That's not the point of the report...

Hey, I read further. There's not a lot to the report, ie only the first 4 pages. Rest is boilerplate infosec stuff that if the DNC had followed, they'd not be in this position. There is zero evidence showing any Russian connection other than speculation about 'ATP' and a list of possible Russian pseudonyms. Hopefully the report to Congress will have a bit more meat, otherwise Congressmen may start asking pointed questions about cybersecurity budgets.

Best response seems to be from the UK Russian embassy-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38466964

And even if the Russian's hacked DNC resources, all that leaked was a bunch of stuff showing the Democrat's contempt for their electorate.. Which many Americans already knew, hence the swing to Red.

So.. what do you think the point is/was?

"Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security"

The point wasn't that it showed the DNC to be biased (it isn't, but whatever), but that it happened at all. You're basically saying that if it happened, but you agree with the information, then you don't care.

As for the Russian tweet of the duck? I guess they'll speak the same juvenile twitter language of the incoming President. God help us all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RussiaDenies/

I think you're forgetting the fact that Republicans have been beating up the Russians for decades when liberals weren't. Do you think Congressional Republicans are going to go easy on Russia, when half of their base is too stupid to know we won the Cold War? They'll flog the old grudges as much as Putin does in Russia. Trump is the anomaly in this situation.

I think you have forgotten plenty of Republicans tried to sabotage Trump at various stages of the election. Many of the these same Republicans are now backing Obama's actions against Russia.

Just a statement of the obvious from Obama . it was only the Leave campaigners, living in the 1950s, who didn't understand it - because they think Britain is still a major power.

The US will prioritise its trade deals with big economic areas and blocks. Small countries, like the UK. will get worse versions of those deals - after they are made. Thats because you don't give away the preceedent of better deals by concluding them with small economies first, , and what you get, depends on your negotiating power.

The Brexiters now have to deal with Trump - who is a protectionist ,and sees trade deals as a way of improving US advantages, not increasing international free trade. Sure he will give you a deal - on his terms.

It would be nice if I believed you were actually having a conversation.

No, not everything the US administration say about Russia is propaganda, but from time to time I believe it is depending on who's in power and what's happening at the current time. I believe that right now is one such time.

It's been repeated several times by me and others that this wasn't hacking according to the understanding of the word most of us are aware of. This was a phishing scam where a wide net was cast and some DNC officials were stupid enough to ignore basic security protocol. I must say that they're doing an excellent job of deflecting attention away from their own failings when it comes to security. Blame the commies, it's a tried and tested trusty technique. It has to be Putin because he's a bad guy and everyone knows he's a bad guy who must be involved with all the bad things that go on in the world.

A poster asked who do they need to prove anything to?
The answer is obviously to prove to the poster who asked that question, us, anyone who frankly gives a shit about truth in this matter and would actually want proof because it would get us closer to truth. But if truth is inconvenient to some then proof will be inconsequential.

I usually agree with your posts but on this one I think you are miles away from the reality.

It is not complicated. It is very simple.

Obama said the UK would be at the back of the queue for a free-trade deal.
Trump said we would be at the front of the queue for a free trade deal.

Trump is a protectionist but his economic advisers have gone on the record to say Trump will seek a free trade deal with the UK - at the front of the queue.

This helps the UK and indeed the image of the UK.

Obama tried to damage the UK and Hillary would have also continued on that same threatening tangent.

Interesting quote from John McCain: "We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to find out exactly what was done and what the implications of the attacks were, especially if they had an effect on our election."

So from that comment I think we can garner that congress hasn't been informed of any secret evidence which we weren't aware of before. If they haven't got to the bottom of this, if they don't know what was done, and if they don't know what the implications of the attack were or what effect they had on the election, how are they substantiating their claims with any proof of anything? They're practically admitting that they just don't know.

And I don't think it should be ignored that there will be quite a few Republicans who have as much if not more anti-Russian sentiment as the Democrats.
I really hate calling them the Democrats or the Democratic Party, but what can you do?

If the Russian equivalent arrived at a mostly consensus opinion would we believe them because a lot of their people agreed with each other?
If you wouldn't then you'd have to ask yourself if you only agree with America because it's America and disagree with Russia because it's Russia.

Oh I didn't?? I did, and there is no evidence provided in that report of this alleged 'hacking'. The disclaimer warned me the information cannot be relied upon. It would be rude to ignore it.

But hey, least we're talking about the 'hacking' and not how corrupt Hillary and co are.

Trump also said he would build a giant wall and put Clinton in prison and many other things, none of which will happen. They were all just crowd-pleasing lies.

Well Trump is not president yet is he? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt like we did Obama - who built miles of wall despite attacking Trump for pledging to do the same.

All the Russians are accused of, is revealing what the Democrats had been up to. Why aren't the people responsible for those things being blamed rather than who did or didn't blow the whistle on them.

You're OK with Russia hacking into suppposedly secure files of the US government. It's fine is it that they attempted to disrupt, interfere and influence the US election?

They weren't secure and they weren't US government files. The files showed that it was the Democrats that interfered with things.

If the voters thought that certain things were done that were wrong, then blame the people who did those wrong things. This all assumes that there was that much of an impact anyway.

It would seem that some people are so desperately unhappy at the result of the election that they are clutching at every available straw to discredit it.

Indeed, Donald Trump won, get over it.

why would senior republicans in congress be desperately unhappy that the republicans won the election ?

It's a little unfair to expect Trump supporters to see the flaws in their logic.

Apparently a classified briefing was given to some in Congress. Whether it was from the same team that produced this-

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002...etherpopup.gif

can be neither confirmed nor denied. Problem is whether anyone in Congress has the knowledge or experience to see if the evidence is at all plausible. DNC hired an outside security company which came up with some vague conclusions, but so far there's little compelling evidence to show it was state-sponsored rather than hackers for lolz. And if an IP address inside a country is sufficient to show state support, then all the hackers who use Amazon's conveniently disposable servers might get the US in a spot of bother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQKqMfuCuY

^ Good on President Putin for not lowering himself to Obama's level. He's outsmarted Obama again!

See also in that video CNN's 'fake news' reporting. Putin is also inviting the children of American diplomats to a party in the Kremlin for a New Year and Christmas party.

“We will not forbid families and children from spending the New Year’s holidays at the places they are used to. Moreover, I invite the children of all American diplomats with accreditation in Russia to New Year’s and Christmas festivities in the Kremlin,” the Russian president said.

Putin said he regretted that US President Barack Obama is ending his term “in such a way,” but that he extended his New Year’s congratulations to the outgoing US president and his family nevertheless.
https://www.rt.com/news/372256-putin...lsion-rejects/

If i was an American citizen i'd be asking the question.. Why are we punishing Russia or anyone else for that matter for revealing detail regarding the actions of a candidate for presidency? Is Obamas actions inferring that it was wrong that these details were revealed for public scrutiny? What kind of person apportions all blame on the messenger?

If i was an American citizen i'd be thanking the Russians for giving us some extra info to munch on.

Here was me thinking he was a decent upstanding bloke until he started interfering in our referendum and now this. (can we expel some of his diplomats for his attack on democracy by interfering in our countries EU referendum?)

What a massive hypocritical tool he has shown himself to be.

I agree with you. With an allegation of this magnitude proof is an absolute necessity. You can't just tell the American public that some security experts told you in secret and that's all they need to know.
Sorry, not good enough.
You can't have a superpower like America screwing around with another superpower without being able to demonstrate the truth of what you're trying to claim.

At least in the Iraq war they put some effort into conjuring up some creative lies or half-truths. Here they aren't even bothering to convince the American public. They are owed an explanation.

I watched the start of the news on BBC One and ITV at 10 last night and they actually described the claims as allegations and accusations. Which is good, that's what they are. But then they went on with their respective pieces in a critical tone of Trump for not responding in the correct hostile manner like Obama.....to what they just referred to themselves as allegations and accusations. This is our bloody media, presenting a narrative where America ought to take firm action over what they have just reported themselves as unconfirmed accusations. That's quite incredible.

Trump has been criticised for calling Putin 'smart' for not reacting to Obama's hostile moves. Well, yes, his response is what I'd describe as smart. What's wrong with saying that. Do people want another cold war escalating or something?
If Putin can be described as anything it would be smart, in comparison to Obama who just looks a bit stupid now. He fell right into Putin's hands because I don't think he expected Putin to do that.

I think a lot of people can see this for what it is. The Democrats are really trying to screw things up for Trump so that when he enters office he has a political mess to sort out of their making. Which potentially could have been an extremely dangerous mess which put lives at risk.
Which makes you think about what Obama previously said to Trump about helping him have a smooth transition to the Whitehouse. Sounds quite sinister now in hindsight. It's like the kind of thing a Bond villain might say as a threatening euphemism which means the direct opposite of what they're saying.

Obama and Clinton want to create as much of a problem as possible for the incoming administration. They don't care how much of a potentially harmful effect this this could have on real people in the future. I don't see how Obama getting Russian diplomats kicked out of America helps American people in any way whatsoever.
This was obviously a move designed to hopefully create a significant problem for Trump. Their bitter and vindictive revenge is more important to them than the potential risks they could so easily create for America as a country.

It's also a very handy diversion tactic which shifts focus away from the actual content of the emails. The media are duly obliging them. Which shows how unfit for purpose they are.