FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN14204E?il=0

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN14204E?il=0

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election to disrupt and discredit our democracy, we should forego any investigation of their transgressions. Thankfully, there are enough Republicans that are willing to put country before fear of Trumpenfuhrer tweets and support an investigation. Russia interfering and releasing only material negative to Clinton because that's all they could successfully hack or Russia releasing only Hillary material because they favored Trump is a distinction without a difference. We'll likely never be able to divine the exact motive for what they did (disrupting/discrediting America or favoring Trump), but it makes no difference.

BTW, your linked article on based upon a specious premise. Neither the NYTimes nor the WashPost reported that the CIA has proven that Russia interfered specifically to benefit Trump. The CIA said that their analysis led to them have strong confidence that Russia did so. So you and Rush accusing them of saying something they didn't say isn't reason not to investigate - a typical Trump diversionary tactic. I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

My guess is he's an 'ordinary American' who enjoys doing a fantasy role-play of 'professional internet warrior for the RNC.' As such, he's going to love the idea that you think he's a teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election without a favorite, we should forego any investigation. I'm started to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

Your position is to sling as much crap as you can and hope that it sticks. Please point me to any statement I've made in ANY thread that suggests that we should "forego any investigation". Let me help you: you won't find it.

Now that that's out of the way:

Again, here's what we know:

We have lots of un-named sources making lots of accusations in the press. We've got documents that have been accessed from servers and emails of the DNC and their operatives and posted on Wikileaks. We have accusations that these disclosures somehow interfered with the election. We have Obama, Dems and some Repubs calling a "congressional investigation" which, as they often do, could turn into a circus very quickly. We don't have any smoking gun that ties this to the Kremlin, though we believe that the hackers used methods that are similar to those used by hacking groups that have been used by Russian intelligence before. And half - backed conclusions backed with little to no documentation have been leaked to the press.

To me, this is unprecedented in a number of ways, not the least of which is a very public discussion of intelligence gathering and speculation about that process in the press by the intelligence community. Leaks are not unprecedented, but to have folks as high as the President and the former Secretary of State commenting publicly about intel gathering is. Sure, its the election and sure the Wikileaks stuff made the news, but whatever happened to the good old days of simply saying "We're investigating and have no further comments until the investigation has concluded."

Also, how is this playing in the Kremlin? No one has linked this to directly to the Kremlin, though much speculation about that is being leaked, and there's no clear agreement on it. But public statements about Russia trying to influence the election are, with or without proof, dangerous. And what if the investigation continues and we find out that Russian-based hackers were actually working on their own (some of these groups do have their own agendas) or working for someone besides Russian intelligence, someone not connected with the Russian gov't at all? Too late, the damage has already been done.

Also, has anyone stopped to think what Russian gov't might gain from hacking the DNC? Finn, you earlier suggested that the motivation here is that "Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State." Is there proof that Trump's positions on issues will be demonstrably better than Clinton's for Russia? At best, since Trump has no history in elected office, he's a wild card, and doesn't strike me as consistent or predictable. The "tip the election in favor of Trump" thing doesn't make sense to me.

So, we have an investigation. Then what? What's the end - game if the best we can prove is what we already think we know now: "that Russian-based hackers with ties to Russian intelligence" may have been responsible for accessing DNC servers and emails. What do we do with that flimsy set of facts? Since we had a very public investigation, the politicos will likely believe that they need to have a very public response...one that's motivated by politics rather that logic or prudence.

I think we've let the genie out of the bottle with making this all very public - likely made public for politic's sake - and we're going to have a very difficult time conducting an objective examination of the facts in this case. Or acting on the facts that we do uncover without a healthy dose of politics informing those actions.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I think we've let the genie out of the bottle with making this all very public - likely made public for politic's sake - and we're going to have a very difficult time conducting an objective examination of the facts in this case.

... so let's not bother trying. Let's give Russia free hand to intervene in democratic elections in the USA, Germany, Italy and elsewhere because intelligence is never absolutely perfect.

Per Michael Hayden (former CIA and NSA Chief), Trump's appropriate response to this should have been along the lines of:

An administration-in-waiting more confident in itself, in its own legitimacy, in U.S. institutions and in the people it will soon govern might have said, “These are serious issues. We intend to hear them out. Nothing is more precious than our democratic process. We have asked the Obama administration for details.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0ae_story.html

I'm afraid der Trumpenfuhrer didn't meet this standard of statesmanship.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

... so let's not bother trying. Let's give Russia free hand to intervene in democratic elections in the USA, Germany, Italy and elsewhere because intelligence is never absolutely perfect.

I'm afraid der Trumpenfuhrer didn't meet this standard of statesmanship.

Didn't say that, did I? Keep slinging that crap though, Finn. You never know what might stick.

The point, again, is that this is an investigation that needs to be conducted as most investigations are: by professionals, in private and the details released once a conclusion can be drawn that is based on facts and not half baked conjecture. Have Obama and Clinton making public allegations unsupported by facts ahead of any complete investigation doesn't meet the standard of statesmanship.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Didn't say that, did I? Keep slinging that crap though, Finn. You never know what might stick.

The point, again, is that this is an investigation that needs to be conducted as most investigations are: by professionals, in private and the details released once a conclusion can be drawn that is based on facts and not half baked conjecture. Have Obama and Clinton making public allegations unsupported by facts ahead of any complete investigation doesn't meet the standard of statesmanship.

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.

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.

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.

[whell]

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.

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.

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.