Hacker News Reader

Comment by Isamu | Hacker News Reader

Interesting details:

> These GRU hackers and their co-conspirators engaged in computer intrusions and attacks intended to support Russian government efforts to undermine, retaliate against, or otherwise destabilize: (1) Ukraine; (2) Georgia; (3) elections in France; (4) efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use of a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, on foreign soil; and (5) the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games after Russian athletes were banned from participating under their nation’s flag, as a consequence of Russian government-sponsored doping effort.

View on HN

Is this clear from the evidence or are these the allegations against them?

That's a tricky thing with indictments like this. For now, these are the allegations against them. Evidence would be introduced at trial and the prosecutors would be loathe to introduce any evidence that exposes "sources and methods" of intelligence. And the defendants will likely never set foot in a place where they could be extradited to stand trial.

So, sort of a paper tiger.

Does the US Government (as represented by these prosecutors) have a good faith belief these individuals committed these crimes? Probably, though you might believe otherwise. I would say my trust is very high in that statement, despite everything else going on in politics right now. The government doesn't make indictments like this lightly, and the grand jury saw at least enough evidence to establish probable cause. At the same time, there is a saying about ham sandwiches and indictments.

Will we ever see the underlying evidence? I doubt we will.

Should we trust the US Government's representations in this case? Again, I would - but you may have priors to suggest you shouldn't.

This is a press release from the department of justice. There are two attachments at the end.

Is this clear from the evidence or are these the allegations against them?

The evidence is presented at the trial, not in the initial press release announcing there has been an indictment.

One would expect that there is clear evidence, or there wouldn't be an indictment. You can't win a court case without evidence.

It's a long PDF [0], but these indictments are usually very detailed.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1328521/downl...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com