|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target.
I'd put both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal above WaPo. I get that you're not from around here, but could one of the people who likes WaPo check him on this?
Also, could we all familiarize ourselves with Joseph Pulitzer and yellow journalism?
You'd think this would come up more often in the discussion of fake/sensationalized news and clickbait?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in.
I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology.
What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else.
|
On December 11 2016 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. I'd put both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal above WaPo. I get that you're not from around here, but could one of the people who likes WaPo check him on this? Also, could we all familiarize ourselves with Joseph Pulitzer and Yellow journalism? You'd think this would come up more often in the discussion of fake/sensationalized news and clickbait?
Great. Let's go for the New York Times then:
ooops
Looks like the NYT finds also the information credible enough to call its article : "Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says"
|
On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else.
Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. This is the kind of issues I'm talking about where conclusions comes before the evidence. Much like Bernie supporters hating the DNC, I distrust Russia and currently believe they affected the election. But I would need stronger proof than "according to the Washington Post" before I start spouting a victory parade of being correct. "It's obvious" and "why can't you see it" is insufficient to me.
Here's the bottom line with Bernie:
1. The involvement of the DNC in the primaries led to widespread claims among the Bernie camp that favorites were being played. I hope we can at least agree that the claims were there and that circumstantially they look at least plausible.
2. The DNC leaks showed that high-ranking people within the DNC felt comfortable speaking badly about Bernie and his campaign. That the CFO of the DNC suggested that people try to ask Sanders if he's Jewish to undermine him with "my Southern Baptist peeps" should be telling. So should "spoken like someone who was never a Democrat and doesn't understand how we work" by DWS.
3. After this all broke out and DWS was forced to resign, Hillary Clinton put DWS on her campaign. It's symbolic, but what is it symbolic of? And for that matter, I don't think we could question that the Tim Kaine pick was not really catering to the Bernie base.
4. The Podesta emails showed an exchange saying "we should give the Bernie people a symbolic change so they can say they won something." That's pretty dickish when you put it into words. Also I don't remember if this was in Podesta or the DNC but there was some shittalking about Jeff Weaver in one of the two.
5. Donna Brazille as mentioned earlier.
Alone, that is merely circumstantial evidence of collusion. If it weren't then this would be settled in court rather than over Wikileaks. But if you want to throw out circumstantial evidence then you also have to say that you don't have any proof that Russia played any part in the leaks either.
|
On December 11 2016 02:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. I'd put both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal above WaPo. I get that you're not from around here, but could one of the people who likes WaPo check him on this? Also, could we all familiarize ourselves with Joseph Pulitzer and Yellow journalism? You'd think this would come up more often in the discussion of fake/sensationalized news and clickbait? Great. Let's go for the New York Times then: ooopsLooks like the NYT finds also the information credible enough to call its article : "Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says"
The main relevant quote of the article is:
"They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."
Which is a very good lead, but I was unable to find backing in the article that supported their conclusion. Without follow up or more details it becomes super easy to twist this info into whatever narrative you want.
Had this been released a week before the vote, I would expect Trump to get on a podium, point out to the people that Russia hacked the GOP servers just like it hacked the DEM servers, and Russia found that the GOP had nothing worth releasing unlike the liberal machine with their tens of evil thousands of emails.
Being released post election, it can also be twisted as "Russia possibly influenced election for Trump."
Neither of which is proven, simply the analysis of thin leads--but leads are fantastic starts, and is the beginnings of a good investigation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation.
I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name.
|
On December 11 2016 02:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway?
CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation. I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name.
Lets agree to disagree on their notoriety, especially since we have similar conclusions to their analysis--IE it's not good enough as is.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation. I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name. Lets agree to disagree on their notoriety, especially since we have similar conclusions to their analysis--IE it's not good enough as is.
I hope we could also agree on the following statement: blind trust (or distrust for that matter) of a news organization, regardless of their previous record of credibility, is unwarranted and naive. The "credible" ones still have to prove what they say, and the "uncredible" ones that provide good proof should be considered.
In other words, WaPo saying it's true doesn't mean it's true just because "they won 47 Pulitzer Prizes OMG."
|
On December 11 2016 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation. I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name. Lets agree to disagree on their notoriety, especially since we have similar conclusions to their analysis--IE it's not good enough as is. I hope we could also agree on the following statement: blind trust (or distrust for that matter) of a news organization, regardless of their previous record of credibility, is unwarranted and naive. The "credible" ones still have to prove what they say, and the "uncredible" ones that provide good proof should be considered. In other words, WaPo saying it's true doesn't mean it's true just because "they won 47 Pulitzer Prizes OMG."
WaPo saying its true does not make it true. WaPo saying they have someone who says "____" gives me reason to think they have someone, and I would like to know what that someone has to say. Until they give that someone, then the most they have is that they might have a source. The same is true for other news organizations. Saying you might have something is enough for me to believe you might have something, but it isn't enough for me to believe the something you have is relevant.
|
On December 11 2016 02:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. I'd put both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal above WaPo. I get that you're not from around here, but could one of the people who likes WaPo check him on this? Also, could we all familiarize ourselves with Joseph Pulitzer and Yellow journalism? You'd think this would come up more often in the discussion of fake/sensationalized news and clickbait? Great. Let's go for the New York Times then: ooopsLooks like the NYT finds also the information credible enough to call its article : "Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says"
The intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to help Mr. Trump was first reported by The Washington Post.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not sure what the point of leaking this non-public, non-specific information is supposed to be either?
That said, I actually don't think it that far fetched, particularly when you look at the history of the 96 Elections in Russia and their take on Hillary's comments on their elections in 2011.
But in case folks missed it:
Top Putin aide hacked: Proxy cyberwar suspected
A Ukrainian group calling itself CyberHunta hacked into the account of an assistant to presidential aide Vladislav Surkov and uploaded more than 2,000 emails this week.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the emails as fake in comments to Russian news agencies, saying that Surkov does not use email.
Vice President Biden told NBC’s Meet the Press this month that the United States would be “sending a message” that Putin would recognize.
“He’ll know it,” Biden said. “And it will be at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact.” U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News of plans for unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia.
“Although we are a long way from having any evidence of this — if we ever will — I cannot help but wonder if this is the kind of response that U.S. policymakers have been hinting at, following the various hacks blamed on Russia, either working through Ukrainians or simply handed to them,” said Mark Galeotti, senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Prague.
“This kind of a leak is enough to warn the Russians than the USA has certain capabilities and is willing to use them," he said. "Welcome to the world of proxy cyberwars.”
Source
|
On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo.
The Washington Post is one of the papers of record in the U.S. This obviously does not mean whatever they publish is necessarily correct, but it does mean that dismissing their reporting as not credible because it's the Washington Post is completely bogus.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:But in case folks missed it: Show nested quote +Top Putin aide hacked: Proxy cyberwar suspected
A Ukrainian group calling itself CyberHunta hacked into the account of an assistant to presidential aide Vladislav Surkov and uploaded more than 2,000 emails this week.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the emails as fake in comments to Russian news agencies, saying that Surkov does not use email.
Vice President Biden told NBC’s Meet the Press this month that the United States would be “sending a message” that Putin would recognize.
“He’ll know it,” Biden said. “And it will be at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact.” U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News of plans for unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia.
“Although we are a long way from having any evidence of this — if we ever will — I cannot help but wonder if this is the kind of response that U.S. policymakers have been hinting at, following the various hacks blamed on Russia, either working through Ukrainians or simply handed to them,” said Mark Galeotti, senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Prague.
“This kind of a leak is enough to warn the Russians than the USA has certain capabilities and is willing to use them," he said. "Welcome to the world of proxy cyberwars.” Source
I mentioned this briefly the day of. Nothing came of it, so it was never mentioned again.
Unlike Wikileaks with the DNC/Podesta leaks, the Ukrainian intelligence wing is well-known for just straight up fabrications.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 02:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation. I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name. Lets agree to disagree on their notoriety, especially since we have similar conclusions to their analysis--IE it's not good enough as is. I hope we could also agree on the following statement: blind trust (or distrust for that matter) of a news organization, regardless of their previous record of credibility, is unwarranted and naive. The "credible" ones still have to prove what they say, and the "uncredible" ones that provide good proof should be considered. In other words, WaPo saying it's true doesn't mean it's true just because "they won 47 Pulitzer Prizes OMG." WaPo saying its true does not make it true. WaPo saying they have someone who says "____" gives me reason to think they have someone, and I would like to know what that someone has to say. Until they give that someone, then the most they have is that they might have a source. The same is true for other news organizations. Saying you might have something is enough for me to believe you might have something, but it isn't enough for me to believe the something you have is relevant.
WaPo says they have someone from the CIA who says "____". The CIA is contacted and says nothing to Reuters.
And does anyone have the original WaPo source so that we can be one level up in the sourcing stream? That would be a start.
|
Is anyone still skeptical that Russia was involved at all? Between the department of homeland security, the office of the director of national intelligence, the NSA, and the CIA confirming Russian interference, is there any doubt left to be had?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 03:05 Tachion wrote:
Is anyone still skeptical that Russia was involved at all? Between the department of homeland security, the office of the director of national intelligence, the NSA, and the CIA confirming Russian interference, is there any doubt left to be had?
Ultimately it is still circumstantial and the hacks were done in really trivial ways (phishing mostly), so it is possible that it was just lone wolf hackers or some other government / hacking group. I do see the hand of what looks like Russia here (the way they were operated looks like the hand of Russian intelligence operations) but no, intelligence agencies saying it to be so isn't proof.
|
On December 11 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 02:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:46 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 02:20 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible.
Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target. Let me clarify. I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in. I also would be skeptical of any claim that Russia didn't play a hand in all this. To some extent I know it not to be true, and to another extent I am fairly familiar with the pattern of how Russian intelligence operates in situations like this. I do think that whether or not the Russian intelligence wing is actually culpable, that the Russians would be accused, and that there's some truly impressive games of plausible deniability that can be played when the hacks themselves are basically just clever phishing attempts on people who aren't very smart with technology. What this article does though, is ascribe motive based on an anonymous source through a game of telephone. If the only evidence so far circumstantially connects the hax to Russia, they are very far from being able to reliably ascribe motive here. That goes a bit further than saying Russia hacked the DNC or Podesta or whoever else. Agreed. What makes it a good start, for me, is that the agency making the news has done good work in the past (I am likely to trust Hawking if he makes random comments on Astrophysics for example, due to his record on the topic), so I am willing to follow this rabbit hole assuming it continues to give carrots and not just the promise of carrots. If it is true that they have someone twice removed, then the next article I expect is the words of the source itself. An established news agency saying they have someone is merely enough to pique my interest, but it isn't evidence yet. Once we get to that point, then we can start the actual investigation. I, on the other hand, see recent evidence of bullshit (the PropOrNot fake news article) and suspect that recent evidence is more indicative of their credibility than awards received by other people for doing other things under the same organization name. Lets agree to disagree on their notoriety, especially since we have similar conclusions to their analysis--IE it's not good enough as is. I hope we could also agree on the following statement: blind trust (or distrust for that matter) of a news organization, regardless of their previous record of credibility, is unwarranted and naive. The "credible" ones still have to prove what they say, and the "uncredible" ones that provide good proof should be considered. In other words, WaPo saying it's true doesn't mean it's true just because "they won 47 Pulitzer Prizes OMG." WaPo saying its true does not make it true. WaPo saying they have someone who says "____" gives me reason to think they have someone, and I would like to know what that someone has to say. Until they give that someone, then the most they have is that they might have a source. The same is true for other news organizations. Saying you might have something is enough for me to believe you might have something, but it isn't enough for me to believe the something you have is relevant. WaPo says they have someone from the CIA who says "____". The CIA is contacted and says nothing to Reuters. And does anyone have the original WaPo source so that we can be one level up in the sourcing stream? That would be a start.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/09/the-cia-concluded-russia-worked-to-elect-trump-republicans-now-face-an-impossible-choice/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.c81fac00aa7f
They say they have a source in the CIA, and they correlate it with a Democrat commission to investigate further. They then point to lots of GOP attempts to stifle the discourse as well as point to Trump actively skipping meetings where he is to be informed of the Russian hacks.
So far we don't have the direct source, just a source within the CIA
And so far the argument is mainly correlative, not causative--but the dots line up real well to those who distrust Russia and Trump.
|
On December 11 2016 03:05 Tachion wrote:
Is anyone still skeptical that Russia was involved at all? Between the department of homeland security, the office of the director of national intelligence, the NSA, and the CIA confirming Russian interference, is there any doubt left to be had?
"Knowing" and "Proving" are two separate things. If a friend came to you and said that "It turns out Africa was a hoax" then the first thing you do is ask for his source of the information, not make a commitment to believe/disbelieve him. Same thing with the government agencies.
|
On December 11 2016 03:05 Tachion wrote:
Is anyone still skeptical that Russia was involved at all? Between the department of homeland security, the office of the director of national intelligence, the NSA, and the CIA confirming Russian interference, is there any doubt left to be had?
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not quite sure what the big deal is supposed to be or why this would have to be leaked?
|
It would be quite backwards of Russia to exert self-control over a matter as important to them as getting the first American president friendly to the Putin regime, yet not be able to help themselves to use these tools to retaliate against the tiniest of slights. Such as when they took down a bunch of websites of Estonian institutions and media because Estonia dared move a Soviet statue. Or this year, not long after their state-run doping was disclosed they hacked WADA and released some of their data about American athletes. Among many other such incidents. So I don't think it's a question of whether they would, but whether they could.
Then there was that Wikileaks AMA several days after the election where they unwittingly admitted that any state actor or private group can use them as a disseminating tool and they'd have no way of knowing who or why. Their entire protocol is designed to make them a useful idiot. But this would work just as well for someone unaffiliated with Russia, the only thing this information does is make their initial denial that it was Russia worthless.
I do think it's very likely that it was them, but what difference does it make? Whether it was a foreign government or a random hacker doing it, the same issues need to be solved. Technological illiteracy at the highest level of politics that makes the jobs of whoever wants to steal that information far too easy, and logical illiteracy among the general population that allows millions to jump from a contextless mention of a pizza place straight to 'it's gotta be cannibalism and pedophilia' or from the contextless mention of a pool straight to 'it's gotta be an assassination'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
