• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kingmaker

My source CLEARLY states that the government was referring to the DNC hacks occurring earlier this summer. That the PODESTA email leaks have NOT been confirmed to be Russian hacks; only Mr. Podesta claims it so.

Now this may change, and if so I will change my position. Until then, I will not conflate both incidents as you are doing. :coffeepap:

The source of the hack was Ukraine. The six million dollar question is, why is it so important for you to believe that the Russians didn't hack the DNC and Podesta?

The Russians have been quite the gold mine for the Trump camp, haven't they? Putin and Trump have the most extraordinary bromance I've ever seen, Russians hack the DNC for Trump, and they even supply footage of people stuffing ballot boxes that is then labeled as taking part in Pennsylvania by Democrats.

But again there is that question: why is it so important that you believe otherwise?

Is this the email that hacked John Podesta's account? - CNNPolitics.com
 
The source of the hack was Ukraine. The six million dollar question is, why is it so important for you to believe that the Russians didn't hack the DNC and Podesta?

The Russians have been quite the gold mine for the Trump camp, haven't they? Putin and Trump have the most extraordinary bromance I've ever seen, Russians hack the DNC for Trump, and they even supply footage of people stuffing ballot boxes that is then labeled as taking part in Pennsylvania by Democrats.

But again there is that question: why is it so important that you believe otherwise?

Is this the email that hacked John Podesta's account? - CNNPolitics.com

1. Do not attribute ulterior motives to my evaluations of evidence.

2. I always look at accusations from the standpoint of the accused. To examine the evidence for it's relative merit. It is my burden, and my method having served as an Asst. Public Defender.

To that end, I'd like to point out a couple of things.

First, that the information provided for general consumption indicates our current government is "confident" that the hacks of the DNC earlier this summer have all the fingerprints of Russian hacks. That no such declaration was made regarding the recently released Podesta leaks.

Now, when dealing with prosecution "evidence" one often faces Modus Operandi (method of working) submitted to show how acts during past criminal history might link the defendant to the case at bar. This evidence is not dispositive on it's own, but must be supported by other actual evidence tying the defendant to the current crime charged.

In addition, when dealing with the term "confident," one must remember that this is a statement of faith/opinion, as in "confidence is high" that the person we are seeking is located at point X. It is not a fact, but rather a statement of high probability. Still to be proven.

Finally, just because the government expressed "confidence" that one action was attributable to Russia does not mean that other actions which occurred, but for which they've expressed NO opinion whatsoever, are tied to the same actor.

So, it's not so much that I believe otherwise as it is that I have no reason to believe as you do. I assume innocence until proven guilty. :shrug:

Meanwhile, as I've already stated in my first post...should it prove that Russia is in fact the source of ALL the hacked leaks, it does not change their factual basis. All it does is notify us that an external source was required to provide factual information allowing me to make a more informed decision.

Which reverses the question. Why is it so important to YOU that YOU believe the information came from Russia? Why would such a fact, if proven, prevent you from using the FACTUAL information in your decision-making process? :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom