3 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoIf 30 helens agreed, it would be a different case.
- res0nat0r 10y agoBut they aren't just relying on a single report from a private security company, where did you assume that?
- elif 10y agohttps://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 agoAlso, 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.