4 ms·

I wonder when the MSM will realize that nobody believes them when they say 'the Russians did it!' This article sounds like it came straight from the plot of an

by lj3 9y ago

I wonder when the MSM will realize that nobody believes them when they say 'the Russians did it!' This article sounds like it came straight from the plot of an 80's movie.

egwynn 9y ago
I don’t know what you mean by ‘it’, but you don’t need to take the word of ‘the MSM’ for it that Russia was trying to influence the election. Basically everyone in any high-level intelligence role has said they think Russia spent a good deal of time and effort on screwing around with the process.
- lj3 9y ago
  With absolutely no evidence to support it. On the other hand, we do have concrete evidence that the intelligence community can make their own attacks look like they came from Russia...
  - plugger 9y ago
    Oh, so you're privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter? Just because the evidence isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    - lj3 9y ago
      Everybody is privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter thanks to the many, many security leaks they've had in the past year. Nice attempt at the 'disqualify', though.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      Secret evidence is worthless. Without public evidence it's just an argument from authority, and the authorities in question have been quite obviously lying about other matters for years. Trusting people who have repeatedly broken your trust tends to be a poor idea. They might not be lying, but without evidence to the contrary it's best to ignore everything they say.
  - justinschuh 9y ago
    This argument is false on its face. There's overwhelming evidence in the Crowdstrike releases prior to the election[1]. And there's far more from them and at least half a dozen respected infosec firms. Literally any competent infosec practitioner who has looked at the evidence understands that Russian hacking activity was massively elevated in the run up to the election and explicitly targeted candidates and electoral functions. So, what are your motivations in disputing well established facts? Are you just choosing to be intentionally contrarian and happen to have stumbled into on a subject you know nothing about? Or do you have some stake in willfully misinforming people on this subject? [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-hunting-history-and-attribution-of-russian-intelligence-operations/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-huntin...
- Shivetya 9y ago
  The only election meddling that had an effect was the DNC insuring that no one could challenge the party choice. The fact they got caught and possibly because of Russian hacking is only possible claim that Russian meddling affected the election; they exposed the DNC for what it was.

by lj3 9y ago

I wonder when the MSM will realize that nobody believes them when they say 'the Russians did it!' This article sounds like it came straight from the plot of an 80's movie.

egwynn 9y ago

I don’t know what you mean by ‘it’, but you don’t need to take the word of ‘the MSM’ for it that Russia was trying to influence the election. Basically everyone in any high-level intelligence role has said they think Russia spent a good deal of time and effort on screwing around with the process.

lj3 9y ago
With absolutely no evidence to support it. On the other hand, we do have concrete evidence that the intelligence community can make their own attacks look like they came from Russia...
- plugger 9y ago
  Oh, so you're privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter? Just because the evidence isn't in the public domain doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  - lj3 9y ago
    Everybody is privy to the classified intel the IC has on the matter thanks to the many, many security leaks they've had in the past year. Nice attempt at the 'disqualify', though.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Secret evidence is worthless. Without public evidence it's just an argument from authority, and the authorities in question have been quite obviously lying about other matters for years. Trusting people who have repeatedly broken your trust tends to be a poor idea. They might not be lying, but without evidence to the contrary it's best to ignore everything they say.
- justinschuh 9y ago
  This argument is false on its face. There's overwhelming evidence in the Crowdstrike releases prior to the election[1]. And there's far more from them and at least half a dozen respected infosec firms. Literally any competent infosec practitioner who has looked at the evidence understands that Russian hacking activity was massively elevated in the run up to the election and explicitly targeted candidates and electoral functions. So, what are your motivations in disputing well established facts? Are you just choosing to be intentionally contrarian and happen to have stumbled into on a subject you know nothing about? Or do you have some stake in willfully misinforming people on this subject? [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-hunting-history-and-attribution-of-russian-intelligence-operations/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/crowdcasts/bear-huntin...
Shivetya 9y ago
The only election meddling that had an effect was the DNC insuring that no one could challenge the party choice. The fact they got caught and possibly because of Russian hacking is only possible claim that Russian meddling affected the election; they exposed the DNC for what it was.