re: Wikileaks schools NPR, beats NPR like a rented mule

quote:

---

John McClane

---

So.

I first posted to you on page 19.

We are on page 23 now.

Is there any evidence in the intervening pages to indicate you shouldn't have just listened to me on page 19?

No

quote:

---

No

---

Cool

So. Your choice. But, like I told you. Page 27 will look the exact same. And, if you're that bored, so will page 100.

Just sayin

quote:

---

Keep playing semantics. It doesn't make you seem clever.

---

Use the right words. There's a significant difference between what you first posted and what you finally admitted was accurate.

quote:

---

The reports show motive, not actual evidence. I'm patiently waiting for that evidence.

---

You claimed the assessment was based solely on an outsourced forensic analysis of the servers. You've since backed away from that. We're finished with that point.

quote:

---

Once again, you've taken about a dozen dumps on the source: can you refute the content/allegations within? Continually shitting on the source without challenging the content is quite telling.

---

Once again, I don't need to. It's also quite telling that you know better than to try defending your source.

quote:

---

Here is another source I'm sure you will shite on LINK

---

Breitbart?

You're fricking with me now...

Have a good night. This was fun.

I haven't admitted shite. You've already said that even if Crowdstrike's report was complete bullshite, it wouldn't matter.

And once again, you posted no evidence. Pretty much confirming the weakness of the IC's "high confidence" position.

Have a good one.

No, they knew about some prior attempts by some possible Russian state actors.

That doesn't mean whoever did the DNC hack was the same.

Also, Russian servers doesn't mean Russian state actors.

quote:

---

U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret.

The disclosure of the Top Secret information would have revealed that U.S. intelligence agencies were continuing to monitor the hacking, as well as the sensitive intelligence sources and the methods they were using to do it.

The material was marked with additional restrictions and assigned a unique codeword, limiting access to a small number of officials who needed to know that U.S. spy agencies had concluded that two Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies were targeting the Democratic National Committee, the central organizing body of the Democratic Party.

The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies sometimes delay informing targets of foreign intelligence activities under similar circumstances, officials have said.

---

LINK

We pay the NSA way too much money to be reliant on someone else's hardware.

So what? It's still used in their assessment, which shows your original statement to be incorrect.

Just back off of it. It's weird not to at this point. You had it right not that long ago, then decided to backpedal.

I have no problem backing off of "entirely based"

You simply have failed to provide the other bases.

quote:

---

I have no problem backing off of "entirely based"

---

All you needed to do several pages ago.

quote:

---

You simply have failed to provide the other bases.

---

That's not correct.

Where do you think the information in that reporting comes from? Surely you don't think you've read the entirety of it, correct? What is your impression of our history with Russia in this domain?

Decatur has provided some solid info.