5 ms·

Unfortunately for this we aren't going to get some 1080p video of someone in a mask sneaking into the DNC server room, just the fact that the 17 agencies all ag

Unfortunately for this we aren't going to get some 1080p video of someone in a mask sneaking into the DNC server room, just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case. Unfortunately everyone these days think everything is a conspiracy or has to have HD recordings of something they think happened as public evidence or it is false, but that's not how the world really works...

NoGravitas 10y ago
The thing is, "17 agencies agree" doesn't really mean anything, if the evidence that all 17 agencies are relying on is a single report from a private security company hired by the DNC, and not independent investigation. If all of those agencies had looked at the original evidence themselves, the story would be different.
- rev_null 10y ago
  If 30 helens agreed, it would be a different case.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  But they aren't just relying on a single report from a private security company, where did you assume that?
  - elif 10y ago
    https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-woul... fun fact, it is the same private company the government paid for evidence that North Korea (yeah, right) was responsible for the sony hack.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  Also, the "17 agencies" statement came from James Clapper, and not individually issued from each of the agencies themselves. It also bears mentioning that the "17 agencies" include groups that I really, really doubt bothered to investigate ANYTHING to do with a politician getting his emails hacked - do people actually believe that the coast guard was tracking down Russian hackers after DNC secrets? What about the department of energy? These are some of the "17 agencies" mentioned.
alasdair_ 10y ago
>" just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case." This simply isn't true. The whole "17 agencies" thing is a talking point that first came up in one of Hillary Clinton's debates and gets repeated without challenge. The "17 agencies" didn't all independently make their own assesments about what happened and decided it was the Russians. Instead, James Clapper (at the time, the Director of National Intelligence) made the claim that the Russians were behind certain hacks. Clapper is the ultimate head of sixteen out of seventeen of the agencies. The actual agencies involved include parts of the coast guard and the department of energy and other groups that seem REALLY unlikely to have conducted an in-depth, independent investigation into the hacking of a politician's emails. Also, this is the same James Clapper who lied under oath to congress. Specifically, when asked “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.” Wyden asked “It does not?” and Clapper said, “Not wittingly." This is perjury and he should have been prosecuted for it. At a minimum, lying under oath makes it less likely that anything else he claims should be taken at face value.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  He wasn't going to out a secret program in a public hearing. The folks asking the questions had security clearance and could have asked the question during a classified briefing but they chose not to.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    That doesn't make perjury legal.
    - res0nat0r 10y ago
      If grandstanding to out a secret program when he knew the answer and was supposed to be asking that question in private I'd say it was fine, and it seems everyone else thought so also hence no charges.
      - 10y ago

NoGravitas 10y ago

The thing is, "17 agencies agree" doesn't really mean anything, if the evidence that all 17 agencies are relying on is a single report from a private security company hired by the DNC, and not independent investigation. If all of those agencies had looked at the original evidence themselves, the story would be different.

rev_null 10y ago
If 30 helens agreed, it would be a different case.
res0nat0r 10y ago
But they aren't just relying on a single report from a private security company, where did you assume that?
- elif 10y ago
  https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-woul... fun fact, it is the same private company the government paid for evidence that North Korea (yeah, right) was responsible for the sony hack.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
alasdair_ 10y ago
Also, the "17 agencies" statement came from James Clapper, and not individually issued from each of the agencies themselves. It also bears mentioning that the "17 agencies" include groups that I really, really doubt bothered to investigate ANYTHING to do with a politician getting his emails hacked - do people actually believe that the coast guard was tracking down Russian hackers after DNC secrets? What about the department of energy? These are some of the "17 agencies" mentioned.

alasdair_ 10y ago

>" just the fact that the 17 agencies all agree based on what they've seen believe that to be the case." This simply isn't true. The whole "17 agencies" thing is a talking point that first came up in one of Hillary Clinton's debates and gets repeated without challenge. The "17 agencies" didn't all independently make their own assesments about what happened and decided it was the Russians. Instead, James Clapper (at the time, the Director of National Intelligence) made the claim that the Russians were behind certain hacks. Clapper is the ultimate head of sixteen out of seventeen of the agencies. The actual agencies involved include parts of the coast guard and the department of energy and other groups that seem REALLY unlikely to have conducted an in-depth, independent investigation into the hacking of a politician's emails. Also, this is the same James Clapper who lied under oath to congress. Specifically, when asked “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” He responded, “No, sir.” Wyden asked “It does not?” and Clapper said, “Not wittingly." This is perjury and he should have been prosecuted for it. At a minimum, lying under oath makes it less likely that anything else he claims should be taken at face value.

res0nat0r 10y ago
He wasn't going to out a secret program in a public hearing. The folks asking the questions had security clearance and could have asked the question during a classified briefing but they chose not to.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  That doesn't make perjury legal.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    If grandstanding to out a secret program when he knew the answer and was supposed to be asking that question in private I'd say it was fine, and it seems everyone else thought so also hence no charges.
    - 10y ago