Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[rainbow]

О, говорят! что делает Звездное знамя еще волна
O'er на земле свободных и домом храбрых?

[Forty Two]

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.

The problem is this report is so vague and non-committal, and short on specifics and detail, that it does not connect any hacking to Russia. Yet that's what it is being touted as doing.

What part of this 25 page report do you believe shows Russia hacked the DNC emails?

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.

That's wonderful. That doesn't change the fact that it does not show US, the people, anything. It's nice that there is another report that the President received which is an assessment of Russian activities and intentions (not necessarily hacking). The report we've seen spends most of its time discussing public information and press propaganda activities.

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.

[/quote]


Sure, which means we still don't know. They say they might have more information, but they're not even really acknowledging that.

They say "rarely" can they publicly reveal the full extent of knowledge, etc. Then "the conclusions" of the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, and the declassified report cannot include the full supporting information. But, most of the report deals with stuff other than hacking, and we have no idea whether there is any evidence of hacking in the classified report. It may deal with other stuff. In the declassified report a grand total of less than one page out of the 25 relate to hacking, and it does not connect Russia to the hacking.

If that's good enough for you, and if you're willing to just trust them based on canned, boilerplate disclaimers, then that's your view of it. For me, am not willing to believe the conclusions based on what I've read. I don't accuse them of lying. I just don't believe it on faith or trust. There is more than enough of a track record of lying from these agencies to warrant distrust, moreover. Just the recent testimony before Congress where the head of the NSA lied, outright, to Congress, saying that they do not collect data on Americans, and then hedging to say "not wittingly." LOL, and then later said that he answered in the "least untruthful" manner he could. Fuck off with that shit. You don't do that and then come to me saying "how dare you not believe me when I tell you something?" The boy who cried "The Russians are Coming" .....

[Forty Two]

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

-really, I mean, really

In your world, you believe intelligence reports that don't provide evidence because they contain boilerplate language in them that says we can't give you the evidence, but trust us, it's there.

If Obama has the report, can't he at least, or his spokesperson, say "we saw and read the declassified report, and we can tell you, the evidence is clear - it's Russia who did the hacking." If this is what the reality is, that there really is actionable evidence that Russia hacked into the Democratic party -- what is the Obama administration doing about it, besides sending a few diplomats home to Russia?

[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

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.

Which part of the report shows to you that Russia engaged in hacking?

[Svartalf]

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.

Clapper did as much good to the case as a good case of the clap...

[Svartalf]

О, говорят! что делает Звездное знамя еще волна
O'er на земле свободных и домом храбрых?

[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 did not explicitly state that the evidence of hacking exists. The boilerplate language is there, that the declassified report doesn't contain all the evidence that's in the classified report. But, the declassified report is almost exclusively (except less than one page dedicated to cyber-attack) related to propaganda and such, and Russia Today reporting. There is no indication that the super-secret evidence they have relates to hacking.

[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.

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

You better link to the transcript of his support for the report.

Clapper has already been caught lying to Congress. After being exposed to have falsely testified in response to Democratic Congressman Wyden's questioning, he stated to CNN's Andrea Mitchen "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no." On the question he made the "least untruthful" response he could, he was given the question in advance and he was given an opportunity to clarify and supplement after his response. He did not clarify or supplement. He did later say "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize."

So, forgive me for not breathing a sigh of relief that James Clapper has gone on record before Congress in support of a report which does not actually connect hacking to Russia.

But, hey, if you're convinced, you're convinced. Just at least don't pretend it's unreasonable to be skeptical here. You can't seriously be arguing that doubting what we've been told so far is unreasonable and deserving of a facepalm. I mean, please dude.... I get it...you hate Trump. It's very negative to Trump if he's tied to Russia wrongly hacking to influence the election. I get it. But, come on. Have you really been given enough information to believe that it's been proved, yet?

[Jason]

I'll just put this here. Larry Johnson makes a lot of really good points.

[Sean Hayden]

...

[Jason]

Don't watch if you're scared of being infected by the evil Russian propaganda outlet...

Here's John McAfee a few days ago on RT:

[Sean Hayden]

If that's good enough for you, and if you're willing to just trust them based on canned, boilerplate disclaimers, then that's your view of it. For me, am not willing to believe the conclusions based on what I've read. I don't accuse them of lying. I just don't believe it on faith or trust. There is more than enough of a track record of lying from these agencies to warrant distrust, moreover. Just the recent testimony before Congress where the head of the NSA lied, outright, to Congress, saying that they do not collect data on Americans, and then hedging to say "not wittingly." LOL, and then later said that he answered in the "least untruthful" manner he could. Fuck off with that shit. You don't do that and then come to me saying "how dare you not believe me when I tell you something?" The boy who cried "The Russians are Coming" .....

No shit, you already said you don't believe them on faith and trust. That's why you wanted someone to put their name on it. But now it has to be a particular person apparently. Were you intentionally being vague before when you said you'd be more apt to take the report seriously if "someone" put their name on the line? You sneak you.

[Forty Two]

Well, yeah -- when I say "someone" has to put their name on it, then I would like that to be a "someone." Remember, too, that the report on Friday 1/6 was not specific only to hacking (in fact, less than one page out of the 25 was dedicated to hacking activities). I'm not going to accept someone generally supporting the entire report, without specifying the hacking part, and the hacking was not specifically tied to the Russian government.

No, I wasn't intenionally vague - I'm just not speaking in absolutes, so there is no need to be obtuse. Being "more apt" to do something doesn't mean that one is willing to do it no matter what. I would be more trusting of the report if there was clarity and someone was laying their reputation on the line. If the person vouching for the report has lied to Congress before, about other security matters, I don't think I have to accept their word at face value, do you?

I'm not being sneaky, so fuck off with that suggestion. I've told you I don't take the report on faith. It is vague. It is nonspecific about hacking, and it conflates propaganda and social media influence with hacking into the DNC and dilstributing the emails to Wikilieaks. The report purposefully discusses Russia's overall activities in general, and then slips in a page where they discuss hacking, but never link it to Russia.

It's really weird, too, that Russia was hacking the DNC in July of 2015 to help Trump at a time when he had just a few weeks before announced his candidacy, which was received with universal guffaws and milk-out-the-nose laughter by every major media outlet and every mainstream politician. Does anyone think Russia hacked the DNC in mid-2015 as part of an "elect Trump" strategy? Trump wasn't even a blip on the radar at that time. Everyone figured one of the mainstream GOP candidates, like Jeb Bush, had it in the bag at that time.

[Sean Hayden]

Well, yeah -- when I say "someone" has to put their name on it, then I would like that to be a "someone." Remember, too, that the report on Friday 1/6 was not specific only to hacking (in fact, less than one page out of the 25 was dedicated to hacking activities). I'm not going to accept someone generally supporting the entire report, without specifying the hacking part, and the hacking was not specifically tied to the Russian government.

No, I wasn't intenionally vague - I'm just not speaking in absolutes, so there is no need to be obtuse. Being "more apt" to do something doesn't mean that one is willing to do it no matter what. I would be more trusting of the report if there was clarity and someone was laying their reputation on the line. If the person vouching for the report has lied to Congress before, about other security matters, I don't think I have to accept their word at face value, do you?

I'm not being sneaky, so fuck off with that suggestion. I've told you I don't take the report on faith. It is vague. It is nonspecific about hacking, and it conflates propaganda and social media influence with hacking into the DNC and dilstributing the emails to Wikilieaks. The report purposefully discusses Russia's overall activities in general, and then slips in a page where they discuss hacking, but never link it to Russia.

It's really weird, too, that Russia was hacking the DNC in July of 2015 to help Trump at a time when he had just a few weeks before announced his candidacy, which was received with universal guffaws and milk-out-the-nose laughter by every major media outlet and every mainstream politician. Does anyone think Russia hacked the DNC in mid-2015 as part of an "elect Trump" strategy? Trump wasn't even a blip on the radar at that time. Everyone figured one of the mainstream GOP candidates, like Jeb Bush, had it in the bag at that time.

I think you're right to be skeptical, and you've raised some good points. I don't think you're being sneaky. I also think that it's possible to be skeptical of any claim, and that once we express skepticism it becomes very hard to get away from it. So difficult in fact that we may not be willing or even able to recognize when our own supposed requirements for doing so have been met.

It's the symmetry of the thing that drives me bonkers. You know that because I dislike Trump I'm more willing to see this report as true, and I can know that because you supported Trump you'll go the extra mile to show that it's not...and we can do that all the way down.

[Forty Two]

But, clearly my "requirement" was not met, and I never suggested it as a sufficient requirement in all cases. I just said I would be more apt to trust a report if someone went on the line saying "I've seen the evidence, and it's compelling." Nobody has done that. Boilerplate intelligence report language is not that. Further, it always depends who is vouching for something. If someone with a clear reputation for trustworthiness is vouching for X, then that's one thing. If the person vouching just got done being exposed for lying to Congress about another intelligence issue, well, am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?

I am certainly willing to accept that I may have a bias. However, isn't this report a bit weak? Don't you recognize the weakness? Where do you see this 1/6 report as having shown that Russia hacked the DNC? What part of the report says that, even if backed up by undisclosed classified info? Just tell me what page to look at. I read the whole thing in detail. Even the part about cyber espionage doesn't say it.