[mfarris]

No.

US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump.

Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win.

Generalized unrest was one goal. Electing Trump, however difficult that might have seemed, was another.

[grimjack00]

>Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win.

And we all know how trustworthy Putin is.

[prolikewh0a]

>US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump.

Why would you blindly trust intelligence agencies that have been very untrustworthy throughout US history?

[untog]

Because they've provided evidence, and other intelligence agencies and governments across the world have confirmed their claims.

At a certain point you start arguing "why believe anything" and that's literally not a conversation worth having.

[prolikewh0a]

They provided 'evidence' for 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify the Iraq war too, and governments around the world confirmed their claims.

We now know that to be a lie.

Again, why would you trust intelligence agencies that haven't been trustworthy throughout US history?

[untog]

The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. Evidence of manipulation on social media is.

Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.

[equalunique]

>The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else.

You could say the same about the DNC server, which in 2016, the FBI claimed had not been provided to them for forensics.

The one firm who did have direct access was CrowdStrike, whose report had a couple inaccuracies, and whose CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, isn't impartial either. Firstly, the claim about the APT controlling Ukrainian artillery equipment was disproven. Secondly, they cited an outdated Ukranian Wordpress vulnerability as attribution evidence, which did not hold up under scrutiny. These are the forensics they gave to the FBI.

Naturally, mid-July The Daily Beast, owned by a company chaired by Chelsea Clinton, breaks a story in response to Trump's comments at Helinski, with a piece about the DNC server's virtual image being given to the FBI - something that the FBI did not comment on and also is in contradiction with the FBI's claim from 2016.

'' Providing details Tuesday to the Senate intelligence committee about the bureau’s investigation into Russian hacks targeting the election, Mr. Comey said the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but ultimately a private company was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators.

“It’s not the way we would prefer to do the investigation,” Mr. Comey said. '' Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey...

[prolikewh0a]

>The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...

From article:

>The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.

So again, why trust intelligence agencies that have been untrustworthy throughout US history?

[untog]

When I said "anyone else" I wasn't referring to government inquiries, which very obviously have a much higher level of access than any member of the public, including the press.

So, again, Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.

[philwelch]

They were directed by the Bush administration to manufacture a case for invading Iraq, and resisted it the whole time.

Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden.

[prolikewh0a]

>Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden.

Absolute nonsense. The Mccarthyite "Blame Everything on Russia" bots are now on Hacker News.

Skepticism over US Intel Agencies is not a 'Russian Goal'. It's common sense, and all you have to do is research their history of overthrowing governments and lying to us intentionally to lose any trust in them. You don't need a 'Russia' element to research their dark and dirty past.

[bduerst]

Because it's been confirmed by multiple, independent private organizations:

>The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks that Guccifer 2.0 has said were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC were committed by two Russian intelligence groups. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0