"It does NOT allege any of the following:
It doesn’t claim that it’s accurate. Instead, the report starts with a disclaimer, and uses the same type of weasel words – “as is”, “does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information” – that someone selling a lemon uses when he doesn’t want ...get sued for intentional misrepresentation or wilful concealment:
It doesn’t mention Wikileaks … not even once. In other words, the report does not allege that the Russians gave any Democratic Party or Podesta emails to Wikileaks
It doesn’t raise the fact that recent intelligence service allegations that Russia hacked the NSA and Germany turned out to be false
It doesn’t address the fact that Russia is too sophisticated to have used widely- known hacking methods (and wouldn’t have prominently paid tribute to a famous Russian intelligence officer within the hacking code), and that anyone could have copied these methods and names
It doesn’t address the fact that top NSA whistleblowers say that the NSA possesses records showing exactly how the emails went from the Democratic Party to Wikileaks, as it tracks all electronic communications in the U.S.
It doesn’t address the fact that top former NSA and CIA officials (and Wikileaks) claim that these were not hacks at all … but rather leaks by American insiders
It doesn’t address American intelligence services’ less-than-stellar history of truthfulness, and the fact that they routinely skew intelligence to justify preordained policy outcomes
It doesn’t address the fact that – according to the Los Angeles Times – the U.S. interfered in foreign elections 81 times between 1946 and 2000 … compared to only 36 times by the Ruskies
It doesn’t address the fact that most Americans aren’t buying the whole claim that the Russians hacked our election
In other words, the report really doesn’t say much of anything"
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/russian-hacking-doesnt-say.html
It doesn’t claim that it’s accurate. Instead, the report starts with a disclaimer, and uses the same type of weasel words – “as is”, “does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information” – that someone selling a lemon uses when he doesn’t want ...get sued for intentional misrepresentation or wilful concealment:
It doesn’t mention Wikileaks … not even once. In other words, the report does not allege that the Russians gave any Democratic Party or Podesta emails to Wikileaks
It doesn’t raise the fact that recent intelligence service allegations that Russia hacked the NSA and Germany turned out to be false
It doesn’t address the fact that Russia is too sophisticated to have used widely- known hacking methods (and wouldn’t have prominently paid tribute to a famous Russian intelligence officer within the hacking code), and that anyone could have copied these methods and names
It doesn’t address the fact that top NSA whistleblowers say that the NSA possesses records showing exactly how the emails went from the Democratic Party to Wikileaks, as it tracks all electronic communications in the U.S.
It doesn’t address the fact that top former NSA and CIA officials (and Wikileaks) claim that these were not hacks at all … but rather leaks by American insiders
It doesn’t address American intelligence services’ less-than-stellar history of truthfulness, and the fact that they routinely skew intelligence to justify preordained policy outcomes
It doesn’t address the fact that – according to the Los Angeles Times – the U.S. interfered in foreign elections 81 times between 1946 and 2000 … compared to only 36 times by the Ruskies
It doesn’t address the fact that most Americans aren’t buying the whole claim that the Russians hacked our election
In other words, the report really doesn’t say much of anything"
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/russian-hacking-doesnt-say.html
