI can charge anyone with anything when they don't have any physical evidence of the hack.

originally posted by: DJW001
So you are okay with espionage against the United States? If Russia does not extradite the alleged criminals, it could mean another round of sanctions. Are you okay with the Russian people having their economy undermined further? (I'm not.)

Careful, the NSA and others are doing espionage against others all the time. Are you ready to send members of the intelligence community to another country for spying? I'm sure foreign governments don't recognize our NOBUS doctrine.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: GuidedKill

They'll have to sanction some Russians and tell them not to operate a computer anymore.

That'll show 'em.

So you are okay with espionage against the United States?

That's your claim, not mine.

Why not be honest ?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: GuidedKill

They'll have to sanction some Russians and tell them not to operate a computer anymore.

That'll show 'em.

So you are okay with espionage against the United States?

That's your claim, not mine.

Why not be honest ?

When a foreign government illegally accesses American emails it is espionage. Are you okay with that? It's a simple question.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer

originally posted by: DJW001
So you are okay with espionage against the United States? If Russia does not extradite the alleged criminals, it could mean another round of sanctions. Are you okay with the Russian people having their economy undermined further? (I'm not.)

Careful, the NSA and others are doing espionage against others all the time. Are you ready to send members of the intelligence community to another country for spying? I'm sure foreign governments don't recognize our NOBUS doctrine.

I would not expect the United States government to hand over one of our spies to a foreign government, which is why I doubt Russia will comply with the extradition request. Or was your post just an attempt at whataboutism?

a reply to: DJW001

So the Justice Department is going to take Crowdstrike's word for the infiltration without ever examining the servers directly?

And what about the report that showed that the information was more likely transferred via a local connection rather than through remote systems?

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations. To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

The Nation

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

So the Justice Department is going to take Crowdstrike's word for the infiltration without ever examining the servers directly?

And what about the report that showed that the information was more likely transferred via a local connection rather than through remote systems?

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations. To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

The Nation

How dare you!

You're going off script! Stick with the narrative!

a reply to: GuidedKill

Iran would probably have a better case involving the virus planted on their computers dealing with their Nuke program .

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What makes you think they are taking anyone's word on anything? And why would anyone need to physically access the servers?