4 ms·
> Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons? I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons". > Num
by dmichulke 10y ago
> Why do you specifically limit the burden of proof with the FBI and the Clintons?
I don't understand the "and", I specifically wrote "FBI or Clintons".
> Numerous independent cybersecurity firms and experts have already said Guccifer 2.0 is linked to two Russian intelligence agencies
Many of them refer to [1], a post that I wasn't aware of (seriously, I just read claims from politicians whereever I went)
[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
- bduerst 10y agoAnd by saying "or" you're limiting it to either of those two parties, even though numerous other people have already weighed in on the situation.
- dmichulke 10y agoOK, so I think this was a misunderstanding. I just "Clinton or the FBI" because those two were mentioned earlier but by no means it was meant to be an exclusive list. Since they are the "plaintiffs" I was (and am) assuming it's their duty to come up with evidence but this doesn't at all exclude evidence from third parties. Honestly, I would like to see a thorough discussion about what is probably true and what not. In the media I only hear "It's them", "No, it wasn't us", "Yes, it was!", ... Apart from that there is always a grain of doubt when it comes to enemies of the state (Putin, Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, ...) because more often than not "Our sources confirm that ..." don't come with any evidence at all.