A Russian-American fraud; Russia goal: Unraveling U.S. democracy; disinformation & military readiness, and more

Russian influence campaign: What’s in the latest Mueller indictment (Sarah Grant, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Matt Tait, Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare)
The grand jury’s charges against the 13 Russians and three organizations mark a significant moment in the investigation of L’Affaire Russe. President Trump has spent the year since his victory casting doubt on the very premise that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Yet here is the Justice Department on the record declaring that the Russia investigation isn’t, in fact, a witch hunt. It isn’t a hoax. It isn’t just a “phony Democrat excuse for losing the election,” as the president has tweeted. There really was, the Justice Department is saying, a Russian influence operation to interfere in the U.S. political system during the 2016 presidential election, and it really was at the expense of Hillary Clinton and in favor of Donald Trump.

Did Russia affect the 2016 election? It’s now undeniable (Molly McKew, Wired)
For some time, there has been a conflation of issues—the hacking and leaking of illegally obtained information versus propaganda and disinformation; cyber-security issues and the hacking of elections systems versus information operations and information warfare; paid advertising versus coercive messaging or psychological operations—when discussing “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US elections. The refrain has become: “There is no evidence that Russian efforts changed any votes.” But the bombshell 37-page indictment issued Friday by Robert Mueller against Russia’s Internet Research Agency and its leadership and affiliates provides considerable detail on the Russian information warfare targeting the American public during the elections. And this information makes it increasingly difficult to say that the Kremlin’s effort to impact the American mind did not succeed.

“Something was weird”: Inside the Russian effort to bamboozle Florida (Matt Dixon and Marc Caputo, Politico)
The operation in the nation’s largest swing state was in a class by itself.

What Mueller’s new Russia indictments mean — and what they don’t (Andrew Prokop, Vox)
They’re plucking the low-hanging fruit of Russian interference.

By Andrew Prokop

Mueller’s indictment of Russian hackers highlights the stakes of the Microsoft case (Andrew Keane Woods, Lawfare)
Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russians suspected of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections is remarkable for a number of reasons.  It is remarkable because they suggest that Mueller’s team was able to identify the organizational structure of a group of Russians who were acting in a manner deliberately designed to appear organic and not coordinated.  It is remarkable because Mueller’s team appears to have learned the names of individual defendants and their roles within the conspiracy despite the tools available to foreign hackers to evade detection by U.S. authorities.  And the indictment is remarkable because it suggests that Mueller’s investigation into foreign elections depends on access to data across borders—an issue that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Feb 27.

For Russia, unraveling U.S. democracy was just another day job (Brian Barrett, Wired)
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment against Russia’s Internet Research Agency contains a number of striking moments, from the inflammatory ads bought by the so-called “troll factory” to the rampant identity theft against US citizens. But what stands out most may be the reminder that for Russia, subverting the foundations of US democracy was just another 9 to 5.

The campaign finance loophole that could make the next Russian attack perfectly legal (Richard L. Hasen, Slate)
The Mueller indictment of 13 Russian nationals for interfering with the 2016 U.S.

presidential election offers a remarkably detailed account of a complex plot to sow discord and influence the presidential contest in favor of Donald Trump. The indictment critically points to something else, though: It provides a roadmap for the Russians to do it all again, without violating any current campaign finance laws the next time.

Lessons about Russian social media meddling from Mueller’s indictment (Jaap Arriens, Axios)
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian cybercriminals shows that not only was social media the primary tactic used by Russian informants to meddle in the U.S. election, but that they were incredibly savvy about the way they used it, setting up IT, data and payment departments around their manipulation efforts. And even after the election, criminals were still using these tactics to host fake support rallies for President-elect Trump.

White House objects to Russian hacking that doesn’t benefit Trump (Jonah Shepp, New York Magazine)
The White House on Thursday issued a statement blaming the NotPetya cyberattack, which centered on Ukraine but affected computers around the world, on the Russian government and promising that Russia would face “international consequences” because of it. That the White House is willing to take the bold step of publicly accusing the Kremlin of carrying out a major cyberattack makes it all the more puzzling that the administration has resisted all attempts to punish Russia for interfering in U.S. elections, which the intelligence community unequivocally agrees that it did, even going so far as to lie to the public about that conclusion. Even as the indictment released by special prosecutor Robert Mueller on Friday spelled out in detail the extent of that interference, Trump was only interested in pointing out that he and his campaign had not been implicated (yet).

How Russia turned the internet against America (Nancy Sciola, Politico)
Some who value the online world’s freedoms are ‘at a loss’ after Friday’s indictment offered new details about how trolls exploited its weaknesses.

Mueller’s message to America (Paul Rozenzweig, The Atlantic)
The clear goal of the special counsel is to speak to the American public about the seriousness of Russian interference. Let’s be blunt—none of the Russians who were indicted will ever,ever, see the inside of an American courtroom. Russia won’t extradite them and we won’t, realistically, expect them to do so. The individuals may not have as much freedom to travel (say, to the French Riviera) for fear of arrest, but otherwise the effect on them will be negligible. Given that reality, this indictment (which prosecutors sometimes call a “speaking indictment”) is so detailed precisely because the evidence will never be presented in a court. It is designed to give as full an accounting of the known facts as the prosecutors reasonably can. Beyond prosecution, the clear goal here is to speak to the American public—and if this message isn’t sufficient, then no message can possibly sway the body politic. The takeaway is grim: The threat to the integrity of our elections is real. The main question that Mueller asks is not whether the Russians are guilty, but what America is going to do about it? If, faced with this reality, we continue to do nothing, then the blame for the next failure will be on us. Ben Franklin, when asked what sort of government the Founders created, is reported to have said “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Americans must now to decide if we want to keep ours.

Foreign disinformation is a threat to military readiness, too (Matthew Krull, Defense One)
Troops — and their families — need training to spot and discard false narratives and information.