Monday, January 9, 2017

Why it's right to reserve judgment on the claim Russia hacked the US election, a mini linkfest

The argument that Russia hacked the US election is backed by 17 intelligence agencies. The problem with assuming they're right? Colin Powell explained his support for the claim there were new WMDs in Iraq by saying: "16 intelligence agencies had agreed to it, with footnotes. None of the footnotes took away their agreement."

The US has a long history of blaming Russia without hard evidence: Before Snowden, Nixon Admin Pioneered Evidence-Free 'Russian Spy' Smears Against Daniel Ellsberg

We know the DNC hack could've been done by the most amateur hacker: How Podesta became a cybersecurity poster child - POLITICO

Ex CIA analyst Larry Johnson argues ‘Clinton quite effective at discrediting herself, doesn’t need Putin’s help’ at RT Op-Edge. (People who love ad hominem should try to engage with Johnson's argument rather than his publisher. As I keep having to remind people, if a message is true, it's true no matter who says it or where it's said.)

Now, it's entirely possible that this time the US intelligence agencies are telling the truth—that's why I advocate reserving judgment.

But if Russia really did leak information to the American people that the DNC wanted to hide? "It Matters, Yes, But How Much?" at Current Affairs notes, "Since we’re in the habit of deferring absolutely to intelligence agencies’ judgments these days, the head of the NSA thinks the DNC stories didn’t make a difference."