8 ms·

> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and

> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction that is not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. I've critiqued that document before on HN, but the bottom line is that it was an extremely amateurish and embarrassing hodge podge of pasted-in boilerplate, wild speculation, and hand waving that intentionally blurred the line between all sorts of disconnected things and attempted to present a narrative of a Russian conspiracy. But it all rests on trusting the agencies who concocted such an embarrassing document. We're told that the proof was redacted for security reasons, but I think that such grandiose claims ought to be accompanied by at least the tiniest bit of non-circumstantial evidence. Note that HRC supporters (and McCain, as is often the case) were chest-pounding and calling for war. I think a bit of skepticism is in order considering that it wasn't long ago that we were misled into another very costly war.

willstrafach 10y ago
The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements. > not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
  - willstrafach 10y ago
    Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence. True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
    - grandalf 10y ago
unclebucknasty 10y ago
I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here. I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding. And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods? >But it all rests on trusting the agencies No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on. Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?
- grandalf 10y ago
  > you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods? Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people. We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it. You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us. > Via raw common sense alone, The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome. I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.

willstrafach 10y ago

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify some of the evidence used to create their judgements. > not the typical product of intelligence analysis under any circumstances. This statement is untrue. That release is absolutely what an Intelligence Community Assessment looks like. Other declassified ICAs are public, so you do not even need to take my word for it.

grandalf 10y ago
> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly acting at the behest of the Russian government. In order to be credible, the analysis would have to offer a sense of what Russia/Putin's alleged strategic mindset was. How did he benefit from the overwhelmingly likely event that HRC got elected and revelations that Russia meddled came out? One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over. It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified version only had open source evidence. In combination with the fact that the general public is not going to know how exactly to read an ICA or read between the lines, the release was not very helpful, as it understandably lead many to think that they were presenting their full case, rather than the reality of "evidence is too sensitive so here is some analysis of RT!" being what they put in the ICA. Definitely not a good strategy, as I said, this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence. True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.
  - grandalf 10y ago

unclebucknasty 10y ago

I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here. I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the specific purview of all agencies, however, the united front represented the intelligence community coalescing around this finding. And, you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods? >But it all rests on trusting the agencies No. It actually doesn't. You look at all of the other evidence and ask whether the agencies' explanation is plausible in that context. The strange affinty that Trump has for Putin, the inexplicable modification of key RNC platform elements in favor of Putin, the telegraphing of lifting sanctions, the connections and contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the lying about said contacts, the entire Wikileaks operation, and on and on. Via raw common sense alone, it is actually difficult to believe any other conclusion except that found by our intelligence agencies. What are you suggesting, that we instead believe Russian denials? Or that we believe some conspiracy theory that HRC was directing the intelligence agencies or they otherwise went rogue to elect her by making up a conclusion that happened to make perfect sense, and which many observers had already reached?

grandalf 10y ago
> you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods? Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people. We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it. You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us. > Via raw common sense alone, The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome. I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.