Cit, thoughtful post...
They say their conclusions are based on circumstantial evidence, which essentially means a fact was used to support another fact. If any fact in a circumstantial chain of reasoning is held back, the case collapses. So, if a key fact, such as there was a bug in Putin's office, was hidden, which would be entirely reasonable, we'd then have little choice but to trust the CIA's conclusion.
I think I know what you're getting at. An example is Clinton's recent speech blaming her loss in part on the hacking. Her claim can't be verified. So, why say it?
A hack of the RNC might have balanced things out. I almost wish it had happened because then the two parties would have been joined in indignation and reprisal. But with the parties at each others throat, Putin has to ask, what's not to like about that--ha ha--more gridlock to come.
Will future candidates hold back criticism of Russia out of fear Russia may dump a treasure trove of dirt on their heads? Maybe we should ask what candidate or party will henceforth be dumb enough to ignore strong safeguards to protect their data from hackers? These hacks will probably lead to more secure systems in the future, and that's at least one good thing to come of it.
At this point, it's going to be difficult for Trump and Clinton to walk back their comments about the hack, particularly comments about the effect it had on the election and what the hackers hoped to achieve. Trump may find it easier to reverse his position. He can simply say he has now been briefed on ALL the evidence and changed his mind. Whereas Clinton, who blames the hack in part for her loss, has no way to back out except to admit she doesn't know whether it caused her to lose. Thus, her speech does not show her in a very good light. She certainly squandered a good opportunity to tamp down emotions on both sides.
Incidentally, she could just as well have blamed her loss on one or all of the following factors: 1) her secret email server, 2) Benghazi, 3) the Clinton Foundation, 4) being a woman; and/or 5) the aura of entitlement she carried throughout the campaign.
Originally posted by citanon
View Post
The thing about the liberal response to this is that it overhypes Putin's influence via these hacks and actually strengthens his capabilities.
A hack of the RNC might have balanced things out. I almost wish it had happened because then the two parties would have been joined in indignation and reprisal. But with the parties at each others throat, Putin has to ask, what's not to like about that--ha ha--more gridlock to come.
...The real danger is that future candidates could self curtail criticism of Russia to avoid being embarrassed during the campaign. Then, foreign actors could gain real influence on US elections not by affecting the electorate but by affecting the behavior of the candidates.
The smart thing to do to counter this would have been for both sides to acknowledge the hacks happened, but also highlight their very limited effects, for rnc and DNC to get together with the intelligence community and go through a collaborative effort to upgrade their cyber security, and for Trump, Obama and Hillary to support an nonpartisan probe into the matter under the context of acknowledgement of its feeble effects.
Incidentally, she could just as well have blamed her loss on one or all of the following factors: 1) her secret email server, 2) Benghazi, 3) the Clinton Foundation, 4) being a woman; and/or 5) the aura of entitlement she carried throughout the campaign.
Comment