A liberal friend expressed horror a few months ago that Trump had believed Putin's claim of noninterference in the 2016 election, even when our own intelligence services had reported that it was true! She was further surprised when I nodded and said that while I didn't trust any statement from Putin, it was certainly true that the three-letter agencies were out to get Trump and could not be trusted on the matter either.
The information released by Tulsi explains that the intelligence services did in fact find there was nothing behind it, but the report was spiked by higher-ups, known to the Obama White House and Clinton campaigns, which quickly made an opposite claim.
I am again no expert, and have to rely on who I think is fighting fair and who is not. But my prediction is that we are now on a course of
The hoax never happened
It happened but was completely different
It mostly happened like you said, but was unimportant
It happened, but it was good that it happened
Let's move on
10 comments:
Assistant Village Idiot: The information released by Tulsi explains that the intelligence services did in fact find there was nothing behind it
That is incorrect. See Maggie's Farm for our detailed reply.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/40548-Saturday-morning-links.html
I do not consider myself to be a liberal. I just cannot any longer believe anything that either Putin or Trump says
I have considerable agreement. I have an upcoming post "Gaming the System" that might shed light on this. The short version is a common manner in how we make excuses for one side but will not allow even plausible counterarguments if they cannot be "proven." Proof turns out to be a slippery word.
The revelations by DNI Gabbard are largely if not entirely material, including dissents, produced before Donald Trump assumed the Presidency in 2017 and as far as I'm aware don't rely on any statements by either man.
(my previous comment included a link to an article by Matt Taibbi but I realized after posting the full article was subscriber only)
Maggie's Farm has been down for a while, so here is the comment:
QUOTE: Evidence Shows Obama, Team Staged 'Coup' on Trump
The reporting is manipulative.
QUOTE: Russia was "probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means" but changed its tune after Trump was elected.
Ellipses are often a clue. "Russia probably is not (and will not) trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure."
• The ellipsis allows the conflation of Russia didn't hack balloting systems with Russia didn't interfere in the election using other means, including hacking.
• After the election, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee determined that Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, but found no evidence that voter data was changed.
• Russian agents hacked into the DNC, and then they released the information to help Trump and damage Clinton.
• Russian troll farms linked to Russian Intelligence manipulated social media in an attempt to stir political turmoil surrounding the election.
• The Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference.
Nothing in the article indicates a coup.
We agree with: Russia probably is not (and will not) trying to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure.
Yes, if we're going further, while Russia has some capability to conduct cyber manipulation of election infrastructure, we judge that efforts by them (or others) to change the outcome of an election through cyber means would be detected. That's a key element of our cyber-focused PDB.
We assess that foreign adversaries, notably Russia, are more likely to focus their cyber operations on undermining credibility/public confidence. That assessment feeds directly into the influence operations, some cyber-enabled, that we've seen related to current and historic election cycles. We concur with CIA's change related to that.
— Chief, NCCIC Intelligence Support Branch, 2016
Russia probably is not trying to going to be able to? influence the election by using cybr means to manipulate computer enabled election infrastructure. Russia probably is using cybr means primarily to influence the election by stealing campaign party data and leaking select items, and it is also using public propaganda.
— Deputy Director / PDB, 2016
The post "Gaming the System" was inspired by my memory of you insisting for months, even up to two years, I think, that the Clinton Foundation was a completely legit charity, for reasons similar to what I identified as gaming the system. Yet it isn't and never was, but this is the downfall in your reasoning consistently. You are flexible in where you apply your strictly technical definition of proof. I don't think you mean to be unbalanced, but somehow you always end up defending the same side and abhorring the same side. What are the odds, eh? Somehow it never occurs to you that you should apply the same strictness (or looseness) to yourself or your own people.
GK Chesterton once wrote in Orthodoxy "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." I have suggested before you get your own site and write your essays. Steelmanning them against possible objections would do you good. Until then, Time is on my side...again and again.
Assistant Village Idiot: I don't think you mean to be unbalanced, but somehow you always end up defending the same side and abhorring the same side.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. — Stephen Colbert
We note you didn't address the evidence that the report doesn't support the claim of "treason".
Assistant Village Idiot: You are flexible in where you apply your strictly technical definition of proof.
When addressing accusations by the Director of National Intelligence of literal treason under the law, then sure, proof is sort of the thing.
Assistant Village Idiot: The post "Gaming the System" was inspired by my memory of you ...
We'll address this point on the "Gaming the System" post.
Post a Comment