Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Forty Two]

O.k., here is the report from Friday, January 7. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ocument/p1

I read through it, and to my mind, it's very weak. It does not provide any evidence that Russia was behind accessing DNC emails which were leaked by Wikileaks. It does refer to an overall plan on the part of Russia to influence the election. Seven pages are devoted to discussion of Russia Today (a Russian state controlled newspaper) putting out public information harmful to Hillary Clinton.

The first three pages out of the 25 are introduction pages, talking about the analytical process and the process and difficulty in positively identifying sources, etc. The next two pages are basically blank. Page six relates to what they don't conclude - a disclaimer or cautionary blurb. So, the first six pages is nada.

Page 7 are the key "assessments" (an assessment is a conclusion drawn from what they think they know). Assessments are rated in terms of a scale of confidence (set forth in the appendix to the document). The NSA ranked the assessments of having a "moderate" degree of confidence. The FBI and CIA said "high" degree of confidence. The assessments are as follows:

1. Russia has a longstanding practice of trying to sway elections. 2016 was a continuation thereof. Russia's efforts have gotten more direct and substantial.
2. Putin ordered an influence campaign, favored Trump, and tried to discredit Hillary as well as cast doubt on the democratic process.
3. Russia's position evolved - when it looked like Secretary Clinton was going to win, Russia apparently concentrated on undermining her future presidency. This is odd, as there was never a time when any public figures or the media gave Trump a chance in hell of winning.
4. Russia engaged in a multifaceted influence campaign, part of which was cyber-related.

That's pretty much it for the assessments.

In the cyber-espionage section, which is less than 2 pages out of the 25, they say the Russians got access to the DNC email servers in July 2015, and maintained it until June 2016. LOL. It's interesting how the Russians were supposedly helping Trump back in July 2015, when Trump had just announced his candidacy in June 2015, and his announcement was met with laughter, and was generally considered an absurdity. But, they cover that in the report by suggesting this is part of a longstanding Russian practice. It became about helping Trump, when the Russians saw he had a chance to win, which nobody ever thought -- no polling, no political pundits, no experts, nobody -- nobody thought Trump could win. But, the report covers that by saying the Russkies' position "evolved" in that if they didn't think Trump was likely to win, they just wanted to undermine a Clinton Presidency.

The "evidence" of cyberespionage is less than one full page, starting on 12 and carrying over to 13. The evidence is really no evidence at all. Just an assessment based on nothing much disclosed.

The entire report is mostly conclusions gleaned from publicly available sources, like newspaper articles. Most of the report concentrates on propaganda efforts.

I see little in the way of proof here, and it's really very vague.

If you see proof here, what bits of the report are you referring to?

[Forty Two]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

How would revealing unethical and shady activity, and providing the voters with more information and insight into the behind the scenes activities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, "undermine" democracy? Would democracy be better if we did not see what Podesta and Hlllary were up to? Would Democracy be better had we not found out that Donna Brazile gave Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton in advance?

"Evidentiary value = 0" http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... ing-report

Well, my question presumes that the Kremlin went looking for something to hurt the Democratic candidate, found it, and passed it to Wikileaks. Of course, nobody is denying that the hacking and the information had some impact on the election, and sure illegal activity is illegal and immoral behaviour is immoral, but is it up to a foreign power to decide where the institutions and voters of another country should be focusing their attention?

Well, I don't think that's the question. I just view it like the Pentagon Papers. Those were illegally taken and disclosed to the New York Times, which published them, and we got to see some dirty laundry about Vietnam. It wasn't up to the leakers of the Pentagon Papers to decide where the institutions and voters of the US should focus their attention, but they leaked and we learned.

One thing I didn't mention about the January 7 report is that it actually states that the intelligence folks confirm that the information released was accurate. That's at odds with Podesta and Brazile, who screamed "forgeries" from the rooftops when the info was released. They're lying pieces of shit. It's good that we know it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'll assume that Monsieur L'Emmerdeur is not a web bot sent out by the CIA for deliberate disinfo . . .

You've sussed me out. I am a CIA bot. Luckily for you, all I do is babble, but you don't want to meet up with my big brother--he smells bad and has an impressive beard.

[Sean Hayden]

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]

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).

The report doesn't exactly say that, now does it? It suggests, generally, that things can't be disclosed because of sources and methods, etc. But, it does not say that evidence exists here that directly implicates the Russians, and we're not disclosing it to protect sources, etc. And, nobody has put their name on it, which is something I also mentioned - nobody has said "I put my reputation on it." That's what I'd be more apt to place some trust in.

I've read the entire report. What's persuasive about it? Less than one page addresses the alleged cyber-hacks, and it's vague and non-specific.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know how the world works were you're at 42, but if I give my boss a report that turns out to be inaccurate, she's going to want to hear from me why I mislead her. And it's not going to matter a bit that my name wasn't embossed in gold lettering on the report.

Your other point is just another example of the same mistake; a report claiming Russia is responsible for the hacking doesn't actually claim to rely on evidence directly implicating the Russians because, words.

“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the
President.

The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise
bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or
methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified
report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and
sources and methods.

[Jason]

Those are some good weasel words there. They really went to an effort to avoid actually stating that the evidence cannot be divulged for reasons. Instead they intimate that it is often the case that evidence cannot be divulged for reasons therefore the evidence is not being divulged. Why go to such an effort to give the impression of having said a thing instead of actually saying the thing. Maybe it's just force of habit among spooks? Maybe something else... like they aren't as confident as they say and they're not about to burn a bridge they may need to retreat over later.

[Sean Hayden]

It's interesting to see how our conclusions color our reading of new information -eh? I don't read it like that at all.

[Jason]

They're experienced dissimulators, but I don't expect that in a report and am suspicious when I find it.

[Sean Hayden]

I don't know how the world works were you're at 42

-really, I mean, really

[Brian Peacock]

It's interesting to see how our conclusions color our reading of new information -eh? I don't read it like that at all.

I could tell you what my opinion of the evidence is if it wasn't calcified.

[pErvinalia]

So, if this is actually the case does it make Wikileaks the unwitting pawn of the Kremlin, or at least make it complicit in undermining democratic processes?

How would revealing unethical and shady activity, and providing the voters with more information and insight into the behind the scenes activities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, "undermine" democracy? Would democracy be better if we did not see what Podesta and Hlllary were up to? Would Democracy be better had we not found out that Donna Brazile gave Town Hall questions to Hillary Clinton in advance?

"Evidentiary value = 0" http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... ing-report

What the Russians did was undermining democracy. Selective hacking and release of information is not supporting the democratic process. But Wikileaks can't be complicit in it as their role isn't as independent media. Their role is in support of whistleblowers and secrecy busting. They owe nothing to any political process.

[pErvinalia]

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).

[pErvinalia]

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).

The report doesn't exactly say that, now does it? It suggests, generally, that things can't be disclosed because of sources and methods, etc. But, it does not say that evidence exists here that directly implicates the Russians, and we're not disclosing it to protect sources, etc. And, nobody has put their name on it, which is something I also mentioned - nobody has said "I put my reputation on it." That's what I'd be more apt to place some trust in.

Clapper appeared personally in front of congress in support of the report.

[cronus]

They needed a man behind the wire and someone high up. He needed to be suspicious of the CIA and most Americans in particular. He needed to be rich and the man in the high tower. A friend with Russia. The keyhole surgery nature of this invasion will take maybe a decade or more - Trump is a expendable piece on the Russian chessboard and should be neither over nor under-rated.