[mistermann]

I've heard all sorts of the juicy details, it makes a great story there's no doubt. What I'm looking for is some substantial, verifiable evidence to overcome my suspicions at how perfect of a story it is, as well as some of the inconsistencies.

For example:

> Presumably Mueller used that subpoena on Facebook and internet providers and the Russians didn't try to hide very hard and used mostly Russian ip addresses.

So on one hand, article after article tells us how sophisticated these hackers are, yet these very same hackers didn't hide their ip addresses, and also openly posted links on twitter that were supportive of Russia. Doesn't something about that seem a little off to you? If it does, you'll be the first person I've encountered who think it does, everyone else is completely confident that this is an open and shut case. Yet, none of these same people can point to any specific evidence that could convince me. Sure, everyone has some articles full of juicy stories, usually containing confident statements from high ranking government officials assuring us crimes have been committed and they have proof, but I've never been able to find a person who could point me directly to any proof.

1/3 of the way through https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download, rather than having my mind changed, my skepticism is stronger than before.

This feels a bit like some things we've experienced in the past, where the "facts" about an enemy, that we're are assured are 100% completely true and verified, trust us turn out to not be true several years down the road. But by then, we've already spent trillions of dollars and waged a war killing thousands of innocent people.

I'd rather not go down that path again, so I'm sorry if I can't join in the party vilifying the evil Russians, because based on the information I have so far, it seems like classic misdirection with the primary beneficiary once again being military budgets, and everyone is just a bit too enthusiastic to believe anything they're told.

EDIT: There is no shortage of internet downvotes for people like me who aren't willing to go along with this story, but there is a severe shortage of people who will put me in my place with actual content. You can probably imagine the effect this might have on the certainty I feel in the correctness of my stance. Unlike others, I'm open to having my mind change, but for some reason no one can muster any effort beyond a condescending and intellectually lazy "let me google that for you".

[stevenwoo]

The leader of Cambridge Analytica bragged about breaking US and UK law by reporters posing as prospective clients. I guess that could be faked ala deepfakes or whatever but it looks pretty definitive. https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

[stevenwoo]

They have some of the Russians who worked for the RIA interviewed for newspapers and admitting what they did, which kind of blew my mind. I guess one could claim those were faked, like the moon landing conspiracy theorists.

From your own example which I presume is about the Iraq war, there is nothing that an ordinary citizen can do to prove that powers in the US, UK, and Kuwaiti governments (and Iraqi agents working in favor of an attack on Iraq) falsified the evidence they presented to the public for a compelling argument for invading Iraq without relying on sources that cannot be verified by an ordinary citizen without access to the journalists/non proliferation experts/government agents responsible and nothing an ordinary citizen can do to prove US claims that Iraq had an active WMD program and mistreated Kuwaiti babies as claimed at the time (by what we know now was a state actor who lied for Kuwait) in congressional testimony after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Even the New York Times and that one reporter famously lied flat out about Iraqi weapons programs and abuses in the build up to the war. But there were plenty of people who were investigating the claims of Iraqi WMD who said there was nothing there and that led to a lot of people protesting against the war. I don't see any investigators for the FBI or NSA coming out and being a whistle blower and saying this Russian thing is faked, on the contrary, the only whistle blower who came out so far, actually showed the internal NSA documents that said the USA elections was under cyberattack by Russia. The most reputable guy who came out for the Iraq WMD was possibly Colin Powell. Less well know is that he was also the first US Army investigator who looked into the My Lai massacre and he found that nothing was done wrong, so he was kind of used to this type of thing by then. It took a second Army investigator to reveal what happened there.

Or more contemporaneously there is nothing a citizen can do to prove that the recent Russian spy who was released to the UK and attacked was poisoned with a Russian only sourced nerve agent. And if it was the Russian nerve agent (that the Russians offically proclaimed to have destroyed all stockpiles of), there's no way for a citizen to prove it was Russian government behind it or that some other power was responsible for usage of it. I didn't vote either way on your comment, it just seems like an impossible standard.

[mistermann]

I honestly don't think wanting to see verifiable evidence before forming a decisive opinion on something is anything near an impossible standard, especially since as you've noted, our governments and newspapers are known to lie to citizens. Anyone who's done any reading on the topic outside of the mainstream knows what you see on TV in the west is a slanted version of the truth at best. And yet, look how absolutely certain people are about their beliefs, but when asked to provide some of the hard-factual content they read to form this rock solid opinion, almost no one has anything other than a downvote. To me, this looks like some sort of a classic mania, and it's quite concerning.

[willstrafach]

> Russians didn't try to hide very hard and used mostly Russian ip addresses.

This is incorrect. The indictment explains it. They routed their connections through US-based VPNs to appear as if they were American users.

[mistermann]

As they should, but I read another Authoritative Proof that many people assured me I should take Very Seriously that used the posting of pro-Russian propaganda as the proof that Twitter bots that interfered with the election were Russian.

I don't doubt at all that there is a government sponsored organization in Russia that promotes Russian interests via cyber operations, as I'm sure there is in the United States. I'm looking for proof that:

a) this isn't a 3rd party posing as Russians

b) The harm or danger of this meddling is proportional to the airtime and Very Serious Tones of Voice we've been subjected to 24x7 for the last year.

Do you know of any compelling (and verifiable by a civilian) evidence that could help me with that?

[anonINFP]

How much reading are you willing to make time for? I've collected a very large number of links to source, research, & analysis material on Russia's ongoing active measures campaign over the last 14 months (though ironically, I still haven't gotten around to reading the recent indictment). This is a complex issue, and my perception is that a full proof of all the claims alleged about Russia's operation will require much more detail and logical inferences than most people who keep harping about "where's the proof? where's the smoking gun?" really expect. But if you want to keep the scope limited to just your a) and b), then I can probably dig up some compelling and hopefully verifiable public evidence in support of them (at least in support of your point a - for b, the only people who have metrics & data on how effective and impactful this operation has been on our country are probably the IRA, Russian intelligence services, and Cambridge Analytica. So point b is tougher for me, but I could at least point you to proof of the dark seriousness of their intent and goals). It might still be a lot of material to go over, though. Fair warning.

[willstrafach]

a) Feel free to read the indictment, some detail there. I assume there will be far more at a later point.

b) I have no idea what effect it had. I personally am not sure it did have any effect that made a difference. Coverage is still warranted because attacks from foreign nations are newsworthy regardless of success.