7 ms·

The report seems to present lots of conclusions to controversial issues (like the hacking) but it provides zero evidence for these conclusions. The little that

by Veratyr 10y ago

The report seems to present lots of conclusions to controversial issues (like the hacking) but it provides zero evidence for these conclusions. The little that's backed up by evidence in there is Russia's public propaganda efforts, like Russia Today, which aren't really anything new (though certainly interesting). What's controversial is the hacking and I haven't seen anything that attributes the hacks to Russia beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence was taken to a US court and put before a judge and jury, I don't believe a prosecutor could get a conviction. I understand that the US wouldn't want to give up its intelligence sources but I also don't think that the people of the US should let the government make foreign policy decisions based on hidden evidence. That's how Iraq happened.

stemc43 10y ago
Iraq war happened because US wanted oil and this so called bad evidence was nothing more than a trick to still looks good. As In "I wouldnt have done this if I knew". No-no - they would still have done it no matter what.
sirakov 10y ago
Where does the report mention hacking? I did a ctfl F but was not able to find anything.
- elemenopy 10y ago
  Page 2 (or p. 12 of the PDF): > In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
  - sirakov 10y ago
    Thanks! I see it now. Wouldn't be surprised if they just had a mole in the DNC anyway. It only takes one secretary or manager with email access.
cloudwalking 10y ago
Isn't that how most foreign policy works? The WoMD fiasco was a problem for sure, but the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust. When the White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must be acted on, the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is enough evidence to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see fit.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  > Isn't that how most foreign policy works? It's how foreign policy has worked in the past but I think it's demonstrated that it's not how foreign policy should work in the future. > the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust. That seems incredibly unlikely to happen. US elections seem to be mostly decided by who has the most political capital and media support rather than trustworthiness or merit. > When the White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must be acted on, the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is enough evidence to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see fit. I'd agree that this is the case but I don't think that the agencies themselves can be trusted anymore. The head of the NSA told a blatant lie in front of Congress and worse, got away with it. There's no accountability anymore so I don't think trust is wise. I think the US as a country can only function when the people trust the government, the government respects the people and the people within the government trust and respect each other. None of these things are currently the case and I suspect things are only going to get worse. What that will cause I have no idea.
  - jwtadvice2 10y ago
    "Trust But Verify"
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  Trust people who used IRS as a weapon against Tea Party affiliated groups?
idm 10y ago
> This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  > The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. They responded to it yes but they haven't resolved the issue I raised, which is that I'm not going to trust their conclusions without seeing verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court and that I don't think anyone else should accept their claims either. > Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy. According to [0]: "You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove." I'm saying that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. How is that fallacious? [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
  - idm 10y ago
    You asked for: > verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court And yourlogicalfallacyis.com says: > to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. I would also mention "moving the goalposts" but I'm happy to leave this as "burden of proof."
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    OK, you don't trust it but they're not going to burn their sources and methods in a public report. Do you seriously expect them to voluntarily expose their assets when it could be a death sentence for their human sources? A future executive might make that decision and live with the consequences, but members of the intelligence community aren't going to voluntarily wreck their networks.
  - rustyPipe 10y ago
lawless321 10y ago
If the evidence was taken to a US court and put before a judge and jury they would probably have to show them the classified bits too.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Usually in situations like that it either goes to a special court or the judge reviews it alone and then instructs the jury to take certain facts for granted. This might sound odd but it's actually very common - if both sides in a case agree about certain facts then they are 'stipulated' and become binding matters of fact that are not subject to challenge or review later.
quirkafleeg 10y ago
The irony of Hillary losing because of some kind of interference by Putin is that he's only in a position to do so because her husband and other Americans interfered in the Russian presidential election 20 years earlier in support of Putin's mentor, against a Communist Party that was virtually certain to win (and by some accounts did). Nobody seems to be losing any sleep over that one though.
- jwtadvice2 10y ago
  The analysis had no finding on the effect of the leaked emails on the general election. Indeed, all of the political analysts who are tasked with determining this have not made this claim. In fact political analysts - knowing about the illuminated political corruption in the Democratic Party - still assessed that Clinton would win, and by a landslide. Basically, it may be the case that Clinton lost the election because of this. It's not likely, and I know of no scholarly study making the claim that that's the case: including the intelligence community. But I think what you said is absolutely right. Putin is only in power today because of political meddling that goes back decades. This kind of political meddling is nothing fantastically new. Though I fear we are on an escalatory trajectory. Hopefully Russia and the United States (and China!) can keep the peace and cool the state competition.

by Veratyr 10y ago

stemc43 10y ago

Iraq war happened because US wanted oil and this so called bad evidence was nothing more than a trick to still looks good. As In "I wouldnt have done this if I knew". No-no - they would still have done it no matter what.

sirakov 10y ago

Where does the report mention hacking? I did a ctfl F but was not able to find anything.

elemenopy 10y ago
Page 2 (or p. 12 of the PDF): > In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
- sirakov 10y ago
  Thanks! I see it now. Wouldn't be surprised if they just had a mole in the DNC anyway. It only takes one secretary or manager with email access.

cloudwalking 10y ago

Isn't that how most foreign policy works? The WoMD fiasco was a problem for sure, but the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust. When the White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must be acted on, the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is enough evidence to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see fit.

Veratyr 10y ago
> Isn't that how most foreign policy works? It's how foreign policy has worked in the past but I think it's demonstrated that it's not how foreign policy should work in the future. > the solution to that is to elect officials we can trust. That seems incredibly unlikely to happen. US elections seem to be mostly decided by who has the most political capital and media support rather than trustworthiness or merit. > When the White House says the CIA has come to them with evidence that must be acted on, the White House can't turn to the populous and ask if there is enough evidence to act. They need to have the autonomy to act as they see fit. I'd agree that this is the case but I don't think that the agencies themselves can be trusted anymore. The head of the NSA told a blatant lie in front of Congress and worse, got away with it. There's no accountability anymore so I don't think trust is wise. I think the US as a country can only function when the people trust the government, the government respects the people and the people within the government trust and respect each other. None of these things are currently the case and I suspect things are only going to get worse. What that will cause I have no idea.
- jwtadvice2 10y ago
  "Trust But Verify"
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Trust people who used IRS as a weapon against Tea Party affiliated groups?

idm 10y ago

> This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy.

Veratyr 10y ago
> The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. They responded to it yes but they haven't resolved the issue I raised, which is that I'm not going to trust their conclusions without seeing verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court and that I don't think anyone else should accept their claims either. > Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy. According to [0]: "You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove." I'm saying that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. How is that fallacious? [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
- idm 10y ago
  You asked for: > verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court And yourlogicalfallacyis.com says: > to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. I would also mention "moving the goalposts" but I'm happy to leave this as "burden of proof."
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  OK, you don't trust it but they're not going to burn their sources and methods in a public report. Do you seriously expect them to voluntarily expose their assets when it could be a death sentence for their human sources? A future executive might make that decision and live with the consequences, but members of the intelligence community aren't going to voluntarily wreck their networks.
- rustyPipe 10y ago

lawless321 10y ago

If the evidence was taken to a US court and put before a judge and jury they would probably have to show them the classified bits too.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Usually in situations like that it either goes to a special court or the judge reviews it alone and then instructs the jury to take certain facts for granted. This might sound odd but it's actually very common - if both sides in a case agree about certain facts then they are 'stipulated' and become binding matters of fact that are not subject to challenge or review later.

quirkafleeg 10y ago

The irony of Hillary losing because of some kind of interference by Putin is that he's only in a position to do so because her husband and other Americans interfered in the Russian presidential election 20 years earlier in support of Putin's mentor, against a Communist Party that was virtually certain to win (and by some accounts did). Nobody seems to be losing any sleep over that one though.

jwtadvice2 10y ago
The analysis had no finding on the effect of the leaked emails on the general election. Indeed, all of the political analysts who are tasked with determining this have not made this claim. In fact political analysts - knowing about the illuminated political corruption in the Democratic Party - still assessed that Clinton would win, and by a landslide. Basically, it may be the case that Clinton lost the election because of this. It's not likely, and I know of no scholarly study making the claim that that's the case: including the intelligence community. But I think what you said is absolutely right. Putin is only in power today because of political meddling that goes back decades. This kind of political meddling is nothing fantastically new. Though I fear we are on an escalatory trajectory. Hopefully Russia and the United States (and China!) can keep the peace and cool the state competition.