US Officially Blames Russia

[phiwum]

What is extreme is your demand that a few random people should be considered an oracle, apparently because your ideology requires this. How is this different from some religious cult?



It doesn't work at all.

Random people? No, not random people. People trained in the intelligence services, on the one hand, and people selected to represent them in Congress on the other. You may pretend that these qualifications are irrelevant, but tain't so.

 

[NoahFence]

Quote:
The evidence is confidential.

Evidence? For all we know it doesn't exist, it could have been fabricated, pulled out of context, or any other number of possibilities.

I'm wondering if in your mind, one of the possibilities is that it was accurate?

 

[phiwum]

Then we should ignore the claims

Out of curiosity, and I really don't know the answer here, do we have any declassified evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons? If not, do you also ignore those claims?

ETA: Just to be clear, my question has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism. I chose Israel just because their possession of nukes is more or less universally acknowledged, but not publicly proclaimed.

 

[caveman1917]

As stated, the declassified report does not contain specific evidence as doing so would compromise intelligence sources and methods.

Evidence?

However, I suspect that President Obama will declassify portions of the report prior to his leaving office.

Sure, I can wait for some evidence, I'm not in a hurry.

In the meantime, here's a good article from the NYT providing a pretty good case using publicly-available information that the Russians successfully phished Podesta's email credentials. I suggested reading it in full prior to commenting:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-hack-evidence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Who are "the Russians"? And how exactly do we know it was them as opposed to someone else?

BTW: Mr. Trump asserted that a 400-pound man from his bed hacked the DNC.

Evidence?

 

[caveman1917]

Random people? No, not random people.

True, it's not random, it's the people who would be the least likely to be trustworthy. That's even worse than random.

People trained in the intelligence services, on the one hand, and people selected to represent them in Congress on the other. You may pretend that these qualifications are irrelevant, but tain't so.

These qualifications are as relevant as having the qualification of village idiot.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Out of curiosity, and I really don't know the answer here, do we have any declassified evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons? If not, do you also ignore those claims?

ETA: Just to be clear, my question has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism. I chose Israel just because their possession of nukes is more or less universally acknowledged, but not publicly proclaimed.

I would also ignore that. I am willing to say people make that claim. But it is a claim that hasn't been presented to me with evidence.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In the meantime, here's a good article from the NYT providing a pretty good case using publicly-available information that the Russians successfully phished Podesta's email credentials. I suggested reading it in full prior to commenting:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-hack-evidence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

That's a rather generic overview of what phishing is and a whole lot of conjecture attempting to demonstrate how the group behind the phishing might be Russian.

So this brings it to the level of hypothesis.

We've been at hypothesis for months, now.

There's some circumstantial evidence about that can raise my estimate to 'plausible' or 'credible', but it's still a long, long walk to 'proven' from there.

 

[uke2se]

I don't buy this supposed skepticism about the CIA claims. The skeptical parties are for the most part either extreme left Putin sycophants, or extreme right Trumpistas - who, by the way, had no problem when the FBI head said there might be some emails on a computer somewhere. It's selective skepticism at the best of times, and is simply not credible.

For the rational people out there: we're not going to see the evidence, so we can simply stop speculating. Instead, it's a matter of trust. The US intelligence agencies, various bi-partisan senators and the POTUS or Donald "Pussygrabber" Trump and Vladimir Putin.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This point is really really dumb.

Oh surprise, surprise - racist, sexist, dumb, etc.

It isn't an argument. This is the failed strategy of the losers in this election who spent $1.2 billion dollars and had every advantage of the media, establishment muscle etc. on their side and still lost.

Because there isn't a platform. There aren't principles. There is just antisocial conduct directed against anyone who disagrees.

We have discussed them endlessly. Some had their own threads. We had threads about the content. This thread is about the process of releasing them.

No it isn't. It would not be following the ridiculous establishment Russiaphobe line if that were true. We would see evidence, not hot air. Like Wikileaks emphatically certifying Russia is not the source.

This is even worse than during the Iraq WMD propaganda, which was easy enough to see for the incompetence of it. Yellow cake forgery, silly cartoon diagrams, etc.

What this tells us is how desperate the establishment is to change the subject and keep the eyes off the CONTENT of the emails. Same with you.

Oh, how DARE I talk about this being a distraction. The only legitimate discussion is what you, the censor, dictates to me.

Wikileaks says they have more blockbuster stuff coming out and the diversionary twaddle about Russia can't stop it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't buy this supposed skepticism about the CIA claims. The skeptical parties are for the most part either extreme left Putin sycophants, or extreme right Trumpistas - who, by the way, had no problem when the FBI head said there might be some emails on a computer somewhere. It's selective skepticism at the best of times, and is simply not credible.

For the rational people out there: we're not going to see the evidence, so we can simply stop speculating. Instead, it's a matter of trust. The US intelligence agencies, various bi-partisan senators and the POTUS or Donald "Pussygrabber" Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Credibility is not a pass/fail system solely predicated upon whether even less reputable examples exist. The election is over, time to put 'but the other side is worse(!)' arguments away until 2020.

You're going down the 'shame them' route by trying to suggest criticism of the information is support of Trump or Putin. If you have to rely on that to make your case, guess what that says about your case?

 

[uke2se]

Credibility is not a pass/fail system solely predicated upon whether even less reputable examples exist. The election is over, time to put 'but the other side is worse(!)' arguments away until 2020.

No, now is the time to point out every single thing until Trump goes away into history in infamy. Russia meddling in the US election to get Trump to the Presidency would seriously - if not irreparably damage the legitimacy of his Presidency. That's why his sycophants don't want us to focus on it. That's the reason we need to focus more on it. Keep pushing, and eventually the whole rotten corrupted mess will come tumbling down.

You're going down the 'shame them' route by trying to suggest criticism of the information is support of Trump or Putin.

No, I'm pointing out the obvious. There is no shaming these people. If there was, they would be perpetually curled into a whimpering ball considering how shameful their behavior is.

If you have to rely on that to make your case, guess what that says about your case?

It's not my case. It's the case of the US intelligence agencies. I'm pointing out to you why you shouldn't expect to ever see the evidence. You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory. Your choice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh surprise, surprise - racist, sexist, dumb, etc.

It isn't an argument. This is the failed strategy of the losers in this election who spent $1.2 billion dollars and had every advantage of the media, establishment muscle etc. on their side and still lost.

Because there isn't a platform. There aren't principles. There is just antisocial conduct directed against anyone who disagrees.





No it isn't. It would not be following the ridiculous establishment Russiaphobe line if that were true. We would see evidence, not hot air. Like Wikileaks emphatically certifying Russia is not the source.

This is even worse than during the Iraq WMD propaganda, which was easy enough to see for the incompetence of it. Yellow cake forgery, silly cartoon diagrams, etc.

What this tells us is how desperate the establishment is to change the subject and keep the eyes off the CONTENT of the emails. Same with you.

Oh, how DARE I talk about this being a distraction. The only legitimate discussion is what you, the censor, dictates to me.

Wikileaks says they have more blockbuster stuff coming out and the diversionary twaddle about Russia can't stop it.

What the hell are you talking about? I can link you to the threads where we discussed the content of DNc and Podesta emails. We did not ignore their content. You can even post there, I don't think they are locked. This is not the contents thread.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No, now is the time to point out every single thing until Trump goes away into history in infamy. Russia meddling in the US election to get Trump to the Presidency would seriously - if not irreparably damage the legitimacy of his Presidency. That's why his sycophants don't want us to focus on it. That's the reason we need to focus more on it. Keep pushing, and eventually the whole rotten corrupted mess will come tumbling down.

So do you want focus on the issue at hand or do you want to go off on rants about Trump and broad-brush denunciations of the alleged motives of anyone taking a critical position of the claims?

No, I'm pointing out the obvious. There is no shaming these people. If there was, they would be perpetually curled into a whimpering ball considering how shameful their behavior is.

I guess I have my answer.

It's not my case. It's the case of the US intelligence agencies. I'm pointing out to you why you shouldn't expect to ever see the evidence. You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory. Your choice.

False dichotomy.

I can state that without evidence to back up the assertions made, I cannot reasonably conclude their accuracy. That is neither accepting the claim nor concocting a conspiracy. I have floated a speculation or two as to what possible motives may exist for misrepresenting the data, but I have just the same lack of evidence as they do. Nor do I rule out other possibilities like misunderstanding the data they rest their conclusions on or data being planted that leads investigators to an intended conclusion on the part of those who pulled it off, etc.

But more than anything, I have to laugh at anyone claiming to want this issue focused on who then turns around and accuses others not reaching the same conclusion as them of <insert derogatory language here>. You want me to 'trust' agencies with dubious and checkered histories? That makes this a discussion about belief.

I'll show myself out if that's the case. LOL

 

[uke2se]

So do you want focus on the issue at hand or do you want to go off on rants about Trump and broad-brush denunciations of the alleged motives of anyone taking a critical position of the claims?

You're the one focusing on my post. If you didn't like what I wrote, you can always ignore it. As it is, I stand by every word.

False dichotomy.

Nope.

I can state that without evidence to back up the assertions made, I cannot reasonably conclude their accuracy. That is neither accepting the claim nor concocting a conspiracy. I have floated a speculation or two as to what possible motives may exist for misrepresenting the data, but I have just the same lack of evidence as they do. Nor do I rule out other possibilities like misunderstanding the data they rest their conclusions on or data being planted that leads investigators to an intended conclusion on the part of those who pulled it off, etc.

As I said, you can either accept their conclusions, or make up **** and not accept it.

They don't have a lack of evidence. They just have a lack of evidence that you are cleared to view.

But more than anything, I have to laugh at anyone claiming to want this issue focused on who then turns around and accuses others not reaching the same conclusion as them of <insert derogatory language here>. You want me to 'trust' agencies with dubious and checkered histories? That makes this a discussion about belief.

Honestly, I don't care who or what you trust. You don't matter in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that this issue is thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, and that there are impeachment procedures against the incoming administration should it be shown that Trump or any of his staff in any way coordinated with the Russian hackers.

ETA: I would also add that if there aren't congressional investigations into this, it is only because the GOP is too corrupt to investigate one of their own.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You're the one focusing on my post. If you didn't like what I wrote, you can always ignore it. As it is, I stand by every word.

It's not so much that I didn't like it, it's that rather than supply a substantive response, you chose to wander off into judgmental excoriation and impugning motives (with your fantastic mind reader skillz!).

Nope.

Yes, when you state that 'you can choose a or you can choose b' when c, d, e, f, g, and many other possibilities are available, that is a false dichotomy.

As I said, you can either accept their conclusions, or make up **** and not accept it.

See, here's another example of you doing it again. Literally one line after denying you did it.

They don't have a lack of evidence. They just have a lack of evidence that you are cleared to view.

Since it is my position/conclusion that I was referring to, them (supposedly) having evidence that I can't see doesn't help.

Honestly, I don't care who or what you trust. You don't matter in the grand scheme of things. What matters is that this issue is thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, and that there are impeachment procedures against the incoming administration should it be shown that Trump or any of his staff in any way coordinated with the Russian hackers.

Yes, should it be shown.

'Shown' being the key word.

ETA: I would also add that if there aren't congressional investigations into this, it is only because the GOP is too corrupt to investigate one of their own.

The fact you've already armed yourself with a convenient excuse that feeds your preexisting biases is wonderful.

Maybe read some of your more forceful claims of conspiracy mongering back while looking in a mirror.

 

[uke2se]

It's not so much that I didn't like it, it's that rather than supply a substantive response, you chose to wander off into judgmental excoriation and impugning motives (with your fantastic mind reader skillz!).

Doesn't take mind reading skills. It simply takes basic intelligence.

Yes, when you state that 'you can choose a or you can choose b' when c, d, e, f, g, and many other possibilities are available, that is a false dichotomy.

There are no other possibilities. You either accept it or you don't. Those are the only two available. If you don't, you have to make up a bunch of stuff in order to justify why, which is what you call 'speculation'.

Since it is my position/conclusion that I was referring to, them (supposedly) having evidence that I can't see doesn't help.

You said you had the same lack of evidence as they do (they being the CIA and FBI). They don't have a lack of evidence, so what you said was untrue.

Yes, should it be shown.

'Shown' being the key word.

Shown to people with appropriate security clearance.

The fact you've already armed yourself with a convenient excuse that feeds your preexisting biases is wonderful.

Oh, give it a rest. We're dealing with the GOP here, who had how many investigations into Clinton's emails, and before them, Benghazi? The only reason this - a much more serious issue - would escape a congressional investigation would be because of partisanship, and you damn well know it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Doesn't take mind reading skills. It simply takes basic intelligence.

Believing your ability to correctly deduce the motives of tens of millions of people is not a sign of intelligence. I'd call that hubris.

There are no other possibilities. You either accept it or you don't. Those are the only two available. If you don't, you have to make up a bunch of stuff in order to justify why, which is what you call 'speculation'.

This was your original claim:
"You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory."

I gave you several other ways of arriving at various conclusions and I hold a position that is neither of the two which you describe, so obviously those two are not the only possibilities.

You can rephrase the original claim all you want, but continuing to insist that only two possibilities exist while simultaneously denying that doing so is a false dichotomy is only eroding your own credibility by revealing your intransigence and failure to be impartial.

You said you had the same lack of evidence as they do (they being the CIA and FBI). They don't have a lack of evidence, so what you said was untrue.

"...but I have just the same lack of evidence as they do"

Refers to evidence being made available to bolster the claim.

What evidence do you have that there is more substantive evidence? Man, if I had a nickel for every time someone wanted me to believe them and believe that they have evidence to prove it...but can't show it to me...

Shown to people with appropriate security clearance.

Doesn't mean they have a clue how to interpret it. We've had elected officials on the finance committees who think America is still backed by a gold standard. Plus, they make decisions based on polling data. Americans are whipped up about this and want 'something' done? They'll say "Aye" to whatever is put in front of them. Remember the bank bailouts?

Oh, give it a rest. We're dealing with the GOP here, who had how many investigations into Clinton's emails, and before them, Benghazi? The only reason this - a much more serious issue - would escape a congressional investigation would be because of partisanship, and you damn well know it.

No, I don't. Just like with the whole 'Putin personally ordered hacking and ruining our elections' claim, I'll rate it as 'plausible, but not proven' and ask you what evidence you have. That you've already settled on this absolutely as the explanation for a decision that hasn't even been made yet does mark you as a biased source, however.

 

[uke2se]

Believing your ability to correctly deduce the motives of tens of millions of people is not a sign of intelligence. I'd call that hubris.

We don't have tens of millions of people posting in this thread, nor are there tens of millions of Trump sycophants.

This was your original claim:
"You can then either chose to accept that the US intelligence agencies are actually doing their jobs, or you can concoct a conspiracy theory."

I gave you several other ways of arriving at various conclusions and I hold a position that is neither of the two which you describe, so obviously those two are not the only possibilities.

You can rephrase the original claim all you want, but continuing to insist that only two possibilities exist while simultaneously denying that doing so is a false dichotomy is only eroding your own credibility by revealing your intransigence and failure to be impartial.

Sure, if it'll make you feel better: You can either accept the conclusion of the US intelligence agencies, you can concoct a conspiracy theory, or you can speculate wildly for absolutely no reason.

Better?

"...but I have just the same lack of evidence as they do"

Refers to evidence being made available to bolster the claim.

Then you should have written that. You didn't. What you wrote was that they have a lack of evidence.

What evidence do you have that there is more substantive evidence? Man, if I had a nickel for every time someone wanted me to believe them and believe that they have evidence to prove it...but can't show it to me...

More substantive evidence than what?

Doesn't mean they have a clue how to interpret it. We've had elected officials on the finance committees who think America is still backed by a gold standard. Plus, they make decisions based on polling data. Americans are whipped up about this and want 'something' done? They'll say "Aye" to whatever is put in front of them. Remember the bank bailouts?

What do you say we simply stop accepting the opinions of experts?

This is getting ridiculous.

No, I don't.

Yes, you do. If you don't, you're stupid, and you're not stupid.

Just like with the whole 'Putin personally ordered hacking and ruining our elections' claim,

Not what anyone's saying. We don't know Putin's involvement, and neither I expect does the CIA. Yet.

I'll rate it as 'plausible, but not proven' and ask you what evidence you have.

You're asking the wrong person. The CIA has the evidence. Not me. And you aren't cleared to view it. Tough titties.

That you've already settled on this absolutely as the explanation for a decision that hasn't even been made yet does mark you as a biased source, however.

You should take the time to read my posts. I said that if there isn't a congressional investigation, it's because of partisanship. I don't believe there will be, but I'm open to being surprised.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Mr Trump invited them to do so then insulted the intel community for pointing this out.

Can you link to the evidence that this happened? I may have missed some news, since I tuned out the noise during the election season about 30 days prior to the vote casting. It had gotten too nauseating.

Which sector of the intel community pointed this out?

 

[sts60]

This is the failed strategy of the losers in this election who spent $1.2 billion dollars and had every advantage of the media, establishment muscle etc. on their side and still lost.

Fox News, the Republican Party, the Koch Brothers, etc. were on Clinton's side?

You learn something new every day.