Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
As the Reuters article articulated, Russia's exact intent can never be ascertained with certainty unless the CIA had an undercover agent directly involved in Russian decision-making in this matter.
|
Probably true. Its also probably true that unless that unless they had that kind of inside info, they'll never know exactly who did this, why they did, this, and at whose behest they did this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton. This is a distinction without a difference and intended to obfuscate the significance of what happened.
|
No, that's not what I'm saying, but the way you phrased the above makes it pretty clear what your focus is - probably that same focus was others who didn't care for the outcome of the recent election - and why any investigation needs to be investigated out of public view.
What we appear to disagree on is the motive, and whether or not its relevant to this discussion. Motive is critical in not only in prosecuting a criminal case, but it also is critical in the investigative process. But let's set that aside for a minute. You stated the following:
"Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton."
My first concern is attempting to prove who did the hacking that penetrated the DNC's email systems. The rest of the your apparent concerns - the info that was released in the breach - aren't relevant until we know who did the hacking, or at least who ordered it. We don't have that info yet, but some want to launch into an investigation of the impact that the Russian hacking had on the election, without knowing who did it, and what their motive was. Seems backwards to me, and thus I suspect any investigation by congress would serve a political outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Back to your original assertion of this being "fake news." Both the Times and the Post reported both the CIA's assessment and that the FBI wasn't willing to go as far in terms of provable intent (though all intelligent agencies agreed on Russian involvement (and have since the October 7 joint public release of this stuff by DHS and DNI)). This is made clear in the NYTimes article you characterized as "fake news" as well as in the Reuters article you cited.
Accordingly, there is absolutely nothing fake about this news. Meanwhile, you continue to assert that any real news that may reflect negatively on or prove inconvenient to Trump is fake. It seems to me that logic and deduction aren't exactly your strong suits. |
Finn - you're Hillary-ous. Its absolutely fake news. Contrary to your assertion, the Times story that I linked to didn't state that the CIA and FBI when the headlines say one thing, yet you have to dig pretty deep into the story to find any suggestion of variance between the assessments of the CIA and FBI.
Here's the link again. Point me to the section that you think "makes this clear".
In the meantime, look at the HEADLINES of both the NY Times and WaPo on 12/9/16:
NY Times: Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says
WaPo: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
And from there, the fake news continues to multiply like rabbits in the left wing echo chamber.
For example,
WaPo: U.S. intelligence officials say Russian hacks ‘prioritized’ Democrats
The CIA assessment that Russia waged a cyber-campaign to help elect Donald Trump is based in part on intelligence suggesting that Moscow’s hacking efforts were disproportionately aimed at targets tied to the Democratic Party and its nominee, Hillary Clinton, U.S. officials said.
The lack of a corresponding Republican trove has contributed to the CIA assessment, reported by The Washington Post, that Russia was seeking to elect Trump and not merely to disrupt last month’s presidential election.
This is pretty funny because there's certainly evidence that
there was an attempt to hack the RNC. But I guess since those hacks were not successful, or since the hacks of the DNC's servers were more successful, that's evidence that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected.