CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[whichphilosophy]

The burden of proof rests with the accuser

Nobody has a burden to prove anything to YOU. Young earth creationists make similar demands when confronted with the actual age of the earth. They seem to think that if science can't prove the age of the earth to THEIR personal satisfaction, then their ignorance is just as good as anyone else's knowledge.
What I know is that numerous agencies, any one of which I'd consider more authoritative than your illustrious self, have, according to numerous mainstream media, reached a consensus that is contrary to your uninformed opinion of what happened. So whine and cry all you want, WP. Your opinion remains what it is: uninformed and at odds with the consensus opinions of those who are - or at least should be - more informed.

My view is there is no evidence of Putin's intervention. Those who asserted this have not found a Holy Grail yet and they are the ones who are bleating about it.
Opinion, or consensus of the sheeple are not in themselves established facts. So such ba-a-a-ah-d claims about Putin are still not established.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody has a burden to prove anything to YOU. Young earth creationists make similar demands when confronted with the actual age of the earth. They seem to think that if science can't prove the age of the earth to THEIR personal satisfaction, then their ignorance is just as good as anyone else's knowledge.
What I know is that numerous agencies, any one of which I'd consider more authoritative than your illustrious self, have, according to numerous mainstream media, reached a consensus that is contrary to your uninformed opinion of what happened. So whine and cry all you want, WP. Your opinion remains what it is: uninformed and at odds with the consensus opinions of those who are - or at least should be - more informed.

My view is there is no evidence of Putin's intervention.

As I have pointed out, your view is at odds with the consensus views of all of those who have actually SEEN the evidence. IOW, your view is without any merit.

Those who asserted this have not found a Holy Grail yet and they are the ones who are bleating about it.

Well, "they" found enough for 99 out of 100 members of the US senate to reach the same conclusion. Since you know so much more about it than they have been able to learn from their briefings (yes, unlike you, they have been briefed on the evidence, and that's why they all agree...), you should definitely share your great nollidge with them.

Opinion, or consensus of the sheeple are not in themselves established facts

So... the Senate is sheeple, but whichphilosophy is a vastly informed insider who is privy to every bit of intelligence that indicates Putin's attempt to get his puppet elected? Forgive me if I express my opinion that you are utterly full of shit.

claims about Putin are still not established to the satisfaction of whichphilosohy.

FIFY

 

[whichphilosophy]

My view is there is no evidence of Putin's intervention.

As I have pointed out, your view is at odds with the consensus views of all of those who have actually SEEN the evidence. IOW, your view is without any merit.

Those who asserted this have not found a Holy Grail yet and they are the ones who are bleating about it.

Well, "they" found enough for 99 out of 100 members of the US senate to reach the same conclusion. Since you know so much more about it than they have been able to learn from their briefings (yes, unlike you, they have been briefed on the evidence, and that's why they all agree...), you should definitely share your great nollidge with them.

Opinion, or consensus of the sheeple are not in themselves established facts

So... the Senate is sheeple, but whichphilosophy is a vastly informed insider who is privy to every bit of intelligence that indicates Putin's attempt to get his puppet elected? Forgive me if I express my opinion that you are utterly full of shit.

claims about Putin are still not established to the satisfaction of whichphilosohy.

FIFY

Then formal case begin and the 'indefeasible evidence' revealed to the public. What did they conclude including 17 intelligence agencies. They have a high confidence of cyber leaks to WIKI. High confidence does not mean definitely yes. What are the Democrats own documents that would somehow turn public opinion against the Democrats??

There again this may or may not be true but could be investigated since Wikileaks the source say the information was not from Russians

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hacked-dnc-leaks-insider-russia/

In what could only be described as a smashing development, a WikiLeaks insider now claims the hacked release of documents evincing massive corruption in the Democrat Party and collusion by corporate media presstitutes had nothing at all to do with Russia — but was, instead, the handiwork of disillusioned Democrat insiders.
Craig Murray, who served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004 — and is now a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange — told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Murray’s claims — given the current Red Scare atmosphere proffered by a hysterical neoliberal establishment — blow the roof off claims Russia undertook a steadied and insidious campaign to throw the United States’ presidential election in favor of hotly contentious candidate, Donald Trump.
Indeed, the former ambassador says the leaks were the work of a Washington, D.C., insider and had nothing at all to do with Russia, as the Democrats have so vociferously proclaimed.
Murray has even decried the lack of coverage of his allegations — unsurprisingly ignored by corporate media presstitutes proven in the leaks to have colluded with Hillary Clinton’s campaign — in a blog post explaining the utter lack of Russian connection to the hacks. As Murray penned:
“A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they ‘know the individuals’ involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of ‘We know who it was, it was the Russians’ are beneath contempt.
“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hacked-dnc-leaks-insider-russia/#tv0OX3Kp7SUYqAog.99

 

[barbos]

I can buy the theory that there is compelling evidence pointing to russian hackers. But I don't believe they have anything on Putin or Russian government, simply because Putin is not that dumb or careless. He simply does not operate in such a way that leaves hard evidence.
What was revealed and how it was revealed suggests that CIA has a nice hypothesis and no evidence at all, in fact they themselves even admitted having troubles getting evidence linking government to hackers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Cubans done it.

 

[Elixir]

I can buy the theory that there is compelling evidence pointing to russian hackers. But I don't believe they have anything on Putin or Russian government, simply because Putin is not that dumb or careless. He simply does not operate in such a way that leaves hard evidence.
What was revealed and how it was revealed suggests that CIA has a nice hypothesis and no evidence at all, in fact they themselves even admitted having troubles getting evidence linking government to hackers.

To me it suggests that they DO have evidence, but that it was obtained in a manner that would be given away if the exact nature of the evidence was revealed. I can't see 99 out of 100 US Senators reaching the same conclusion based on "no evidence at all".

 

[barbos]

I can buy the theory that there is compelling evidence pointing to russian hackers. But I don't believe they have anything on Putin or Russian government, simply because Putin is not that dumb or careless. He simply does not operate in such a way that leaves hard evidence.
What was revealed and how it was revealed suggests that CIA has a nice hypothesis and no evidence at all, in fact they themselves even admitted having troubles getting evidence linking government to hackers.

To me it suggests that they DO have evidence, but that it was obtained in a manner that would be given away if the exact nature of the evidence was revealed. I can't see 99 out of 100 US Senators reaching the same conclusion based on "no evidence at all".

it? what exactly this "it" is? US senators are not a gold standard of intelligence or impartiality.

 

[Elixir]

To me it suggests that they DO have evidence, but that it was obtained in a manner that would be given away if the exact nature of the evidence was revealed. I can't see 99 out of 100 US Senators reaching the same conclusion based on "no evidence at all".

it? what exactly this "it" is? US senators are not a gold standard of intelligence or impartiality.

"What was revealed and how it was revealed" suggests....

Better?

US Senators as a group may not have access to more information, or be possessed of greater intelligence or impartiality than say, YOU, or whichphilosophy.
Forgive me if I am not willing to take your word for it though...

 

[barbos]

it? what exactly this "it" is? US senators are not a gold standard of intelligence or impartiality.

"What was revealed and how it was revealed" suggests....

Better?

US Senators as a group may not have access to more information, or be possessed of greater intelligence or impartiality than say, YOU, or whichphilosophy.
Forgive me if I am not willing to take your word for it though...

So you base your conclusion on the fact that 99 senators bought CIA theory?
The same senators who "bought" CIA theory about WMD in Iraq.
I am sorry, but I have to go with what CIA said and and how they said it.

 

[Elixir]

"What was revealed and how it was revealed" suggests....

Better?

US Senators as a group may not have access to more information, or be possessed of greater intelligence or impartiality than say, YOU, or whichphilosophy.
Forgive me if I am not willing to take your word for it though...

So you base your conclusion on the fact that 99 senators bought CIA theory?
The same senators who "bought" CIA theory about WMD in Iraq. I am sorry, but I have to go with what CIA said and and how they said it.

Do you REALLY think they gave you all the same information that they gave to congress during their briefings?
I am always amazed by people who allege greater knowledge of classified information than those who have actual clearance...

 

[barbos]

So you base your conclusion on the fact that 99 senators bought CIA theory?
The same senators who "bought" CIA theory about WMD in Iraq. I am sorry, but I have to go with what CIA said and and how they said it.

Do you REALLY think they gave you all the same information that they gave to congress during their briefings?

Where do you get such stupid ideas that I would think that?
They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

 

[Elixir]

Do you REALLY think they gave you all the same information that they gave to congress during their briefings?

Where do you get such stupid ideas that I would think that?

From this:

They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

Obviously you (think you) know far more about the basis of their confidence level than anyone who was actually briefed.
When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

 

[barbos]

Where do you get such stupid ideas that I would think that?

From this:

They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

Obviously you (think you) know far more about the basis of their confidence level than anyone who was actually briefed.

Yes, that's correct and does not contradict with the fact that I was not at the briefing.
Funny story, It is not the first time I disagree with US senator who have had way more "information" than I. Yet, the senator turned out to be wrong, and I turned out to be 100% correct.

When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

I don't give a flying fuck about their consensus. Their consensus is meaningless if CIA is lying.

 

[Elixir]

Funny story, It is not the first time I disagree with US senator who have had way more "information" than I. Yet, the senator turned out to be wrong, and I turned out to be 100% correct.

THE senator? Oh wow.
Try 99 senators.

When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

I don't give a flying fuck about their consensus.

... or about their conclusion , or about the evidence leading to that conclusion. You are welcome to not give a fuck about all of the above, and I'll defend your right to your fact-free opinion to the death.

 

[barbos]

THE senator? Oh wow.
Try 99 senators.

I can assure you in that particular case it would not have made any difference.

When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

I don't give a flying fuck about their consensus.

... or about their conclusion , or about the evidence leading to that conclusion. You are welcome to not give a fuck about all of the above, and I'll defend your right to your fact-free opinion to the death.

I was given the same argument "You don't know all the facts, the senator have seen it with his own eyes and talked to experts you don't know about"
I am not fact free, I know enough facts to make a well "facted" judgment.

 

[Elixir]

I know enough facts to make a well "facted" judgment.

Yes, yes - of course you do. Were (are) you a birther too?
I sure wish I had access to all those great "facts" that lead you to unerring conclusions that are counter what 99 of 100 Senators concluded.

 

[barbos]

I know enough facts to make a well "facted" judgment.

Yes, yes - of course you do. Were (are) you a birther too?

No, I was not.

I sure wish I had access to all those great "facts" that lead you to unerring conclusions that are counter what 99 of 100 Senators concluded.

You do, you just not capable to process them well.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, yes - of course you do. Were (are) you a birther too?

No, I was not.

I sure wish I had access to all those great "facts" that lead you to unerring conclusions that are counter what 99 of 100 Senators concluded.

You do, you just not capable to process them well.

I bet there are a lot of people - senators and the like - studying at your feet in order to learn how to process information. :laughing-smiley-014

 

[barbos]

No, I was not.

I sure wish I had access to all those great "facts" that lead you to unerring conclusions that are counter what 99 of 100 Senators concluded.

You do, you just not capable to process them well.

I bet there are a lot of people - senators and the like - studying at your feet in order to learn how to process information. :laughing-smiley-014

No, but if you are implying that there are senators who can process IT related crap better than me you would be wrong. And I am not even IT guy, it's just they are so bad at it. That consensus is not based on presented facts, it rests on whether or not they trust CIA&Co as opposed to Putin&Co. And we all know who they trust.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where do you get such stupid ideas that I would think that?

From this:

They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

Obviously you (think you) know far more about the basis of their confidence level than anyone who was actually briefed.
When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

The consensus of 77 to 23 was meaningless given that the 77 were eventually shown to be wrong. This may apply to the 99

As I mentioned Wikileaks the source say the information was not from Russians which I shall repeat.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hac...nsider-russia/

In what could only be described as a smashing development, a WikiLeaks insider now claims the hacked release of documents evincing massive corruption in the Democrat Party and collusion by corporate media presstitutes had nothing at all to do with Russia — but was, instead, the handiwork of disillusioned Democrat insiders.
Craig Murray, who served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004 — and is now a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange — told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Murray’s claims — given the current Red Scare atmosphere proffered by a hysterical neoliberal establishment — blow the roof off claims Russia undertook a steadied and insidious campaign to throw the United States’ presidential election in favor of hotly contentious candidate, Donald Trump.
Indeed, the former ambassador says the leaks were the work of a Washington, D.C., insider and had nothing at all to do with Russia, as the Democrats have so vociferously proclaimed.

Therefore the Senate should not just rely on sources cherry picked for them and look at all the facts.