Will you accept the election results?

[pErvinalia]

But the reality is that security services have to keep some things (most things) secret. I'm not sure how they operate in the US, but I imagine it is similar to Australia. In almost all cases the security forces here don't confirm or deny anything, nor do they or the military special forces give any information on any operational details. Perhaps this is a case of that?

The report has been released to be relied upon to show that Russia did it. Or, at least that's what it's being used for.

If nobody is confirming or denying anything, then we are still waiting for something to go on. Why do we think it's Russia, again?

"or... operational details".

[Forty Two]

Do the operational details confirm something? What? How? What details?

[pErvinalia]

By listing the actual evidence of hacking will likely give details on how that evidence was obtained.

[Sean Hayden]

We don't really have to worry about that yet though do we? The only counter to the evidence that has been presented here --that I remember-- is that such software is regularly sold. Well, I'm willing to assume the investigators are also aware of that. So, what could explain such a silly mistake on their part?

[Forty Two]

By listing the actual evidence of hacking will likely give details on how that evidence was obtained.

That's possible. Has someone said that about the report in question? Does the report say that? Do any of the people signing off on the report say "we can't give you actual evidence, because of the details on how the evidence was obtained will be leaked out to the detriment of our intelligence operations?" Nobody is committing, as far as I can see, to the existence of the evidence at all. Have they?

I would be far more accepting of the report if someone said - my name is on here, and I am telling you the evidence is clear (or solid, or persuasive, or reasonably persuasive, etc.) that the Russians did it. It'll be a while before it's declassified, but I'm going on record that we have it.

[Forty Two]

We don't really have to worry about that yet though do we? The only counter to the evidence that has been presented here --that I remember-- is that such software is regularly sold. Well, I'm willing to assume the investigators are also aware of that. So, what could explain such a silly mistake on their part?

That it's not a mistake. That's one explanation.

Another explanation is that there is a reason politically they want to pin it on Russia.

Another explanation is that they did an investigation in good faith, and this is the best they could come up with, and they really do think it's probably Russia. Unfortunately ,their ability to be wrong and be wrong big means that I won't just accept their good faith on faith. I'm just asking for the evidence.

Unnamed sources. Intelligence sources speaking on a condition of anonymity. Some trailing indicators that the same methods used by a couple of "usual suspects" who may (or may not) be connected to the Russian government in some unspecified way, doesn't really convince me.

I wouldn't trust this kind of Report from the CIA/FBI/HSA/NSA if Trump were President. I have no more reason to trust it now.

[pErvinalia]

By listing the actual evidence of hacking will likely give details on how that evidence was obtained.

That's possible. Has someone said that about the report in question? Does the report say that? Do any of the people signing off on the report say "we can't give you actual evidence, because of the details on how the evidence was obtained will be leaked out to the detriment of our intelligence operations?" Nobody is committing, as far as I can see, to the existence of the evidence at all. Have they?

I would be far more accepting of the report if someone said - my name is on here, and I am telling you the evidence is clear (or solid, or persuasive, or reasonably persuasive, etc.) that the Russians did it. It'll be a while before it's declassified, but I'm going on record that we have it.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that it is a beat up. But there needs to be a reasonable explanation as to why the intelligence services would do it. So far I haven't heard it.

[Sean Hayden]

Some trailing indicators that the same methods used by a couple of "usual suspects" who may (or may not) be connected to the Russian government in some unspecified way, doesn't really convince me.

I don't think that's all the report said. It reads like a dumbed-down version anyway. It's how I would read it too. Are we ignoring the significance of the existence of a group of "usual suspects" in the first place, and how they have been identified over time?

[Forty Two]

Well, we're not "ignoring" the usual suspects. They're hacker groups. The question is how to they pin it on the Russian government.

The argument is that the Russians wanted to hack the DNC to influence the election so Trump would be elected.... so..... what? The Russians got into the DNC and then leaked the info to Wikileaks. Wikileaks says they know who gave them the info, and it wasn't the Russians. No concrete evidence of hacking is coming out, and the info the report relies on is in large part info gathered by private persons, not intelligence sources.

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;
(b) the information provided to justify the claim is vague and open to multiple interpretations and doesn't link up to Russial
(c) the intelligence sources won't go on record and are unnamed and anonymous;
(d) nobody has gone on record to say they've seen evidence that can't be disclosed due to security concerns;
(e) we know the intelligence agencies are not unwilling to lie or mislead, and they can also be wrong in good faith, and we have examples of times when intelligence agencies have asked us to trust them and they were wrong (Iraq WMD, Niger Uranium, etc.)
(f) the actions of the Obama Administration do not appear in line with "knowledge" of any substantial nature that the Russians successfully tipped an American election against the party in power through unlawful hacking.

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;

The intelligence agencies aren't political. They exist no matter which party is governing.

(c) the intelligence sources won't go on record and are unnamed and anonymous;

This makes perfect sense if they are trying to protect either sources and/or methods.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, we're not "ignoring" the usual suspects. They're hacker groups. The question is how to they pin it on the Russian government.

The argument is that the Russians wanted to hack the DNC to influence the election so Trump would be elected.... so..... what? The Russians got into the DNC and then leaked the info to Wikileaks. Wikileaks says they know who gave them the info, and it wasn't the Russians. No concrete evidence of hacking is coming out, and the info the report relies on is in large part info gathered by private persons, not intelligence sources.

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;
(b) the information provided to justify the claim is vague and open to multiple interpretations and doesn't link up to Russial
(c) the intelligence sources won't go on record and are unnamed and anonymous;
(d) nobody has gone on record to say they've seen evidence that can't be disclosed due to security concerns;
(e) we know the intelligence agencies are not unwilling to lie or mislead, and they can also be wrong in good faith, and we have examples of times when intelligence agencies have asked us to trust them and they were wrong (Iraq WMD, Niger Uranium, etc.)
(f) the actions of the Obama Administration do not appear in line with "knowledge" of any substantial nature that the Russians successfully tipped an American election against the party in power through unlawful hacking.

That's a pretty good list. I just want to be sure that if I'm going to ask someone to do more work to prove something to me, I know what that work has to be i.e. would I recognize the evidence?

[Forty Two]

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;

The intelligence agencies aren't political. They exist no matter which party is governing.

The President appoints the head of the CIA.

(c) the intelligence sources won't go on record and are unnamed and anonymous;

This makes perfect sense if they are trying to protect either sources and/or methods.

It makes sense for the sources and methods, but not for the agency representative stating that he or she reviewed the evidence and drew a conclusion. If the head of the CIA saw the evidence, he's not a source or a method. He can say "I can't tell you the sources, and I can't tell you the method, but I can tell you that I saw the evidence personally, and it's pretty clear it was the Russians. When the sources and methods are declassified, you'll see." Nobody said that. Nobody said anything like that.

As I said previously, I'd be much more apt to give the report credence if someone said that evidence actual exists showing that Russia did it (even if they can't show the evidence).

[Forty Two]

Well, we're not "ignoring" the usual suspects. They're hacker groups. The question is how to they pin it on the Russian government.

The argument is that the Russians wanted to hack the DNC to influence the election so Trump would be elected.... so..... what? The Russians got into the DNC and then leaked the info to Wikileaks. Wikileaks says they know who gave them the info, and it wasn't the Russians. No concrete evidence of hacking is coming out, and the info the report relies on is in large part info gathered by private persons, not intelligence sources.

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;
(b) the information provided to justify the claim is vague and open to multiple interpretations and doesn't link up to Russial
(c) the intelligence sources won't go on record and are unnamed and anonymous;
(d) nobody has gone on record to say they've seen evidence that can't be disclosed due to security concerns;
(e) we know the intelligence agencies are not unwilling to lie or mislead, and they can also be wrong in good faith, and we have examples of times when intelligence agencies have asked us to trust them and they were wrong (Iraq WMD, Niger Uranium, etc.)
(f) the actions of the Obama Administration do not appear in line with "knowledge" of any substantial nature that the Russians successfully tipped an American election against the party in power through unlawful hacking.

That's a pretty good list. I just want to be sure that if I'm going to ask someone to do more work to prove something to me, I know what that work has to be i.e. would I recognize the evidence?

I think I would, if I saw it. I've even posited a scenario where I would give the intelligence agency credence even without producing concrete evidence. Someone needs to sign off on it saying that the evidence exists, and they attest to it being there, but they can't divulge how they know for security reasons. If someone will put their reputation on the line, I'd think twice. Right now, the whole report can be bollocks and everyone has plausible deniability because they can point to the report and say that they were just going by what they had, and we never said for sure it was the Russians and what the press and politicians did with the flimsy info we provided is not our problem - we just gave what we had. And, the politicians have plausible deniability because they can say they were just reading the intelligence info at the time and going by what they thought the conclusions were. Nobody committed to anything, but somehow a lot of people think the Russians did it.

[Forty Two]

it wasnt russia.... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... nment.html

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.

[Forty Two]

Julian Assange says Obama Admin trying to delegitimize election - http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... mize-trump