CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[Elixir]

Consensus can only be validated with the facts and sequence of events

Thank you for the sophomoric tautology. The fact as found is that Russia did its best to interfere in the US election. Why that continues to put your panties in a wad is beyond me. Even more mysterious is why you would expect US intelligence agencies to look the other way, lest further facts cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's "victory".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Consensus can only be validated with the facts and sequence of events

Thank you for the sophomoric tautology. The fact as found is that Russia did its best to interfere in the US election. Why that continues to put your panties in a wad is beyond me. Even more mysterious is why you would expect US intelligence agencies to look the other way, lest further facts cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's "victory".

Don't be such a drama queen, It's not clear how you concluded this from the clear responses I provided.
Did its best to interfere does not answer it. This is because an investigation should establish that someone was interfered with. There''s also no proof that Trump and Putin gave each other a long French Kiss, but in this case we can wait to see what happens after he takes office, unless there is a coup d'état or something.

US intelligence shouldn't look the other way but look into it without making claims which have not yet been established.

 

[Elixir]

Thank you for the sophomoric tautology. The fact as found is that Russia did its best to interfere in the US election. Why that continues to put your panties in a wad is beyond me. Even more mysterious is why you would expect US intelligence agencies to look the other way, lest further facts cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's "victory".

an investigation should establish that someone was interfered with

Thank you for telling us what an investigation should do in your opinion. Please share with the US intelligence community - I'm sure they would shower you with effusive gratitude.

US intelligence shouldn't look the other way but look into it without making claims which have not yet been established.

They make claims that are established to their satisfaction, not yours. I know that really bothers you, since like so many of us, you consider your satisfaction to be of paramount importance.
Go ahead and make the case, since you are so good at telling people what "should" be, that they should be establishing their claims to the satisfaction of foreign national non-entities with obvious alt-right proclivities.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting turnabout by Trump. While not saying it outright, the final statement clearly indicates that it is a concession that Russians hacked the DNC.

While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.

Kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth, leads open with the same ole, same ole, but then hops to a strawman. "No effect" on the outcome? Sure the fuck there was an effect. Just because the election wasn't "rigged" (hacked machines) doesn't mean the leaks had no impact.

 

[Elixir]

Interesting turnabout by Trump. While not saying it outright, the final statement clearly indicates that it is a concession that Russians hacked the DNC.

While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.

Kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth, leads open with the same ole, same ole, but then hops to a strawman. "No effect" on the outcome? Sure the fuck there was an effect. Just because the election wasn't "rigged" (hacked machines) doesn't mean the leaks had no impact.

Regarding the bolded statement... I'd ask our trumpsuckers to consider asking themselves who exactly, would KNOW that there was "no effect on the outcome"? The only possible answer is "someone who was complicit in the effort".

 

[whichphilosophy]

an investigation should establish that someone was interfered with

Thank you for telling us what an investigation should do in your opinion. Please share with the US intelligence community - I'm sure they would shower you with effusive gratitude.

US intelligence shouldn't look the other way but look into it without making claims which have not yet been established.

They make claims that are established to their satisfaction, not yours. I know that really bothers you, since like so many of us, you consider your satisfaction to be of paramount importance.
Go ahead and make the case, since you are so good at telling people what "should" be, that they should be establishing their claims to the satisfaction of foreign national non-entities with obvious alt-right proclivities.

Your welcome.
The fact that the Intelligence Services stated that the US is being hacked is a known fact and does not need an investigation. As I quoted the US government receives 10,000,000 attacks a year. Nothing has gone beyond this no brainer.

They need to go on further to provide back up to provide confirmation that the Russians and hacked particular Democrat files and demonstrate how this cost Hilary the election. The results must show the route the information travelled and how particular information actually changed the course of the election.
The test of validity is whether such evidence could stand up in a US court room.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting turnabout by Trump. While not saying it outright, the final statement clearly indicates that it is a concession that Russians hacked the DNC.


Kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth, leads open with the same ole, same ole, but then hops to a strawman. "No effect" on the outcome? Sure the fuck there was an effect. Just because the election wasn't "rigged" (hacked machines) doesn't mean the leaks had no impact.

Regarding the bolded statement... I'd ask our trumpsuckers to consider asking themselves who exactly, would KNOW that there was "no effect on the outcome"? The only possible answer is "someone who was complicit in the effort".

Since no one has provided evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

 

[Elixir]

Regarding the bolded statement... I'd ask our trumpsuckers to consider asking themselves who exactly, would KNOW that there was "no effect on the outcome"? The only possible answer is "someone who was complicit in the effort".

Since no one has provided ME evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

FIFY. But you're still tilting at windmills, dude. I guess you couldn't find anyone to read it to you last time I stated in bold print that nobody is making the assertion (I am certainly not) that you keep whining about. I guess you're unable to address the points that are actually being made, so you argue against points that are not being made. It's called TROLLING.

 

[Elixir]

Thank you for telling us what an investigation should do in your opinion. Please share with the US intelligence community - I'm sure they would shower you with effusive gratitude.

US intelligence shouldn't look the other way but look into it without making claims which have not yet been established.

They make claims that are established to their satisfaction, not yours. I know that really bothers you, since like so many of us, you consider your satisfaction to be of paramount importance.
Go ahead and make the case, since you are so good at telling people what "should" be, that they should be establishing their claims to the satisfaction of foreign national non-entities with obvious alt-right proclivities.

The fact that the Intelligence Services stated that the US is being hacked is a known fact and does not need an investigation.

PUH-LEEZE - stop trolling. What the intel services stated is not under investigation. It is the hacking that is under investigation.

They need to go on further to provide back up to provide confirmation...

No, they don't need to provide YOU anything, troll. There seems to be no point in trying to get you to understand that your satisfaction is of no concern to anyone who matters in this affair. C'est la vie - I won't be feeding your need for self aggrandizement any more...

 

[Will Wiley]

 

[Horatio Parker]

Since no one has provided evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

Is Russian hacking, assuming it's so, a threat only if it can be proved to your satisfaction that it influenced the election?

Unsuccessful attempts to influence the election don't count?

 

[Elixir]

Since no one has provided evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

Is Russian hacking, assuming it's so, a threat only if it can be proved to your satisfaction that it influenced the election?

Unsuccessful attempts to influence the election don't count?

Not if you're an alt-right European who subscribes to a faux "religion" whose founder has announced that foudning a religion is a great money making scam.

 

[Will Wiley]

Since no one has provided evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

Is Russian hacking, assuming it's so, a threat only if it can be proved to your satisfaction that it influenced the election?

Unsuccessful attempts to influence the election don't count?

There are so many threats that can't be proven. That's why it's important to have so many intelligence agencies run by paranoid fantasists.

That's why it's important to send your young men to die in wars you never win. It all makes sense.

Are Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction only a threat when you can prove they exist? Or are they are threat when someone lies and tells you they exist?

 

[bilby]

Is Russian hacking, assuming it's so, a threat only if it can be proved to your satisfaction that it influenced the election?

Unsuccessful attempts to influence the election don't count?

There are so many threats that can't be proven. That's why it's important to have so many intelligence agencies run by paranoid fantasists.

Perhaps you should start your own.

 

[Elixir]

View attachment 9366

*someone* is very impressed with an unscientific poll of <12,000 people of unknown selection... in fact he is spamming it across multiple threads.
Another candidate for The Home For The Easily Amused ...

 

[Horatio Parker]

There are so many threats that can't be proven. That's why it's important to have so many intelligence agencies run by paranoid fantasists.

That's why it's important to send your young men to die in wars you never win. It all makes sense.

Are Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction only a threat when you can prove they exist? Or are they are threat when someone lies and tells you they exist?

I don't see why that's any less true for Russia than the US.

 

[Will Wiley]

There are so many threats that can't be proven. That's why it's important to have so many intelligence agencies run by paranoid fantasists.

That's why it's important to send your young men to die in wars you never win. It all makes sense.

Are Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction only a threat when you can prove they exist? Or are they are threat when someone lies and tells you they exist?

I don't see why that's any less true for Russia than the US.

And.....?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since no one has provided ME evidence to establish the Russians influenced the election, there is no reason to claim the outcome of the election is affected.

FIFY. But you're still tilting at windmills, dude. I guess you couldn't find anyone to read it to you last time I stated in bold print that nobody is making the assertion (I am certainly not) that you keep whining about. I guess you're unable to address the points that are actually being made, so you argue against points that are not being made. It's called TROLLING.

I shall take the legal doctrine (Causation) regarding the fact that Russia is accused of something criminal but this effectively applies to any standard of proof.

Causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect with no interruption in the chain of events. It is defined as the actus reus (an action) back from a specific harm which is also includes mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt.

Here is a definition here:

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Causation-in-criminal-liability.php

I will also add the but for test which relates to English Case Law in R vs White [1910] 2KB 124



R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the intention of killing her. The mother took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.

So once it is established that Russia was hacking as it seems to be doing non stop anyway, the next step is to see whether as a result of the hacking the Democrats lost the election.
However there is still dispute (e.g. Assage) who says that the information received by Wikileaks was not from a Russian source. Maybe this source received this from a Russian source.

There used to be some legally trained or certainly legally minded persons such as J-D who understood the legal concepts involved in US and English law. I haven't seen them posting. They would have provided some interesting comments

It's not enough to make statements. There must be clear proof and the chain of events should be clearly traced from the result to the cause.[/I][/I][/I][/U][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I]

We know Russia has been engaged in widespread hacking on a large scale, but so has the USA, China, UK and other countries. In addition there are also numerous independent hackers.

The question however is:
What was the hacked data which when used did clearly alter the course of the US elections?
How was it established that such data altered the results of the US elections?

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 9366

*someone* is very impressed with an unscientific poll of <12,000 people of unknown selection... in fact he is spamming it across multiple threads.
Another candidate for The Home For The Easily Amused ...

A lack of full investigation leads to speculation.

 

[Will Wiley]

delete