CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does not bother you that they went from "We have no links between hackers and russian government" to " We are now sure Putin was leading the team of hackers" in a matter of days?
Let's wait for electoral college voting, shell we?

A complete misstatement of the situation. The formal statement on the Russian connection was months ago, and the FBI and CIA were investigating well before that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cia-director-john-brennan-russian-hacking/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...cuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html?_r=0

Yeah, talk about bullshit. The Russian connection was several months ago. So now what we have corrected Barbos on the timeline, I'm certain he'll adjust his viewpoint.

 

[Axulus]

Barbos,

So because the CIA made some mistakes in the past, it is impossible for them to ever be right? And because it paints Russia in a negative light, they must be lying?

That's the extent of your argument?

 

[barbos]

It does not bother you that they went from "We have no links between hackers and russian government" to " We are now sure Putin was leading the team of hackers" in a matter of days?
Let's wait for electoral college voting, shell we?

A complete misstatement of the situation. The formal statement on the Russian connection was months ago, and the FBI and CIA were investigating well before that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cia-director-john-brennan-russian-hacking/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...cuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html?_r=0

Accuse=! "we have evidence russian hackers were there"
they went from "We have no links between hackers and russian government" to " We are now sure Putin was leading the team of hackers" in a matter of days

Barbos,

So because the CIA made some mistakes in the past, it is impossible for them to ever be right? And because it paints Russia in a negative light, they must be lying?

That's the extent of your argument?

I just find it very suspicious and very hard to believe, and so should any rational person.

 

[Deepak]

A complete misstatement of the situation. The formal statement on the Russian connection was months ago, and the FBI and CIA were investigating well before that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cia-director-john-brennan-russian-hacking/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...cuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html?_r=0

Accuse=! "we have evidence russian hackers were there"
they went from "We have no links between hackers and russian government" to " We are now sure Putin was leading the team of hackers" in a matter of days

The publicly available evidence has been posted multiple times already, which was from non-governmental analysts and corroborated by their professional competitors, and the CIA likely has additional evidence. Your sophism is neither convincing or an argument. Equivocating like you are between 'proof beyond a doubt of your unstated specification', and 'no evidence' is the sort of mental gymnastics anti-evolutionists engage in.

But do continue with the insinuation based non-arguments, lacking any countervailing evidence or explanation, and essentially rewording "I don't like it" dozens of different ways as if it's actually convincing anyone who isn't already on your side.

 

[barbos]

Accuse=! "we have evidence russian hackers were there"
they went from "We have no links between hackers and russian government" to " We are now sure Putin was leading the team of hackers" in a matter of days

The publicly available evidence has been posted multiple times already, which was from non-governmental analysts and corroborated by their professional competitors,

You mean stuff like that russian bank links to Trump? I am sorry but I am too competent to believe obvious bullshit.

and the CIA likely has additional evidence. Your sophism is neither convincing or an argument. Equivocating like you are between 'proof beyond a doubt of your unstated specification', and 'no evidence' is the sort of mental gymnastics anti-evolutionists engage in.

Yeah, CIA is getting evidence by the minutes now and update their twitter.

But do continue with the insinuation based non-arguments, lacking any countervailing evidence or explanation, and essentially rewording "I don't like it" dozens of different ways as if it's actually convincing anyone who isn't already on your side.

Look, Trump is a terrible person and will be terrible president, but you elected him, not Russia.

 

[Deepak]

QED

 

[tupac chopra]

Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking

This article makes several assertions about the hack, such as that a Russian email account was used that a Russian server was used It also makes some other caims with out clear references, such as that the name of a GRU official was in the data.

Does anyone following know if these assertions can be verified?

1/ The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?

2/ If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned killchain2server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?

3/ Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?

Maybe it's the "reverse reverse". where they put really clumsy obvious stuff in on purpose to make it look like it can't possibly be them.

 

[barbos]

Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking

This article makes several assertions about the hack, such as that a Russian email account was used that a Russian server was used It also makes some other caims with out clear references, such as that the name of a GRU official was in the data.

Does anyone following know if these assertions can be verified?

1/ The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?

2/ If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned killchain2server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?

3/ Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?

Maybe it's the "reverse reverse". where they put really clumsy obvious stuff in on purpose to make it look like it can't possibly be them.

Could be. or not, either way this can't be evidence of anything.

Having said that, insistence on poor and possibly fabricated evidence (as in the case of Trump-Russian bank) is an evidence of agenda.

 

[tupac chopra]

Could be. or not, either way this can't be evidence of anything.

Might be evidence they are trying to confuse us. I think these "intelligence" agencies put out so much disinformation that no one can be sure what happened most of the time

 

[barbos]

Could be. or not, either way this can't be evidence of anything.

Might be evidence they are trying to confuse us.

I understood you the first time.

I think these "intelligence" agencies put out so much disinformation that no one can be sure what happened most of the time

That's assuming there were "intelligence" agencies in the fist place.
The unpleasant fact here is that DNC were trying to screw Bernie. And I bet there were some people in DNC who knew that and were not happy about it. Yet CIA media keep ignoring this much simpler explanation. It's so much more convenient to blame Jews Russians for everything, don't you think?

 

[Will Wiley]

I rest my case

 

[whichphilosophy]

link

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.

Sure, this is hardly proof and end-game stuff, but it is a major potential revelation.

Now this wouldn't be as big of a deal, if Trump wasn't forming the most pro/comfy Russia cabinet in our history. Republicans want to investigate the leak, but I think some are starting to get scared as to where it would lead.

High Certainty no where approximates indefeasible proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt). Where would an investigation lead to? It will lead to nowhere without any proof.
Of course the Russians hack. However the election was lost by Hilary not won by the Russians.

If the Russians wanted to rig American elections it would suggest that Obama would have lost.

 

[Deepak]

Of course the Russians hack.

And so that's an acceptable state of affairs then?

And I'd argue that 'indefeasible proof' is almost always a turn of phrase which stands in for high certainty, in all but the most basic examples of fact. Nothing requiring anything which could be called an investigation of any empirical subject is 100% certain.

 

[barbos]

Of course the Russians hack.

And so that's an acceptable state of affairs then?

And I'd argue that 'indefeasible proof' is almost always a turn of phrase which stands in for high certainty, in all but the most basic examples of fact. Nothing requiring anything which could be called an investigation of any empirical subject is 100% certain.

You appear to forget about Snowden.

 

[Axulus]

I just find it very suspicious and very hard to believe, and so should any rational person.

What is so suspicious about it? It makes perfect since why Putin and the Russian government would both want to help Trump and also slowly undermine the liberal democratic system which they are staunchly opposed to. It represents the biggest threat to their stranglehold on power.

 

[barbos]

I just find it very suspicious and very hard to believe, and so should any rational person.

What is so suspicious about it? It makes perfect since why Putin and the Russian government would both want to help Trump and also slowly undermine the liberal democratic system which they are staunchly opposed to. It represents the biggest threat to their stranglehold on power.

I already told you what I find suspicious, and it's not what you just said.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course the Russians hack.

And so that's an acceptable state of affairs then?

And I'd argue that 'indefeasible proof' is almost always a turn of phrase which stands in for high certainty, in all but the most basic examples of fact. Nothing requiring anything which could be called an investigation of any empirical subject is 100% certain.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser which developed from the concept of having to disprove a negative.
Let the accuser present the conclusive evidence to close the issue, but one should not hold their breath.
What we do know is Russia and the US are always trying to spy on each other.

- - - Updated - - -

And so that's an acceptable state of affairs then?

And I'd argue that 'indefeasible proof' is almost always a turn of phrase which stands in for high certainty, in all but the most basic examples of fact. Nothing requiring anything which could be called an investigation of any empirical subject is 100% certain.

You appear to forget about Snowden.

Evidence is leaked but that in itself is evidence which may or may not contribute to the conclusion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Assange and Snowden say it wasn't the Russians. They have credibility.

 

[Toni]

Assange and Snowden say it wasn't the Russians. They have credibility.

And zero axes to grind...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Assange and Snowden say it wasn't the Russians. They have credibility.

And zero axes to grind...

Too funny! And you're sarcasm is absolutely appropriate!