[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 09:27, said:

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

Clearly not as I have no first-hand information on the subject whatsoever and indeed had not even heard of JA's claim until reading this message. Until more details come out, I doubt any private individual can make a truly informed decision. I sometimes work on a "balance of probabilities" basis in such cases but there are enough examples of both misinformation from the state and from the internet not to be able to rule out either case for now. It might well be that the security agencies do have enough details that Trump could, if he so wanted, rule out JA's claims but that is another matter and I doubt he would choose to do so even if that information was available to him.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-January-06, 11:51, said:

Clearly not as I have no first-hand information on the subject whatsoever and indeed had not even heard of JA's claim until reading this message. Until more details come out, I doubt any private individual can make a truly informed decision. I sometimes work on a "balance of probabilities" basis in such cases but there are enough examples of both misinformation from the state and from the internet not to be able to rule out either case for now. It might well be that the security agencies do have enough details that Trump could, if he so wanted, rule out JA's claims but that is another matter and I doubt he would choose to do so even if that information was available to him.

First, to what "misinformation from the state" do you refer?

Second, are you now arguing that personal lack of specific knowledge makes all likelihoods equivalent (because that's what it sounds like)?

[olegru]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 09:27, said:

Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

"Who are you going to believe, your loving wife or your lying eyes?"
It should not be question of believes at all. It should be question of evidence. For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

[hrothgar]

 olegru, on 2017-January-06, 12:52, said:

For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

I am shocked! SHOCKED I say, that Olegru is not being looped in on classified intelligence briefings.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 09:27, said:

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

Heh. For me "Julian Assange said so" is about as convincing as "Donald Trump said so".

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 09:27, said:

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

Assange claims the information WikiLeaks released wasn't from the Russians. But how can he know? It could easily have been funneled through several hands to uncouple it from the Russians. So anything Assange says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

[olegru]

 hrothgar, on 2017-January-06, 12:57, said:

I am shocked! SHOCKED I say, that Olegru is not being looped in on classified intelligence briefings.

Sarcasm does not prove anything.

[Winstonm]

 olegru, on 2017-January-06, 12:52, said:

"Who are you going to believe, your loving wife or your lying eyes?"
It should not be question of believes at all. It should be question of evidence. For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

I agree that evidence should drive beliefs, and so far the evidence is that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have stated that Russia was responsible for the hacking and one non-U.S. citizen with a history of trying to damage U.S. national security and evading prosecution has stated Russia didn't do it.

So, which evidence are you going to believe?

[alok c]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-04, 15:34, said:

One question only: if you alone had to make a decision that would either protect the U.S. or destroy the U.S., whose advice would you trust: Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

Edit: Let me ask another: which group is a more honest and reliable source for Trump to listen to about intelligence, United States intelligence agencies or Wikileaks, Putin, and Julian Assange?

Short term or long term?

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-January-06, 13:48, said:

Assange claims the information WikiLeaks released wasn't from the Russians. But how can he know? It could easily have been funneled through several hands to uncouple it from the Russians. So anything Assange says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

I gave you an up vote but I am unclear about any media stating that the election was compromised by the Russian hacking - their misinformation and fake news campaign success or failure is probably impossible to quantify. I don't see that as an issue and I doubt anyone else on the Democratic side of the aisle thinks it is an issue.

The issue is that even after receiving the intelligence briefings Trump still feels he has to discount the effects of the Russian interference because he misguidedly believes that would somehow diminish his victory - that everything - including an attack on our very democratic process itself is not important, his concern revolves solely around his need to feed his damaged ego. This is such a profound symptom of a crippling narcissistic disorder that it should medically disqualify the man for high office.

[Winstonm]

 alok c, on 2017-January-06, 14:26, said:

Short term or long term?

Would it matter?

[olegru]

 Winstonm, on 2017-January-06, 14:08, said:

I agree that evidence should drive beliefs, and so far the evidence is that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have stated that Russia was responsible for the hacking...

It is claim, it is not evidence.
Evidence is a data to prove the fact they stated.
As for me, I have tendency to believe anything negative about today's politics of Russia, but to make such a global claim at least some facts needed.

[Winstonm]

 olegru, on 2017-January-06, 14:51, said:

It is claim, it is not evidence.
Evidence is a data to prove the fact they stated.
As for me, I have tendency to believe anything negative about today's politics of Russia, but to make such a global claim at least some facts needed.

Without trying to get into a semantic debate - evidence comes in many forms. Objective facts are one type of evidence (the strongest, IMO). When we do not have that, we have to rely on other types of evidence to reach a conclusion (i.e., belief). When I am not entitled to see the objective data, such as in national security data, I have to rely on other means to determine whom to believe.

My bet is that the U.S. intelligence agents are a more reliable source than Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin when it comes to Russian hacking.

[olegru]

Sure. You have all rights in the world to believe in whatever you think is correct. I would prefer to wait for evidences.
We had way too many made up stories from sources that got used to be trustworthy.

[Winstonm]

 olegru, on 2017-January-06, 15:55, said:

Sure. You have all rights in the world to believe in whatever you think is correct. I would prefer to wait for evidences.
We had way too many made up stories from sources that got used to be trustworthy.

But it seems you prefer to accept one person's version (a person known to get his facts wrong, i.e., Trump) over the intelligence services.

Why would accept his version?

Quote

Fact Checkers Prove That 91% of the Things Donald Trump Says Are False
By Sarah Jones on Thu, Mar 31st, 2016 at 12:05 pm

[kenberg]

Putin: Directed a serious effort to at least cause trouble in the US election. I gather that even Trump accepts this after the briefing.

Assange: Leaked information hacked from the DNC. As I understand it, he himself says so.

Co-ordination between Putin and Assange: I don't expect to see the details of the investigation. . To me it seems likely.

I don't see the proof of co-ordination as the critical issue. I gather that the intelligence agencies have concluded that they both did plenty, coordinated or not. Trump did the country a great deal of harm with his general denials. I felt from the beginning that whatever political views one holds, left, right, center or somewhere else, Trump is totally unsuited for the job of president. Since his election my certainty of this has grown.

We have to confront the problem of cybersecurity. Putin and Assange are both out to harm us, whether or not they coordinate their efforts. Focusing on whether the intelligence agencies have or have not proved coordination to the man in the street is a mistake. We need leadership that will treat cybersecurity seriously. We are about to place into office a person whose main issue with the Russian/Assange mischief is that nobody has (or for that matter could) prove that it influenced the election. This is most unfortunate, but hopefully someone whose interests at least occasionally extend beyond his own ego will make his presence felt.

[MrAce]

 rmnka447, on 2017-January-06, 13:48, said:

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

I am not claiming that they did but if they did ... do you expect Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to tell the truth to public? Do you really expect him to say anything different than what he actually said, regardless of what they found?
I am not producing conspiracy theories. We all know that sometimes telling the truth can cause much more harm (or they believe that it will).
A smart person can understand that, even if Hillary Clinton found a concrete evidence that shows D.T or Russians hacking and winning the election by cheating, she would not dare to or would not be allowed to publish this at this point. That means civil war. You have all these people who voted for this guy despite the things he said. Regardless of how concrete your evidence is, they will believe what they want to believe as they did when voting.
Advantage of growing up in middle east is that...you wake up early from the dream that you are living in a world that has rules and that you have rights and that you are protected or you are free. That does not mean everyone is against you and conspiring against you either. It is just the way how things work and the idea that we have rules, laws, freedom, rights, is a drug that keeps everyone from panic. We will always be fed only by information in the name of truth that will not interfere with their ability to control the public. Do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing what they do. As much as it sounds awful, what they do is probably what stops all of us from shooting each other.

[Al_U_Card]

 MrAce, on 2017-January-06, 23:48, said:

I am not claiming that they did but if they did ... do you expect Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to tell the truth to public? Do you really expect him to say anything different than what he actually said, regardless of what they found?
I am not producing conspiracy theories. We all know that sometimes telling the truth can cause much more harm (or they believe that it will).
A smart person can understand that, even if Hillary Clinton found a concrete evidence that shows D.T or Russians hacking and winning the election by cheating, she would not dare to or would not be allowed to publish this at this point. That means civil war. You have all these people who voted for this guy despite the things he said. Regardless of how concrete your evidence is, they will believe what they want to believe as they did when voting.
Advantage of growing up in middle east is that...you wake up early from the dream that you are living in a world that has rules and that you have rights and that you are protected or you are free. That does not mean everyone is against you and conspiring against you either. It is just the way how things work and the idea that we have rules, laws, freedom, rights, is a drug that keeps everyone from panic. We will always be fed only by information in the name of truth that will not interfere with their ability to control the public. Do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing what they do. As much as it sounds awful, what they do is probably what stops all of us from shooting each other.

They do count on the sensible folk NOT to shoot each other. Anyone convinced that killing people is the way to do anything is by definition a psychopath and they are the ruthless ego-maniacs that are leading us to ruin, NOT the people trying to expose their misdeeds.

[kenberg]

The reflections above on growing up in the Middle East got me to making historical comparisons here in the US. As a 13 year old I followed the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaigns of 1952. I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on television explaining that Stevenson was a Commie. Uh huh. But never did Adlai Stevenson talk about what a great guy Josef Stalin was. Twenty years later we had Watergate. Whatever Nixon's role was, I am pretty sure he never said that breaking into the DNC headquarters was really a good thing and that he hoped that there would be more of it.

We are making a real break with history here. You can say that I am living in the past, but I still regard breaking into offices. physical or cyber, as a bad thing. And I liked hearing a Republican (I forget which one) say "I am not from the branch of the party that regards Vladimir Putin as our friend".

Along these lines, I thought the column below nicely captured some of the current thinking (thinking?)
https://www.washingt...m=.14a74a35fd95

[StevenG]

I do wonder how much effect, if any, this Russian plot had on the election result. I also wonder how much effect Mr Comey's pronouncements late in the campaign had on the election result.