Fact check: Bernie Sanders knew what Mueller Report later wrote happened March 2016, GRU began hacking email accounts of Clinton Campaign April 2016, GRU hacked into computer networks of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC).Stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks.

1. Summary of the results

The timeline presented in the original statement is extensively corroborated by multiple sources. The GRU (Russian military intelligence) began their hacking operations against the Clinton Campaign in March 2016, specifically succeeding in breaching Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails on March 16, 2016 ^{[1] [2]}. In April 2016, they expanded their operation to hack the computer networks of both the DCCC and DNC ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial details:

• The scale of the operation was massive, involving spearphishing attacks on over 300 individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party or Clinton campaign ^[5]
• The GRU created specific online personas like "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" to release the stolen material ^[2]
• There are some uncertainties in the Mueller Report's findings, as it uses tentative language like "appear" when describing certain aspects of the email theft, and cannot definitively establish how stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks ^[6]
• The hacking operation was actually part of a broader Russian interference campaign that included social media operations ^[7]
• The DNC had actually been targeted earlier, with initial hacks by GRU's Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear units occurring in summer 2015 ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement presents an oversimplified version of events that could be misleading in several ways:

• It doesn't mention that the Mueller investigation found "multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government" while ultimately not establishing direct coordination or conspiracy ^[7]
• The statement doesn't acknowledge that the stolen materials were strategically released to cause maximum damage to the Clinton campaign ^[5]
• The technical certainty implied in the original statement should be tempered by the fact that some aspects of the investigation, particularly regarding the transfer of documents to WikiLeaks, remain uncertain ^[6]

This case demonstrates how various political actors benefit from different interpretations of these events - Democrats from emphasizing Russian interference, Republicans from highlighting the investigation's limitations, and the Mueller investigation itself maintaining careful, sometimes tentative language to preserve its credibility.