L'Emmerdeur wrote: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.
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.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
