This makes sense given the likelihood that any evidence released would undoubtedly compromise intelligence gathering efforts and an active criminal investigation.
Agreed. However, it does allow people with a narrative to promote, who don’t know anything about IT security, to further misinterpret the sparse information that’s released, and assume more is known than actually is.
If the United States was contemplating war with Russia, the intelligence justifying it would have to be released and vetted, it’s not even close. As it stands, there have been spy-and-friend evictions and sanctions.
But you do, actually. By direct implication.
Not at all. My point, in posting the two quotes you cited, was simply to say that there is indeed room for doubt that they hacked into the DNC. The original poster said “no doubt”; from that statement I dissent.
These statements imply you doubt the claim that a systematic campaign to influence the US election that was ordered by the highest levels of the Russian government and that Russia actually engaged in said operation.
I’ve made my statement. I see no reason to repeat myself. What you seem to be saying is that the following is proven beyond reasonable doubt:
- It was the Russians who hacked the DNC (I believe there is always some doubt in this regard.)
- The intent of the Russians was to influence the elections. (I would hope they have collected actual communiques that have stated this. If not, they have no grounds for the assertion. There are other reasons to hack into emails other than to influence elections.)
- They influenced the elections, then, by ……..? (Keep in mind that Assange contends that his source was not the Russians, and Assange has a rather stellar record of accuracy and honesty WRT his sources)
If not Wikileaks, then you must be contending that you believe that Clinton lost the election because of bad buzz on the internet regarding emails that didn’t directly involve her in any way. If you believe that, that’s your perogative….that’s your perogative, but it’s pretty weak tea, from my POV.
I think it more likely that she lost the election because she was an uninspiring candidate who was under FBI investigation during the campaign.
If you aren’t claiming a conspiracy then what…? The only alternative is the US Intelligence Community is too incompetent to figure it the truth.
Well, anyone who lived through the Iraq fiasco will never contest the possibility that the IC might be incompetent. I am not assuming that in this case, just that the case being made is somewhat less than airtight.