Will you accept the election results?

[Brian Peacock]

But haven't we been offered a general outline about the type and extent of evidence, if not its detail?

[Forty Two]

I think a clue to the problem of this issue is to be found in the word 'secret' in 'secret services.' If you don't trust the secret services to do their secret work secretly, and perhaps you shouldn't post-Snowden, then what's to do?

I don't need to "do" anything. I don't trust them without good reason. Have they given good reason to trust them on this statement? The report doesn't provide evidence, yet it's used to state "see, the intelligence community thinks it's Russia." Only, the report doesn't really say that. And, the report doesn't really say "we have the evidence....just can't disclose it due to secrecy issues..." It doesn't even make the assertion that - when the info is declassified, you'll see the evidence, but we commit to the fact that it's there and it's clear.

If they said something like that, where someone was putting their name on the line, then I might pause a bit. However, based on what they've shown me so far, I have no reason to believe it was Russia. I don't have any love for Russia, either. If they're behind it, then they need to be dealt with hard, much harder than what's been done so far. That's another reason why I smell some BS -- kick out a few diplomats a few weeks before the new administration comes in? The Obama Admin has been saying it was Russia for over six months. They know Russia is fucking with our election, against the party in power, and the administration does nothing until the new President is weeks away from inauguration?

[Jason]

If you're satisfied with the two infographics on how they think the attack was accomplished then I can see why this isn't an issue for you. As for me I want an outline of why they think this is how it happened and how they came to link these actions to these two groups.

[Forty Two]

But haven't we been offered a general outline about the type and extent of evidence, if not its detail?

Not by my reading.

[Brian Peacock]

This is not the only report on the matter, nor is it the sole and novel conclusion of the US security services. Independent opinion and evidence has been posted in this thread, and these concerns date back some years.

[Forty Two]

This is not the only report on the matter, nor is it the sole and novel conclusion of the US security services. Independent opinion and evidence has been posted in this thread, and these concerns date back some years.

Opinion, yes. Evidence, no. Concerns dating back years? What concerns exactly? That Russia would hack our election?

Query: if the evidence and opinion date back "some years", why would the Obama administration do nothing to combat the threat? Why would Obama, in 2012, say that a concern that Russia is a foreign policy threat is "the 1980s calling, and they want their foreign policy back?"

[pErvinalia]

Report available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/335307386/JAR-16-20296

Actual evidence available... somewhere. Maybe. But it's not in the report.

A joint FBI and DHS report on Russia’s alleged hacking of the US presidential election provides no evidence and is a case of fake news and propaganda aimed at undermining the legitimacy of Trump’s win, says former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon.
The Obama administration on Thursday imposed a set of unprecedented measures against Russia over its alleged attempts to influence the US presidential campaign this year. The new sanctions were unveiled after the release of the report by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

However, the document significantly lacks specifics. It doesn't explain how the two hacking groups described are linked to the Russian government.

RT asked whistleblower, and former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon what she makes of the evidence.

“This is very much a case of fake news, shall we say. It seems to serve two ends as well,” Machon said.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372268-hacki ... obama-fbi/

“On the day when the ceasefire is announced, which has been brokered by Russia and Turkey – this is a story that will run and run in America, not the ceasefire in Syria. It’s all going to be about these Russians, and hacking the election and things like that. I think this is the first stage – this is why it was announced that the Russian diplomats were going to be expelled,” she said.

“On the second point as well, it is a mass expulsion – 35 diplomats being thrown out of the country with no proof, with no sort of real intelligence. I think that has also been done to gain the idea, to solidify in public’s mind in America that actually Russia was involved in hacking the election. Where has that phrase evolved from? We don’t know. It was originally just hacking the DNC [Democratic National Committee] e-mails. So I think it is a sort of two-pronged attack that has been carried out; that has been carefully announced today to achieve that,” she said.

“One further point from that in terms of trying to solidify the fact that the Russians interfered in the democratic process of America – is part of this ongoing process to try to undermine the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump – the next president,” Machon said.

The Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on “Russian malicious cyber activity” issued by the FBI and the DHS National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) on Thursday begins with a disclaimer which reads: “This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

According to Machon, the FBI and DHS are “just covering their backs.”

“They know it’s much rubbish…they are trying to blind people with science, but there’s no real evidence,” she said.

“Running in parallel to this is a more serious investigation that Barack Obama apparently asked the CIA to carry out into this alleged Russian hacking of the election. That report is due to be announced no later than January 20 next year,” Machon said, adding that the timing is “interesting” since it’s the date of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The report by the FBI and DHS doesn’t give any warranties, which “points to the fact that it is pure propaganda and they know it,” Machon told RT.

I can understand why Obama and the Dem hierarchy could want to frame Russia, but what is the explanation for why the CIA and FBI would do it? It makes them look shit as they let a foreign power hack US resources and influence national politics.

[pErvinalia]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations? The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

[Forty Two]

I can understand why Obama and the Dem hierarchy could want to frame Russia, but what is the explanation for why the CIA and FBI would do it? It makes them look shit as they let a foreign power hack US resources and influence national politics.

For the same reason they have issued other bogus reports over the years. The CIA and the FBI work for the Administration.

[Forty Two]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations? The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

If that is this, then it necessarily follows that no declarative statement that the Russians did it can be made. Thus, the people declaring the accusation that Russia did it to be true have nothing but wishful thinking to bolster their assertions.

However, I haven't heard them say that they have definitive evidence which cannot be disclosed due to the fact that it would, in this case, compromise intelligence operations.

The "if the security services cannot be trusted" bit is not an "if." Security services cannot be trusted when they aren't required to back up their claims. It's unfortunate, but true.

[pErvinalia]

I can understand why Obama and the Dem hierarchy could want to frame Russia, but what is the explanation for why the CIA and FBI would do it? It makes them look shit as they let a foreign power hack US resources and influence national politics.

For the same reason they have issued other bogus reports over the years.

Such as? WMD in Iraq doesn't harm the CIA etc.

[pErvinalia]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations? The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

If that is this, then it necessarily follows that no declarative statement that the Russians did it can be made. Thus, the people declaring the accusation that Russia did it to be true have nothing but wishful thinking to bolster their assertions.

However, I haven't heard them say that they have definitive evidence which cannot be disclosed due to the fact that it would, in this case, compromise intelligence operations.

The "if the security services cannot be trusted" bit is not an "if." Security services cannot be trusted when they aren't required to back up their claims. It's unfortunate, but true.

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?

[Forty Two]

I can understand why Obama and the Dem hierarchy could want to frame Russia, but what is the explanation for why the CIA and FBI would do it? It makes them look shit as they let a foreign power hack US resources and influence national politics.

For the same reason they have issued other bogus reports over the years.

Such as? WMD in Iraq doesn't harm the CIA etc.

Gulf of Tonkin.

Niger Uranium Forgeries

Iraq and WMD

The Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence -- "The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Re ... ce_on_Iraq

The current report doesn't have to be a purposeful lie. It could be based on flimsy evidence. It could be based on bad evidence. We don't know, because we haven't see the evidence, if any. It could be rock solid and convincing evidence. We don't know.

But, it could also be false and/or manipulated -- US Intelligence produced fake reports on ISIS http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington ... on/5541037

[Forty Two]

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?

[pErvinalia]

I can understand why Obama and the Dem hierarchy could want to frame Russia, but what is the explanation for why the CIA and FBI would do it? It makes them look shit as they let a foreign power hack US resources and influence national politics.

For the same reason they have issued other bogus reports over the years.

Such as? WMD in Iraq doesn't harm the CIA etc.

Gulf of Tonkin.

Niger Uranium Forgeries

Iraq and WMD

The Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence -- "The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Re ... ce_on_Iraq

You seemed to have missed the point. None of those lies paints the intelligence agency in a bad light (I'm talking about the content of the lie, not the act of lying). But the CIA and FBI etc saying that the Ruskis hacked the US and meddled in an election paints themselves in a very bad light. There's no reasoning for why an intelligence agency would do that. They aren't required to lie for their masters, and while they could be convinced to lie with various threats probably centering around funding, the incoming president could just restore the funding.