Will you accept the election results?

[Brian Peacock]

Pah! You've got a good 50 years ahead of you mate.

[JimC]

I shall take that as a challenge to still be moderating Rationalia at the age of 114...

Still periodically suspending Seth...

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've asked you directly what evidence you would find convincing, Forty Two. You apparently are unable to say, since you ignored my question. I'm inclined to think that there is no evidence you would find acceptable and convincing.

Incorrect, I have answered that question in previous posts. First, it's not for me to speculate what evidence might be out there that is convincing. Second, a lot depends on what the evidence is. Third, I have explained to you that the evidence could consist of direct evidence, and that evidence might include a witness who will testify as to various events - perhaps someone was involved with the hacking group, and is willing to testify against them, perhaps there is a source within the Russian government, or a spy, who will testify as to Russian government involvement, or perhaps there is a forensic expert who can testify in detail about evidence gleaned through analysis of emails, internet traffic, and other computer analysis. There may also be circumstantial evidence that together can corroborate the allegations, which would include forensic evidence itself, or it could include a myriad other established facts.

There is plenty of forensic evidence that is already available publicly, and I agree that can be classified as circumstantial evidence. A number of private firms have published various pieces of this evidence, and they have all come to the same conclusion regarding what the evidence is telling them. You've rejected their evidence and their conclusions.

As for testimony, there were reports indicating that there is human intelligence supporting the findings of government intelligence agencies which are corroborated by the private cyber-security firms. However, asking for that to be explicitly revealed is unrealistic: it would likely compromise ongoing intelligence operations, not to mention put lives at risk. Similarly, with what is known as "signals intelligence," to reveal what was discovered would alert opponents to weaknesses that our intelligence agencies are currently exploiting. There are very good reasons why the evidence available is limited.

However, given the fact that you maintain your position in the face of the unanimous agreement of government intelligence agencies and private cyber-security firms (not a single dissenting opinion has appeared from such groups, even at this late date), I doubt that you would accept human testimony, either. It's very easy to simply say, "That person is obviously lying," and dismiss their testimony. I've come to the conclusion that some people will never accept the rather obvious reality that Russia hacked into the DNC and as well as the RNC, just as they have been doing with US government entities for several years. These successful hacking efforts aimed at the US have been reported on--they're not a secret, and no sensible person believes that they haven't taken place.

The thing with evidence is, it's case specific and there is an endless variety of witnesses, documents, analyses, calculations, reports, studies, you name it. I can't really come up with a test because first they need to bring out the evidence, and then we can evaluate its strength. A witness' testimony, for example, depends on what he's attesting to and how much personal knowledge he has. Is he recounting hearsay? Is he speculating? How specific is it? Does he have bias? Is he credible?

Let me ask you this - what "evidence" are you aware of that you do, at this time, find convincing? (if any). I think that's a more pertinent question. If you've read about some solid evidence that makes you conclude that yes, indeed, the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that the Russians hacked the DNC and took those emails, etc., then give us a description of what the evidence is and note why you find it convincing.

If you ignore that question, then I'll feel free to say that there is no evidence thus far which you have found acceptable and convincing.

I took the time to explain my opinion on the available evidence (with links to sources) in a post you've ignored.

[Forty Two]

I've asked you directly what evidence you would find convincing, Forty Two. You apparently are unable to say, since you ignored my question. I'm inclined to think that there is no evidence you would find acceptable and convincing.

Incorrect, I have answered that question in previous posts. First, it's not for me to speculate what evidence might be out there that is convincing. Second, a lot depends on what the evidence is. Third, I have explained to you that the evidence could consist of direct evidence, and that evidence might include a witness who will testify as to various events - perhaps someone was involved with the hacking group, and is willing to testify against them, perhaps there is a source within the Russian government, or a spy, who will testify as to Russian government involvement, or perhaps there is a forensic expert who can testify in detail about evidence gleaned through analysis of emails, internet traffic, and other computer analysis. There may also be circumstantial evidence that together can corroborate the allegations, which would include forensic evidence itself, or it could include a myriad other established facts.

There is plenty of forensic evidence that is already available publicly, and I agree that can be classified as circumstantial evidence. A number of private firms have published various pieces of this evidence, and they have all come to the same conclusion regarding what the evidence is telling them. You've rejected their evidence and their conclusions.

The links I've read have suggested only that actions are "consistent with" Russian involvement. However, such things are also "consistent with" almost any other hacker group being involved. There is nothing particularly solid.

As for testimony, there were reports indicating that there is human intelligence supporting the findings of government intelligence agencies which are corroborated by the private cyber-security firms.

Sure, but the findings were only that the actions were "consistent with" some hacker group (APT29 aka The Dukes) which was "linked" to Russia. These terms are key - they mean that nothing is proved that it was them. Just that it looks like something they might do.

However, asking for that to be explicitly revealed is unrealistic: it would likely compromise ongoing intelligence operations, not to mention put lives at risk.

It might, but then I want more than boilerplate - i want someone to say "I have seen the evidence, and it is conclusive, and I can't reveal it yet because it might put lives at risk" or words to that effect. Nobody has done that. We get vague boilerplate disclaimers that "often" intelligence can't be disclosed because of sources and methods. Nothing says that THIS TIME that is the case, and nobody is going on record with it. With such serious allegations, I need more than just "trust us, we know who dunnit," with references to actions that are consistent with some group that may or may not have done it and who may or may not be controlled or acting at the behest of the Russian government.

Similarly, with what is known as "signals intelligence," to reveal what was discovered would alert opponents to weaknesses that our intelligence agencies are currently exploiting. There are very good reasons why the evidence available is limited.

There are very good reasons why evidence often must be limited. Nobody has said that in this case we have them dead to rights, but we can't show you how we know that yet because we can't alert the opposition. I.e., I need that to be so clearly stated, by someone putting their name to it, that their career is in jeopardy if they're bullshitting, or if they are relying on weak or questionable information.

However, given the fact that you maintain your position in the face of the unanimous agreement of government intelligence agencies and private cyber-security firms (not a single dissenting opinion has appeared from such groups, even at this late date), I doubt that you would accept human testimony, either.

What's the evidence that convinces you? The NYT article doesn't discuss it. It alludes to it. What actual evidence does it for you?

I don't care about "unanimous agreement." The CIA has been wrong many times before. There is no reason to simply accept their determinations. The NSA did not exactly accept the CIA's conclusions either. The NSA, in the report from a few weeks ago, had a reduced confidence in the assessments - they were only willing to go to "moderate" confidence, which if you look in the appendix at what that means, it's not something to be relied upon. So, there isn't "unanimous agreement" that we have them dead to rights.

It's very easy to simply say, "That person is obviously lying," and dismiss their testimony.

I don't need to say that. I just need to find that what their saying is not corroborated by evidence, or that they are equivocating. Much of the "evidence" is equivocal.

I've come to the conclusion that some people will never accept the rather obvious reality that Russia hacked into the DNC and as well as the RNC, just as they have been doing with US government entities for several years. These successful hacking efforts aimed at the US have been reported on--they're not a secret, and no sensible person believes that they haven't taken place.

I have no problem accepting that the Russians engage in hacking efforts. So does the United States, and in fact the US may well be the biggest hacker in the world, if the reports are correct. That being said, I'm addressing the specific allegations - that the Russians hacked the DNC and disclosed the information to Wikileaks, and secondarily that they were doing so in order to further their plan of getting Trump elected (I guess because they were so afraid of that arch-conservative war hawk, Hillary, who the Democrat supports seem to think was much more stable and less trigger happy than Trump - the Russians want a Trigger happy nutball in the White House, rather than the steady hand of a seasoned official who has the sincere desire of maintaining lasting peace in the world....)

The thing with evidence is, it's case specific and there is an endless variety of witnesses, documents, analyses, calculations, reports, studies, you name it. I can't really come up with a test because first they need to bring out the evidence, and then we can evaluate its strength. A witness' testimony, for example, depends on what he's attesting to and how much personal knowledge he has. Is he recounting hearsay? Is he speculating? How specific is it? Does he have bias? Is he credible?

Let me ask you this - what "evidence" are you aware of that you do, at this time, find convincing? (if any). I think that's a more pertinent question. If you've read about some solid evidence that makes you conclude that yes, indeed, the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that the Russians hacked the DNC and took those emails, etc., then give us a description of what the evidence is and note why you find it convincing.

If you ignore that question, then I'll feel free to say that there is no evidence thus far which you have found acceptable and convincing.

I took the time to explain my opinion on the available evidence (with links to sources) in a post you've ignored.

Alright, I don't "ignore" posts, but I'll click there and go through it, and give you a response asap. I see it's fairly lengthy, so give me some time on it.

[pErvinalia]

You fucking ignore inconvenient posts all the time.

[Forty Two]

You fucking ignore inconvenient posts all the time.

Oh, you can go fuck yourself. How do you even say that shit with a straight face, you hypocritical bastard. You're the one who doesn't even read people's posts before repeatedly replying to those posts declaring them to be wrong. Ignore them? You fucking pretend you're rebutting them, and then later get called out for not having even read them! What was it you said? Oh, yes... you couldn't be "arsed" to read them before declaring them to be wrong.

pErvin, you're a piece of fucking work.

[pErvinalia]

tu quoque (and not even an accurate one).

[Svartalf]

I would accept eviction (impeachment) results.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The links I've read have suggested only that actions are "consistent with" Russian involvement. However, such things are also "consistent with" almost any other hacker group being involved. There is nothing particularly solid.

Please cite a reputable source supporting your assertion that the findings of the cyber-security firms are consistent with "almost any other hacker group being involved." That has a distinctly fecal smell to it, almost identical in fact to Trump's "some guy in New Jersey" bullshit. Your judgement on this matter is worth nothing--I want to see something from somebody who knows what they're talking about. You've brought nothing to this discussion aside from your assertions that the cyber-security firms and the government intelligence agencies don't know what they're talking about or are lying. That's fine--you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not edifying in the least.

Sure, but the findings were only that the actions were "consistent with" some hacker group (APT29 aka The Dukes) which was "linked" to Russia. These terms are key - they mean that nothing is proved that it was them. Just that it looks like something they might do.

I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse here, Forty Two, or if you just didn't bother to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs. I'm inclined to think the latter, which is consistent with your approach to this topic. You have your mind made up, and don't really feel like delving into what is available. That New York Times story specifically mentioned human intelligence assets which support the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking. That's why I linked it. By just repeating the same thing you said about the forensic evidence you show that you've missed the point completely.

Two senior officials say the forensic evidence was accompanied by “human and technical” sources in Russia, which appears to mean that the United States’ implants or taps in Russian computer and phone networks helped confirm the country’s role.

And again:

[The US intelligence agencies] had managed to identify the individuals from the GRU who oversaw the hacking efforts. That may have come from intercepted conversations, spying efforts or implants in computer systems that allow the tracking of emails and text messages.

[source]

However, asking for that [human intelligence] to be explicitly revealed is unrealistic: it would likely compromise ongoing intelligence operations, not to mention put lives at risk.

It might, but then I want more than boilerplate - i want someone to say "I have seen the evidence, and it is conclusive, and I can't reveal it yet because it might put lives at risk" or words to that effect. Nobody has done that.

US officials have made clear statements in which they essentially said what you deny they've said. I guess you want the exact words, and if you don't get those exact words, their statements are useless to you.

Apparently you've forgotten already that you denied that Clapper's explicit support for the conclusions of the intelligence agencies had any validity because you don't consider him a reliable source. How about Marcel Lettre and Michael Rogers? Is their word worthless to you as well?

Joint Statement from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Marcel Lettre, and Admiral Michael Rogers, U.S. Cyber Command Director, National Security Agency

We assess that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized the recent election-focused data thefts and disclosures, based on the scope and sensitivity of the targets.

There are very good reasons why evidence often must be limited. Nobody has said that in this case we have them dead to rights, but we can't show you how we know that yet because we can't alert the opposition. I.e., I need that to be so clearly stated, by someone putting their name to it, that their career is in jeopardy if they're bullshitting, or if they are relying on weak or questionable information.

The above joint statement is about as close to what you want as you're likely to to get, Forty Two. I'm pretty sure you'll find it inadequate.

As I said before, I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that some people will never believe that the Russians hacked the DNC, and it's clear you're one of those people. This particular merry-go-round has become tiresome. Unless you bring something new, I think we're done here.

[Forty Two]

The links I've read have suggested only that actions are "consistent with" Russian involvement. However, such things are also "consistent with" almost any other hacker group being involved. There is nothing particularly solid.

Please cite a reputable source supporting your assertion that the findings of the cyber-security firms are consistent with "almost any other hacker group being involved." That has a distinctly fecal smell to it, almost identical in fact to Trump's "some guy in New Jersey" bullshit. Your judgement on this matter is worth nothing--I want to see something from somebody who knows what they're talking about. You've brought nothing to this discussion aside from your assertions that the cyber-security firms and the government intelligence agencies don't know what they're talking about or are lying. That's fine--you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not edifying in the least.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/her ... ot-enough/

view each piece [of evidence] on its own, and it’s hard to feel impressed.

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

Next, consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

Even the claim that APT 28/Fancy Bear itself is a group working for the Kremlin is speculative, a fact that’s been completely erased from this year’s discourse. In its 2014 reveal of the group, the high-profile security firm FireEye couldn’t even blame Russia without a question mark in the headline: “APT28: A Window into Russia’s Cyber Espionage Operations?” The blog post itself is remarkably similar to arguments about the DNC hack: technical but still largely speculative, presenting evidence the company “[believes] indicate a government sponsor based in Moscow.” Believe! Indicate! We should know already this is no smoking gun. FireEye’s argument that the malware used by APT 28 is connected to the Russian government is based on the belief that its “developers are Russian language speakers operating during business hours that are consistent with the time zone of Russia’s major cities.”

As security researcher Jeffrey Carr pointed out in June, FireEye’s 2014 report on APT 28 is questionable from the start:

To my surprise, the report’s authors declared that they deliberately excluded evidence that didn’t support their judgment that the Russian government was responsible for APT28’s activities:

“APT28 has targeted a variety of organizations that fall outside of the three themes we highlighted above. However, we are not profiling all of APT28’s targets with the same detail because they are not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.” (emphasis added)

That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Had FireEye published a detailed picture of APT28’s activities including all of their known targets, other theories regarding this group could have emerged; for example, that the malware developers and the operators of that malware were not the same or even necessarily affiliated.

The notion that APT 28 has a narrow focus on American political targets is undermined in another SecureWorks paper, which shows that the hackers have a wide variety of interests: 10 percent of their targets are NGOs, 22 percent are journalists, 4 percent are aerospace researchers, and 8 percent are “government supply chain.” SecureWorks says that only 8 percent of APT 28/Fancy Bear’s targets are “government personnel” of any nationality — hardly the focused agenda described by CrowdStrike.

Truly, the argument that “Guccifer 2.0″ is a Kremlin agent or that GRU breached John Podesta’s email only works if you presume that APT 28/Fancy Bear is a unit of the Russian government, a fact that has never been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. According to Carr, “it’s an old assumption going back years to when any attack against a non-financial target was attributed to a state actor.” Without that premise, all we can truly conclude is that some email accounts at the DNC et al. appear to have been broken into by someone, and perhaps they speak Russian. Left ignored is the mammoth difference between Russians and Russia.

Security researcher Claudio Guarnieri put it this way:

[Private security firms] can’t produce anything conclusive. What they produce is speculative attribution that is pretty common to make in the threat research field. I do that same speculative attribution myself, but it is just circumstantial. At the very best it can only prove that the actor that perpetrated the attack is very likely located in Russia. As for government involvement, it can only speculate that it is plausible because of context and political motivations, as well as technical connections with previous (or following attacks) that appear to be perpetrated by the same group and that corroborate the analysis that it is a Russian state-sponsored actor (for example, hacking of institutions of other countries Russia has some geopolitical interests in).

Finally, one can’t be reminded enough that all of this evidence comes from private companies with a direct financial interest in making the internet seem as scary as possible, just as Lysol depends on making you believe your kitchen is crawling with E. Coli.

What Does the Government Know?

In October, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement blaming the Russian government for hacking the DNC. In it, they state their attribution plainly:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

What’s missing is any evidence at all. If this federal confidence is based on evidence that’s being withheld from the public for any reason, that’s one thing — secrecy is their game. But if the U.S. Intelligence Community is asking the American electorate to believe them, to accept as true their claim that our most important civic institution was compromised by a longtime geopolitical nemesis, we need them to show us why.

The same goes for the CIA, which is now squaring off directly against Trump, claiming (through leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times) that the Russian government conducted the hacks for the express purpose of helping defeat Clinton. Days later, Senator John McCain agreed with the assessment, deeming it “another form of warfare.” Again, it’s completely possible (and probable, really) that the CIA possesses hard evidence that could establish Russian attribution — it’s their job to have such evidence, and often to keep it secret.

But what we’re presented with isn’t just the idea that these hacks happened, and that someone is responsible, and, well, I guess it’s just a shame. Our lawmakers and intelligence agencies are asking us to react to an attack that is almost military in nature — this is, we’re being told, “warfare.” When a foreign government conducts (or supports) an act of warfare against another country, it’s entirely possible that there will be an equal response. What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

According to former NSA tech director William Binney --

“It is simply an outline of how a phishing attack occurs, that's all it was to me. It didn't prove anything to me."

"It didn’t give the IP addresses, the Mac numbers or any other details about them,” he explained, adding “it also didn’t show how they hacked in, and how they ex-filtrated the data, how much data they took,” or how it was consequently passed on to the Russian government.

“They didn’t show any of that trace routing. And that’s what they should have shown to prove it,” he stressed.

Sure, but the findings were only that the actions were "consistent with" some hacker group (APT29 aka The Dukes) which was "linked" to Russia. These terms are key - they mean that nothing is proved that it was them. Just that it looks like something they might do.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... story.html and https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372372-russi ... -director/

I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse here, Forty Two, or if you just didn't bother to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs. I'm inclined to think the latter, which is consistent with your approach to this topic. You have your mind made up, and don't really feel like delving into what is available. That New York Times story specifically mentioned human intelligence assets which support the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking. That's why I linked it. By just repeating the same thing you said about the forensic evidence you show that you've missed the point completely.

No, it shows that I answered your question, which was what kind of evidence would persuade me. You asked that question, and i answered. If your point was something different than what what you asked, that's your problem. There is no need to get insulting here. I can tell you what I'm "inclined to believe" about you too, and it wouldn't be flattering. But that wouldn't have anything much to do with the discussion.

Two senior officials say the forensic evidence was accompanied by “human and technical” sources in Russia, which appears to mean that the United States’ implants or taps in Russian computer and phone networks helped confirm the country’s role.

And again:

[The US intelligence agencies] had managed to identify the individuals from the GRU who oversaw the hacking efforts. That may have come from intercepted conversations, spying efforts or implants in computer systems that allow the tracking of emails and text messages.

[source]

"appears" to mean. Unnamed and undescribed human and technical sources in Russia. Two unnamed senior officials, who apparently said something about undisclosed forensic evidence. You're right. That's not persuasive to me.

However, asking for that [human intelligence] to be explicitly revealed is unrealistic: it would likely compromise ongoing intelligence operations, not to mention put lives at risk.

It might, but then I want more than boilerplate - i want someone to say "I have seen the evidence, and it is conclusive, and I can't reveal it yet because it might put lives at risk" or words to that effect. Nobody has done that.

US officials have made clear statements in which they essentially said what you deny they've said. I guess you want the exact words, and if you don't get those exact words, their statements are useless to you.

I don't want equivocation, and I don't want there to be wiggle room. That's what I want. No, I don't need "exact words." I just need clarity and I need whatever words to be used to not allow for them to say "that's not exactly what I said..." later on.

Apparently you've forgotten already that you denied that Clapper's explicit support for the conclusions of the intelligence agencies had any validity because you don't consider him a reliable source. How about Marcel Lettre and Michael Rogers? Is their word worthless to you as well?

I didn't "forget" that I thought Clapper was not reliable. He has lied before. Also, his statements are not unequivocal, and neither is the intelligence report. There is equivocation and hedging. I don't like that. Lettre and Rogers have not gone beyond the reports. They are simply standing behind the reports. Since I don't think the reports disclose much in the way of proof, then their suggestion that they agree with the assessments is not particularly helpful.

Joint Statement from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Marcel Lettre, and Admiral Michael Rogers, U.S. Cyber Command Director, National Security Agency

Yeah, and? Did you read that joint statement? It doesn't discuss proof of cyber hacking of the DNC by Russia. It lists Russia as a cyber-threat, which of course they are, but they likewise list China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist organizations, etc. And, sure, I'm willing to believe Russia is a cyber-threat. Of course they are. So is the US, to many other nations. Many countries engage in this sort of espionage. That's a far cry from the suggestion that Russia backed Trump and hacked the DNC to get him elected, and it's clearly plausible that the information was leaked, not hacked.

[tattuchu]

Wait, didn't some Russian official actually brag about Russia doing this? I'll have to see if I can find the news article...

[L'Emmerdeur]

Forty Two, nice job of editing there. Your quote from Sam Biddle was dishonestly edited--you began in the middle of a sentence. Here is your sentence fragment in context:

Viewed as a whole, the above evidence looks strong, and maybe even damning. But view each piece on its own, and it’s hard to feel impressed.

Biddle admits that the accumulated evidence looks strong. That's because when viewed as a whole, the evidence does indeed present a strong case supporting the contention by all of the cyber-security firms involved and all of the government intelligence agencies regarding the Russian hacking of the DNC.

Biddle also takes a very similar tack to the one you've used. He points to the SecureWorks use of the term "moderate confidence" while ignoring the fact that both CrowdStrike and Fidelis state in no uncertain terms and with no equivocation whatsoever their strong confidence that the Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking.

Biddle is not a cyber-security professional. He can pick at the evidence all he wants, and you can quote him all you want, but you've failed to find what I asked for. You have yet to present anybody who has presented a case showing that the evidence points to "almost any other hacker group being involved." Biddle doesn't do that, and neither does Binney. The fact is that no other hacker group's activities have been shown to be consistent with the available evidence. There has been no plausible case made against anybody doing the hacking but the Russians. You're still where you were before with your assertion--you have no evidence to support it.

No, it shows that I answered your question, which was what kind of evidence would persuade me.

Apparently you won't be satisfied as long as evidence you yourself admit cannot be revealed is revealed. That's very convenient for you.

"appears" to mean. Unnamed and undescribed human and technical sources in Russia. Two unnamed senior officials, who apparently said something about undisclosed forensic evidence. You're right. That's not persuasive to me.

No problem. Present a strong case for an alternative suspect who did the hacking and we can discuss that. Until then your argument essentially consists of "Despite the evidence that's available, I won't believe it."

Lettre and Rogers have not gone beyond the reports. They are simply standing behind the reports. Since I don't think the reports disclose much in the way of proof, then their suggestion that they agree with the assessments is not particularly helpful.

I hope you didn't strain yourself moving those goalposts, Forty Two. You asked for people who were willing to stand behind the reports, putting their reputations on the line. Above, you admit that Lettre and Rogers did just that, but now you say that's "not particularly helpful."

Yeah, and? Did you read that joint statement? It doesn't discuss proof of cyber hacking of the DNC by Russia. It lists Russia as a cyber-threat, which of course they are, but they likewise list China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist organizations, etc.

I read the statement, and quoted the relevant part for you in which Clapper, Lettre, and Rogers stated unequivocally their assessment that "only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized the recent election-focused data thefts." The unmistakable implication is that they view the evidence as conclusive, and that the evidence shows that the Russian government was behind the hacks.

And, sure, I'm willing to believe Russia is a cyber-threat. Of course they are. So is the US, to many other nations. Many countries engage in this sort of espionage. That's a far cry from the suggestion that Russia backed Trump and hacked the DNC to get him elected, and it's clearly plausible that the information was leaked, not hacked.

It looks like you're purposely misrepresenting the case that's been presented by the US government intelligence agencies. They say that the original intent of the hacking was to "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." It was later that the focus changed to actually helping Trump.

The available evidence shows that there was a hacking operation. The "leak" narrative is a red herring and there is no real evidence supporting it; all we have is assertions that a leak occurred.

[Forty Two]

tu quoque (and not even an accurate one).

Accurate, yes. Tu quoque, it wasn't. But, you're one of those folks who like toss around "logical fallacy" lingo without actually understanding what a logical fallacy is.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two, nice job of editing there. Your quote from Sam Biddle was dishonestly edited--you began in the middle of a sentence. Here is your sentence fragment in context:

Viewed as a whole, the above evidence looks strong, and maybe even damning. But view each piece on its own, and it’s hard to feel impressed.

Right - that doesn't change the meaning. He's saying it may look strong, but when you analyze it, each piece is weak. it's a bunch of weak bricks cobbled together to pretend to have a wall of evidence. However, you don't get a strong case with bunch pieces of weak evidence.

Biddle admits that the accumulated evidence looks strong.

He's saying it LOOKS strong, but it isn't.

That's because when viewed as a whole, the evidence does indeed present a strong case supporting the contention by all of the cyber-security firms involved and all of the government intelligence agencies regarding the Russian hacking of the DNC.

Another way of putting it is that it's a house of cards.

Biddle also takes a very similar tack to the one you've used. He points to the SecureWorks use of the term "moderate confidence" while ignoring the fact that both CrowdStrike and Fidelis state in no uncertain terms and with no equivocation whatsoever their strong confidence that the Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking.

He separately addresses Crowdstrike and Fidelis, and shows that their supposed evidence is not strong.

Biddle is not a cyber-security professional. He can pick at the evidence all he wants, and you can quote him all you want, but you've failed to find what I asked for. You have yet to present anybody who has presented a case showing that the evidence points to "almost any other hacker group being involved." Biddle doesn't do that, and neither does Binney. The fact is that no other hacker group's activities have been shown to be consistent with the available evidence. There has been no plausible case made against anybody doing the hacking but the Russians. You're still where you were before with your assertion--you have no evidence to support it.

It doesn't convince me when people say that Joe Blow dunnit, because we can't see anybody else who might have.

No, it shows that I answered your question, which was what kind of evidence would persuade me.

Apparently you won't be satisfied as long as evidence you yourself admit cannot be revealed is revealed. That's very convenient for you.

I haven't admitted that it cannot be revealed. I admitted that there are situations where information should not be revealed, to protect sources and methods. I don't know that this is one of those circumstances. Nobody has explained why this would be one of those circumstances.

And, even if they do say "we can't disclose evidence because of sources and methods" - that doesn't mean I accept whatever they say. I'm supposed to believe the CIA when they say "I have the evidence, and I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you..." Come on.

I don't even have to take a position on their claims. If they don't give me evidence, then I don't believe their claims. I don't have to believe it just because they tell me they can't tell me X, Y or Z. I can say "o.k., so you have an unsubstantiated claim -- go forth and do your job." It's not up to me to support a political conclusion or side because the CIA says they think X, Y or Z. The number of times the CIA has made shit up is inumerable. That's part of their job. They've fabricated entire naval engagements to spark a war.

The north Vietnamese attached our vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin! Oh, really? What's the evidence? Oh, we are telling you - we can't tell you the details, because that's classified intelligence, but the President now wants troops and munitions..... see you in 10 years, after 55,000 men die.

"appears" to mean. Unnamed and undescribed human and technical sources in Russia. Two unnamed senior officials, who apparently said something about undisclosed forensic evidence. You're right. That's not persuasive to me.

No problem. Present a strong case for an alternative suspect who did the hacking and we can discuss that. Until then your argument essentially consists of "Despite the evidence that's available, I won't believe it."

No. I don't have to present an alternative case for the creation of the universe to disbelieve the god hypothesis. If you don't have evidence, i am skeptical of a claim. I don't believe shit without evidence. What is this? A shocking statement? Come on, man.

Lettre and Rogers have not gone beyond the reports. They are simply standing behind the reports. Since I don't think the reports disclose much in the way of proof, then their suggestion that they agree with the assessments is not particularly helpful.

I hope you didn't strain yourself moving those goalposts, Forty Two. You asked for people who were willing to stand behind the reports, putting their reputations on the line. Above, you admit that Lettre and Rogers did just that, but now you say that's "not particularly helpful."

They did not stand behind the reports to suggest that they have seen clear and convincing evidence that isn't disclosed in the reports. That's what I said. I didn't say that all I needed was an NSA official to say he supports the NSA's conclusion that they had "moderate confidence" in the assessment, for example.

Yeah, and? Did you read that joint statement? It doesn't discuss proof of cyber hacking of the DNC by Russia. It lists Russia as a cyber-threat, which of course they are, but they likewise list China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist organizations, etc.

I read the statement, and quoted the relevant part for you in which Clapper, Lettre, and Rogers stated unequivocally their assessment that "only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized the recent election-focused data thefts." The unmistakable implication is that they view the evidence as conclusive, and that the evidence shows that the Russian government was behind the hacks.

I don't believe their implications. That's how they write reports to allow plausible deniability. Later, they pull the switcheroo and declare that they made the "least untruthful statement possible" and such clap trap.

Look, if Russia committed an act of war, I want to KNOW it. I don't want it IMPLIED to me. I don't want to have an equivocal report suggest to me that it's reasonable for me to infer, with moderate or maybe strong confidence, depending on which agency you talk to, that Russia committed a significant act of war against the United States.

And, sure, I'm willing to believe Russia is a cyber-threat. Of course they are. So is the US, to many other nations. Many countries engage in this sort of espionage. That's a far cry from the suggestion that Russia backed Trump and hacked the DNC to get him elected, and it's clearly plausible that the information was leaked, not hacked.

It looks like you're purposely misrepresenting the case that's been presented by the US government intelligence agencies. They say that the original intent of the hacking was to "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." It was later that the focus changed to actually helping Trump.

No no. You're mixing different things. The report you're referring to talks about Russia's longstanding, decades long, practice of doing a variety of things to undermine US intelligence agencies. That's how the report was written. The "hacking" part occupies less than 1 page of the 25 (give or take) page report, and they do NOT say that THE HACKING was done for that reason, because they aren't sure that Russia did THE HACKING. What they are very confident of is all the rest of the propaganda-related shit, and other shit, Russia does, through Russia Today and other activities, to undermine public faith and whatnot. Most of that entire lengthy report is just stuff publicly available.

The available evidence shows that there was a hacking operation. The "leak" narrative is a red herring and there is no real evidence supporting it; all we have is assertions that a leak occurred.

A leak is plausible. Wikileaks, one of the main players, says it was a leak, and says they did not get it from Russia. Russia says they had nothing to do with it, and they haven't been proved involved. If they did exactly what you're saying they for sure have, then the US should really have been coming down on them hard in 2016. The Obama Administration apparently knew all about this "evidence" and didn't do shit until after the election, and then did what? Send home some diplomats? Cut me a break.

[L'Emmerdeur]

OK, you have the last word between us on this, Forty Two. Your argument still consists of "Despite the evidence, I refuse to believe this, and the say-so of Assange and Russia is more plausible to me than the statements and attending evidence given by cyber-security professionals and the intelligence agencies of the United States."