4 ms·

> zero public, supporting evidence The (GOP-led) senate released a comprehensive report. The head of the FBI gave long testimony. What more do you want? Read

by DeRock 6y ago

> zero public, supporting evidence The (GOP-led) senate released a comprehensive report. The head of the FBI gave long testimony. What more do you want? Read the report here: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelligence-report-on-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelli... Or the comprehensive wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

the_optimist 6y ago
Public, supporting evidence. The kind you would put in a court filing, for example. A non-zero amount. Edit: I neither live in a groupthink bubble nor care about internet points. Downvote or flag away!
- theptip 6y ago
  Isolated demand for rigor? Aren't we in a thread complaining about YouTube deplatforming views that don't meet the bar you're setting here?
- DeRock 6y ago
  This isn't hard to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... has over 500 references. The senate committee report was over 1300 pages. The evidence is readily available and as well documented as you could expect. At a certain point, the onus is on you to provide refutations on why what exists doesn't meet your impossibly high bar.
  - the_optimist 6y ago
    Your very link quotes: 'investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing.' Please do not spam non-evidence. It's "an impossibly high bar" for you. But do not call it evidence. I am familiar with the level of information collection that occurs, and I do not view this as a high bar.
    - DeRock 6y ago
      That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).
      - the_optimist 6y ago
        Re-read for close comprehension: the subject of the sentence is "Wikileaks."

by DeRock 6y ago

the_optimist 6y ago

Public, supporting evidence. The kind you would put in a court filing, for example. A non-zero amount. Edit: I neither live in a groupthink bubble nor care about internet points. Downvote or flag away!

theptip 6y ago
Isolated demand for rigor? Aren't we in a thread complaining about YouTube deplatforming views that don't meet the bar you're setting here?
DeRock 6y ago
This isn't hard to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... has over 500 references. The senate committee report was over 1300 pages. The evidence is readily available and as well documented as you could expect. At a certain point, the onus is on you to provide refutations on why what exists doesn't meet your impossibly high bar.
- the_optimist 6y ago
  Your very link quotes: 'investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing.' Please do not spam non-evidence. It's "an impossibly high bar" for you. But do not call it evidence. I am familiar with the level of information collection that occurs, and I do not view this as a high bar.
  - DeRock 6y ago
    That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).
    - the_optimist 6y ago
      Re-read for close comprehension: the subject of the sentence is "Wikileaks."