Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Sean Hayden]

am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?.

Maybe. I think one way you could be is by ignoring how odd it is that where one person will supposedly satisfy your requirements, the word of the CIA, FBI, NSA does not.

[Forty Two]

am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?.

Maybe. I think one way you could be is by ignoring how odd it is that where one person will supposedly satisfy your requirements, the word of the CIA, FBI, NSA does not.

This is not exactly right. I'm not relying on anyone's word, nor did I say that just having someone support the report would be sufficient.

Further, the "word" of the CIA, FBI and NSA will not satisfy me in and of itself. Why? Because they've lied before. The CIA has lied repeatedly, to Congress' face, for decades. The head of the NSA lied to Congress' face.

Also, it's not just taking their word - it's taking their word "about what." Does support for the 1/6 report mean one agrees with every aspect of it? Does support for it mean that "overall" it's probably accurate? Not sure. When we're talking about a specific aspect of the report - hacking - then we have to look at what the report says, and whether the person who is vouching for the report in general is also vouching for that point specifically.

I don't doubt that Russia publishes propaganda, and hires twitter trolls. So what? I'm not even concerned that they do. If what we're talking about his hacking, then I want to know how they know. And, if they can't tell me the specific evidence because of security concerns, they can at least use generally descriptive language to tell us how they know and to assure us that they have some really solid evidence.

Very often these agencies draw conclusions because their suspect has used similar methods in the past and has a motive. Well, that's not good enough, in my view. That doesn't mean there aren't other actors with a similar or other motive who also can use those methods. Either they connected the hacking to Russia or they didn't. An,d the report is very weak on that connection.

[Jason]

If what we're talking about his hacking, then I want to know how they know. And, if they can't tell me the specific evidence because of security concerns, they can at least use generally descriptive language to tell us how they know and to assure us that they have some really solid evidence.

This is an important point which was also raised by Larry Johnson in the RT debate I posted (he's a former CIA analyst). As he says "you don't want to divulge sources and methods but there are a variety of ways you can identify or at least phrase a source". He finds it very suspicious that this unclassified report does nothing to identify, or even phrase, sources or evidence and points to the 2002 white paper on the National Intelligence Estimate as an example of how evidence from a classified report is generally presented in an unclassified report (although I'm not certain that's a good example given how it grossly misrepresented the judgements in the classified report presenting them as facts and certainties but nevertheless).

[Strontium Dog]

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?

"Unwitting". Heh heh, good one.

Assange just wants to watch the world burn. Always has. It's the only way a feeble, talentless albino rapist could ever insert themselves into history as a figure of note.

[Brian Peacock]

am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?.

Maybe. I think one way you could be is by ignoring how odd it is that where one person will supposedly satisfy your requirements, the word of the CIA, FBI, NSA does not.

And Trump, who appeared to accept the report while disputing it's implications.

[Brian Peacock]

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?

"Unwitting". Heh heh, good one.

Assange just wants to watch the world burn. Always has. It's the only way a feeble, talentless albino rapist could ever insert themselves into history as a figure of note.

While I don't think that being albino is a character trait, I wouldn't disagree with the general point. Nonetheless, many amongst history's supposedly great and good were maniacal egomaniacs with a rampant thirst for power and influence.

[Jason]

What a strange world it is when people can equate whistle-blowing to expose corruption in government with "wanting to watch the world burn." I suppose some people are more dedicated to their agenda than truth and justice.

[Scot Dutchy]

Assange's whistle only works when his master tells him.

[Svartalf]

Assange's whistle only works when his master tells him.

and his master would be a dish of chips in brown sauce with cheese curds?

[Scot Dutchy]

Assange's whistle only works when his master tells him.

and his master would be a dish of chips in brown sauce with cheese curds?

If you see it that way that is your prerogative.

[Jason]

Poutine...

[Scot Dutchy]

We spell him as Poetin.

[Svartalf]

I spell it Quebecer style, because he deserves to be homonym to the dish.

[Forty Two]

am I really being blind to my own requirements having been satisfied?.

Maybe. I think one way you could be is by ignoring how odd it is that where one person will supposedly satisfy your requirements, the word of the CIA, FBI, NSA does not.

And Trump, who appeared to accept the report while disputing it's implications.

Sounds not unreasonable. One can accept the report and differ markedly on what conclusions to draw from it, given that the mainstream media seems to be lofting it as proof of Russian hacking and influence in election, when it doesn't appear that the report actually says that. One can accept the report "as far as it goes..." which is not very far, actually.

[Forty Two]

When Bush was President, Wikileaks leaked Bush Administration dirt, including Rumsfeld dirt, et al. When Obama was President, they leaked Obama and Hillary dirt, etc. Now that Trump is President, I have no reason to think Wikileaks won't release dirt they get on his administration. And, when they do, suddenly, the left will sing his praises, again, like they used to.

Now, however, he's an albino pedophile who is Putin's marionette, and it shocks the conscience that anyone would afford the CIA and the NSA less than complete faith and trust in all things.