American Politics from 2019 on

[Woodbutcher]

You must choose the least crooked candidate for president. And the least intelligent to best represent the population.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's like somebody has never read the output of American intelligence agencies. Practically never will you find them expressing certainty in their conclusions. There are caveats all through their reports, and the language reflects the fact that they understand it is reasonable to withhold final determination regarding the intelligence they've produced. In my experience regarding any intelligence statements that get to the public eye, the furthest they'll go when the chips are down is 'high confidence.' Even there, they're not saying something is fact, only that they have high confidence that it is fact. Often a report will not even reach that level.

If you think about it, it makes sense. These agencies have been burned more than once, and so have developed a culture of stepping extremely carefully when relaying their findings. A group of former intelligence officials would definitely reflect that culture--it's how they've been trained. For somebody unfamiliar with how American intelligence agencies operate in putting out information, it sounds as if it's been written so as not to be 'pinned down.' That's essentially accurate, but not at all unusual. Indeed, if any product of American intelligence which might end up in the public eye included unequivocal factual accusations, it would be highly noteworthy just for that.

[Cunt]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

I read the letter when it became public, and have reread it several times since. They made a very specific claim according to much of the news media. Politico's headline read, Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say, and a lot of other publications followed suit.

Since you say the letter made no claims, was the media lying?

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operaon.

What's unclear about that?

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

Really? We can just look up examples of other Russian information operations and see how the laptop thing compares. In fact, the letter makes comparisons to Russian operations in 2016 in order to justify their suspicions.

Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidenal election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.

That does track well with what Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, especially when you consider the Burisma hack the letter mentions, which cybersecurity professionals said used many of the same methods used against the DNC in 2016.

I'd say their suspicions were reasonable, given the history of Russia's previous behavior.

So for clarity, you repeat things you were convinced of. Good work there.

What clarity was in the letter? Or was it just hints and innuendo?

For somebody unfamiliar with how American intelligence agencies operate in putting out information, it sounds as if it's been written so as not to be 'pinned down.' That's essentially accurate, but not at all unusual. Indeed, if any product of American intelligence which might end up in the public eye included unequivocal factual accusations, it would be highly noteworthy just for that.

Right, so they have a history of hinting, but not saying stuff outright. Like lawyers. Classy.

They got caught a bunch of times in stuff like MKUltra, mockingbird and the stuff from the Church commission, but now that they've learned to not say anything clearly, you think it's fine for them to almost claim something, but not quite taking any responsibility.

Got it.

So the establishment line, all the way down the line.

I don't agree.

I think weasel-words issued around this were a big part of the excuse given by people for not reporting on it. They can reference a 'non-claim' from out-of-work spies, without worrying about pesky things like responsibility or facts.

Greenwald was right to report on the facts. Futile though, because people are desperate to toe the establishment line on the whole mess.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Forget the media echoing what they think they read, what did the letter say, specifically?

Did it make clear claims? Or just the kinds of hints and innuendo that they can backpedal out of no matter what?

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US polical scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operaon.

What's unclear about that?

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

Really? We can just look up examples of other Russian information operations and see how the laptop thing compares. In fact, the letter makes comparisons to Russian operations in 2016 in order to justify their suspicions.

Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidenal election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.

That does track well with what Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, especially when you consider the Burisma hack the letter mentions, which cybersecurity professionals said used many of the same methods used against the DNC in 2016.

I'd say their suspicions were reasonable, given the history of Russia's previous behavior.

So for clarity, you repeat things you were convinced of. Good work there.

No Cunt, I said their suspicions were reasonable under the circumstances, but I understand how you might not comprehend their reasoning. As Lemmy pointed out, intelligence is hard.

[pErvinalia]

I doubt he could read an intelligence report, given how confused he gets by words.

[JimC]

The opinion of some random guy in backwoods Canada is surely more valuable than a collection of intelligence professionals from the actual nation involved...

[Cunt]

Yeah, it specifically claimed :

What's unclear about that?

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

Really? We can just look up examples of other Russian information operations and see how the laptop thing compares. In fact, the letter makes comparisons to Russian operations in 2016 in order to justify their suspicions.

Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidenal election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.

That does track well with what Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, especially when you consider the Burisma hack the letter mentions, which cybersecurity professionals said used many of the same methods used against the DNC in 2016.

I'd say their suspicions were reasonable, given the history of Russia's previous behavior.

So for clarity, you repeat things you were convinced of. Good work there.

No Cunt, I said their suspicions were reasonable under the circumstances, but I understand how you might not comprehend their reasoning. As Lemmy pointed out, intelligence is hard.

I know you think their suspicions were reasonable, but they didn't say anything.

That's my point. They have deniability. Deliberately, and hilariously, everyone will still base their firmly held beliefs on those non-statements.

[Cunt]

The opinion of some random guy in backwoods Canada is surely more valuable than a collection of intelligence professionals from the actual nation involved...

We are both far from it, JimC

Do you think their history makes the letter more trustworthy? Or is it more their lawyer-speak of not saying anything?

[JimC]

Do you have to do your trolling posts via endless fucking questions?

[Cunt]

No, but if I want to know about something specific, the direct approach helps.

Like when asking you if you favour equity, or equality. I didn't get an answer, but I learned something hilarious about the American Communists, because of your off-hand comment.

It is beautiful that they direct their supporters to the Democratic Party. Kind of makes some connections undeniable AND amusing.

[Joe]

If that were a lie, it is sufficiently vague that no-one could ever say they were lying.

What clarity do you take from it?

Really? We can just look up examples of other Russian information operations and see how the laptop thing compares. In fact, the letter makes comparisons to Russian operations in 2016 in order to justify their suspicions.

Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidenal election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.

That does track well with what Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, especially when you consider the Burisma hack the letter mentions, which cybersecurity professionals said used many of the same methods used against the DNC in 2016.

I'd say their suspicions were reasonable, given the history of Russia's previous behavior.

So for clarity, you repeat things you were convinced of. Good work there.

No Cunt, I said their suspicions were reasonable under the circumstances, but I understand how you might not comprehend their reasoning. As Lemmy pointed out, intelligence is hard.

I know you think their suspicions were reasonable, but they didn't say anything.

That's my point. They have deniability. Deliberately, and hilariously, everyone will still base their firmly held beliefs on those non-statements.

Well they said something I understood, and could fact check. If I can fact check them with an ordinary citizen's understanding, they don't have any deniability to speak of.

But don't let me upset anybody's firmly held beliefs.

[Cunt]

They didn't say anything that could be called a lie.

With their record, well, I don't want to upset your firmly held beliefs...

[rasetsu]

They didn't say anything that could be called a lie.

So your claim that they were dishonest was itself dishonest.

Disliking someone's actions or words doesn't justify calling them dishonest. It just makes you a twat.

[Cunt]

They didn't say anything that could be called a lie.

So your claim that they were dishonest was itself dishonest.

Disliking someone's actions or words doesn't justify calling them dishonest. It just makes you a twat.

Why did fifty one of the things sign on to a letter that says nothing?

Was it to trick rubes into drawing a certain conclusion, while avoiding responsibility?

Because that strikes me as dishonest. I know you must rush to defend the poor bureaucratic spy guys, but it doesn't change my mind.

Their letter commits to nothing, but idiots everywhere insist it means something more than 'this is our political bias'.

In fact, your defense of them has all the hallmarks of a 3-letter agency disinformation campaign.

[Joe]

They didn't say anything that could be called a lie.

With their record, well, I don't want to upset your firmly held beliefs...

In other words they told the truth as they saw it, and had a reasonable case for doing so. As for their record, hindsight is 20/20.

I know that Trump supporters weren't happy, but these former officials were exercising their 1st Amendment rights to sound what seemed like a legitimate warning at the time.

It doesn't surprise me that the Biden campaign got involved. It's not unusual for a campaign to try to manage the coverage of a negative story whether it's Bill's affairs, Hillary's emails, or Biden's crackhead son.

Sometimes you have to pay off the playmate and the porn star to avoid the negative press. Know what I mean?