The 2016 United States Presidential Election

I have no idea who Crowdstrike are or aren't. I would need to find out more about them.

The real question is why you are putting so much effort into exonerating Russia. Why is that? Why are Republicans flocking to Russia's aid? Don't you find that troubling?Russia set up an air defense network in Syria. Last I checked, the Syrian rebels that Russia is fighting against have no airplanes. Who do you think those missiles are meant for? The really easy answer is that they are meant for US planes. Why are you defending a government that is threatening the US?Russia has also attacked its neighbors. Russia has already taken over Crimea, and has attempted to retake Ukraine. While Putin is playing the role of Hitler, you cheer on as Trump plays the part of Neville Chamberlain. Why?What is it about Russia that you find so wonderful?

No I did not. All I said was that we agree that what McAfee said about how hackers wouldn't give away their identity like that is good evidence that the report is phony. Yeah, you missed the whole simple point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the sort of thing that could start a war and I'd rather not start a war, especially over something that isn't even true; if it's false, which it looks like to me, then somebody may have invented it in order to start a war. Like the entire intelligence community invented WMDs in Iraq to start another war once. I'd rather not. Or maybe there is some other hidden purpose. For instance it insinuates that it was done in favor of Trump. If it's not true, which it appears to me to be the case, who has a motive to insinuate that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, what McAfee said is not evidence. What he gave and what Riggy stated are opinions about the evidence. Evidence consists of facts and not opinions about facts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I note that you are changing what you said, which perhaps wasn't what you meant but still it was what you said; but now you are hairsplitting and to what purpose?It's a fantastically good inference that such weirdly obvious evidence that points straight at Russia when even a tenth-rate hacker would make some effort to cover his tracks, is as good as evidence against the report. In other words the evidence in the report is good evidence in itself that the report is bogus.At the very least it's extremely strange that a hacker would be so naive. If you have another explanation, please float it.If you just want to suggest a more accurate word, go ahead, what does it serve to make a big deal out of something so obvious? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In case it hasn't been posted yet, here's a link to the NYT reference to the "unclassified summary of a highly sensitive assessment from American intelligence and law enforcement agencies": I'm going to suggest that when anyone references a part of the report that they believe true or think false that they quote the relevant text from the report.AbE: Some may prefer this direct link to the PDF: Background to Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident AttributionAbE2: Just to reduce potential confusion, the PDF begins with a couple pages of background information, then follows on page 4 of the PDF with the actual document Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : AbE2.

No. I did not make a change. Nothing in Riggy's post constitutes evidence despite your claiming that it was "good evidence". All I have done additionally is spell out what was in that post.And again, what you call an inference is strictly an opinion. And in understanding whether the opinion is valuable, we should take into account the fact that McAfee is pretty flaky. Again, you are relying on McAfee's opinion of the ability of hackers to conceal their tracks. His opinion may or may not be correct. Generally speaking, arguments that a crime is too stupid for a criminal to commit are not what I consider persuasive.ABE: Why are you trying to oversell the basis for your opinion.1) The statement is not evidence.
2) The conclusion is at most plausible. It may or may not be correct.You can form your own opinion any way you want to. But if you are making an attempt to be persuasive, don't be surprised if your excesses are pointed out. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about what to believe.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would note that it also relies on McAfee being familiar with the actual evidence - which is mostly still classified. The Crowdstrike blog entry I linked earlier gives a rather different impression - and Crowdstrike actually did investigate the hack.

Rread what you wrote. You said I treated RM's comment as evidence. I DID NOT. And I'm not addressing anything else you say until you straighten this out.\

Thanks Percy.Too statements in the report:

quote:

---

The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.

​

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and
sources and methods.

---

In short, analyses that complain that the report does not contain the evidence are likely to be off base because that is not the purpose of the report.What some critiques are doing is using secondary indicators in lieu of having any kind of evidence or facts to attack/address the conclusions. That's fine, but you have to acknowledge the short comings of such things. Is AGW really bogus because Al Gore believes in it?Intelligence folks lie, so the report is full of lies is another such argument.Secondly, claims that the Russians are too sophisticated to do X does not really overcome evidence that they actually did X. Again, such arguments are secondary arguments to use when there is no primary evidence or alternatively when you don't understand the evidence.

Then I suspect you will be waiting indefinitely.Here Message 832 is what you said in response to RMs comment, Faith: Notice the too at the end of the sentence.And to what were you responding? Message 831That statement is not evidence. It is an opinion.Did I make a mistake about what you were referring to. Apparently not according to you:

quote:

---

was responding only to Riggamortis' agreement that it would be sttupid for a hacking operation to leave such blatant clues to its identify, that's all.

---

Again, that agreement is not evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Neither the word "Cyrillic" nor "keyboard" appear in the report (Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections). Neither the word "stamp" nor "timestamp" nor "date" appear in the report. Neither the acronym "IP" nor the word "address" (that's what it really is, an IP address) nor the word "number" as a synonym for address appear in the report.John McAfee appears to be making things up.--Percy

You are missing the point; apparently deliberately.Nobody is threatening to start a war over the hacking. Instead they are talking about sanctions and pulling some diplomats. On the other hand, the things Taq cites are actually provocative and warlike way (missiles targeting US planes and threats to NATO countries) yet you give them a free pass. Compared to those things, hacking a couple of computers, the way say China has done to us to steal corporate secrets is a drop in the budget.What is at stake here is not whether or not we go to war with Russia, but whether or not we treat them as our buxom buddy. Even Trump seems at this point to acknowledge that the Russians probably hacked into the DNC.Reince Priebus Acknowledges Russia Was Behind Hacks

quote:

---

Reince Priebus said Trump "accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia" but argued that the DNC should be criticized for the way it handled cybersecurity threats.

---

Whatever the truth is, surely Priebus is right about the criticism due the DNC. On the other hand, what was Watergate about?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

According to the report, the Republicans were hacked, too:

quote:

---

Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign.

---

Republicans might not want to be too smug, lest they find their own emails released once the bloom is off the Trump/Putin love-fest.--Percy