ONTD Political

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

1:22 pm - 12/10/2016

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes – rather critically – that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story – it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come – it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

(1) Nobody has ever opposed investigations to determine if Russia hacked these emails, nor has anyone ever denied the possibility that Russia did that. The source of contention has been quite simple: no accusations should be accepted until there is actual convincing evidence to substantiate those accusations.

There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence – still – can be publicly seen, reviewed and discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed. Have we really not learned this lesson yet?


(2) The reasons no rational person should blindly believe anonymous claims of this sort – even if it is pleasing to believe such claims – should be obvious by now.

To begin with, CIA officials are professional, systematic liars; they lie constantly, by design, and with great skill, and have for many decades, as have intelligence officials in other agencies.

Many of those incidents demonstrate, as hurtful as it is to accept, that these agencies even lie when there’s a Democrat overseeing the Executive Branch. Even in those cases when they are not deliberately lying, they are often gravely mistaken. Intelligence is not a science, and attributing hacks to specific sources is a particularly difficult task, almost impossible to carry out with precision and certainty.

Beyond that, what makes claims from anonymous sources so especially dubious is that their motives cannot be assessed. Who are the people summarizing these claims to the Washington Post? What motives do they have for skewing the assertions one way or the other? Who are the people inside the intelligence community who fully ratify these assertions and who are the ones who dissent? It’s impossible to answer any of these questions because everyone is masked by the shield of anonymity, which is why reports of this sort demand high levels of skepticism, not blind belief.

Most important of all, the more serious the claim is – and accusing a nuclear-armed power of directly and deliberately interfering in the U.S. election in order to help the winning candidate is about as serious as a claim can get – the more important it is to demand evidence before believing it. Wars have started over far less serious claims than this one. People like Lindsey Graham are already beating their chest, demanding that the U.S. do everything in its power to punish Russia and “Putin personally.”

Nobody should need an explainer about why it’s dangerous in the extreme to accept such inflammatory accusations on faith or, worse, based on the anonymous assurances of intelligence officials, in lieu of seeing the actual evidence.


(3) An important part of this story, quite clearly, is inter-agency feuding between, at the very least, the CIA and the FBI.

Recall that the top echelon of the CIA was firmly behind Clinton and vehemently against Trump, while at least some powerful factions within the FBI had the opposite position.

Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell not only endorsed Clinton in the New York Times but claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” George W. Bush’s CIA and NSA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden, pronounced Trump a “clear and present danger” to U.S. national security and then, less than a week before the election, went to the Washington Post to warn that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin” and said Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

Meanwhile, key factions in the FBI were furious that Hillary Clinton was not criminally charged for her handling of classified information; pressured FBI Director James Comey into writing a letter that was pretty clearly harmful to Clinton about further investigating the case; and seemed to be improperly communicating with close Trump ally Rudy Giuliani. And while we are now being treated to anonymous leaks about how the CIA believes Putin helped Trump, recall that the FBI, just weeks ago, was shovelling anonymous claims to the New York Times that had the opposite goal:

One can choose to believe whatever anonymous claims from these agencies with a long history of lying and error one wants to believe, based on whatever agenda one has. Or one can wait to review the actual evidence before forming beliefs about what really happened. It should take little effort to realize that the latter option is the only rational path.


(4) Even just within the leaks of the last 24 hours, there are multiple grounds of confusion, contradictions and uncertainty.

The always-observant Marcy Wheeler last night documented many of those; anyone interested in this story should read her analysis as soon as possible. I want to highlight just a few of these vital contradictions and questions.

To start with, the timing of these leaks is so striking. Even as Democrats have spent months issuing one hysterical claim after the next about Russian interference, the White House, and Obama specifically, have been very muted about all of this. Perhaps that’s becuase he did not want to appear partisan or be inflammatory, but perhaps it’s because he does not believe there is sufficient proof to accuse the Russian Government; after all, if he really believed the Russians did even half of what Democrats claim, wouldn’t he (as some Democrats have argued) be duty-bound to take aggressive action in retaliation?

It was announced yesterday afternoon that Obama had ordered a full review of hacking allegations: a perfectly sensible step that makes clear that an investigation is needed, and evidence disclosed, before any definitive conclusions can be reached. It was right on the heels of that announcement that this CIA leak emerged: short-cutting the actual, deliberative investigative process Obama had ordered in order to lead the public to believe that all the answers were already known and, before the investigation even starts, that Russia was guilty of all charges.

More important is what the Post buries in its story: namely, what are the so-called “minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment”? How “minor” are they? And what do these conclusions really mean if, as the Post’s sources admit, the CIA is not even able to link the hack to the actual Russian government, but only to people outside the government (From the Post: “Those actors, according to the official, were ‘one step’ removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees”)?

This is why it’s such a shoddy and unreliable practice to conduct critical debates through conflicting anonymous leaks. Newspapers like the Post have the obvious incentive to hype the flashy, flamboyant claims while downplaying and burying the caveats and conflicting evidence. None of these questions can be asked, let alone answered, because the people who are making these claims are hidden and the evidence is concealed.


(5) Contrary to the declarations of self-vindication by supremely smug Democrats, none of this even relates to, let alone negates, the concerns over their election-year McCarthyite behavior and tactics.

Contrary to the blatant strawman many Democrats are railing against, nobody ever said it was McCarthyite to want to investigate claims of Russian hacking. To the contrary, critics of Clinton supporters have been arguing for exactly that: that these accusations should not be believed in the absence of meaningful inquiry and evidence, which has thus far been lacking.

What critics have said is McCarthyite – and, as one of those critics, I fully stand by this – is the lowly tactic of accusing anyone questioning these accusations, or criticizing the Clinton campaign, of being Kremlin stooges or Putin agents. Back in August, after Democrats decided to smear Jill Stein as a Putin stooge, here’s how I defined the McCarthyite atmosphere that Democrats have deliberately cultivated this year:

So that’s the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2016 election. Those who question, criticize or are perceived to impede Hillary Clinton’s smooth, entitled path to the White House are vilified as stooges, sympathizers and/or agents of Russia: Trump, WikiLeaks, Sanders, The Intercept, Jill Stein. Other than loyal Clinton supporters, is there anyone left who is not covertly controlled by or in service to The Ruskies?

Concerns over Democrats’ McCarthyism never had anything to do with a desire for an investigation into the source of the DNC and Podesta hacking; everyone favored such investigations. Indeed, accusations that Democrats were behaving in a McCarthyite manner were predicated – and still are – on their disgusting smearing as Kremlin agents of anyone who wanted evidence and proof before believing these inflammatory accusations about Russia.

To see the true face of this neo-McCarthyism, watch this amazing interview from this week with Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, one of the party’s leading Russia hawks (he’s quoted in the Post article attacking Obama for not retaliating against Putin). When Schiff is repeatedly asked by the interviewer, Tucker Carlson, for evidence to support his allegation that Putin ordered the hacking of Podesta’s emails, Schiff provides none.

What he does instead is accuse Carlson of being a Kremlin stooge and finally tells him he should put his program on RT. That – which has become very typical Democratic rhetoric – is the vile face of neo-McCarthyism that Democrats have adopted this year, and nothing in this CIA leak remotely vindicates or justifies it:

Needless to say, questions about who hacked the DNC and Podesta email accounts are serious and important ones. The answers have widespread implications on many levels. That’s all the more reason these debates should be based on publicly disclosed evidence, not competing, unverifiable anonymous leaks from professional liars inside government agencies, cheered by drooling, lost partisans anxious to embrace whatever claims make them feel good, all conducted without the slightest regard for rational faculties or evidentiary requirements.


lovedforaday 10th-Dec-2016 09:00 pm (UTC)
mimblexwimble 10th-Dec-2016 09:51 pm (UTC)
It's kind of rich of Greenwald to be talking about "rational faculties".
naotmaa 10th-Dec-2016 11:24 pm (UTC)
I agree we should always look at accusations with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I don't think this should be dismissed either. And I just don't trust Greenwald when it comes to his stance on Russia. He defends them at every turn.
(no subject) - Anonymous
naotmaa 11th-Dec-2016 10:29 pm (UTC)
If you check out his article history on the Intercept and look at the Russia tag, there is a pattern of him routinely dismissing or deflecting criticism of Russia. I think the one that sticks out in my mind the most was when he wrote about the RT anchor accusing Russia of war crimes. The conclusions he made in that article were extreme. But also the fact that he was so dismissive of Clinton pointing out that Trump and people close to him have questionable ties to Russia was off-putting as well. He also does this thing, which I cannot stand, when someone accuses him of being too easy on Russia he either accuses them of being a McCarthyite or he says America does the same thing. Yes, America does a lot of things that we criticize Russia for but why not criticize both?

I understand and appreciate the fear of villainizing Russia. I think there is definitely a bias against Russia in western media that means certain stories will get taken for granted instead of investigated further. But I find that Greenwald swings too much in one direction when he writes about Russia, so much so that it undermines his credibility.

Full disclosure, I didn't come to this conclusion because a Democrat said it. in fact I had to google to see if other people felt the same way I did after reading a few of his articles on the topic. And I also love Russia. I have since I was a kid, hence the username. So I'm definitely not one to buy into some cold war view on Russia.
(no subject) - Anonymous
naotmaa 13th-Dec-2016 01:41 am (UTC)
So I totally understand that the hyperbole from democrats about this does not help the discourse on Russia.

I didn't say Greenwald has been vocally Pro-Putin, but I don't find him to be neutral on Russia either. It's one thing to say, "Hey Russia does these bad things and America does these things too". but then Greenwald at times will take it a step further and say, "oh and what Russia is doing really isn't that bad in comparison." One example that I mentioned previously was the article on the RT reporter that spoke out on television against Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. Greenwald used this one example to essentially argue that Russian media was more free than Western media. He even cited at RT tweet supporting the dissenting opinion as further proof of RT's dedication to free speech. The issue with that is RT is a news outlet that's key demographics are english speaking countries. Not really representative of the media within Russia or the many issues plaguing journalists there.

Another article criticized the West's defense of Pussy Riot as being hypocritical. Making the argument that western media should focus on their own human rights abuses. Fair. But then he goes on to make the argument that actually because one of the members took part in a public orgy in the past and that the members were associated with a group that burned a police car, it's not that crazy that they were arrested in the first place and it could have happened anywhere. Side stepping the fact that these women were arrested just for performing inside of a church or that they were held in jail without bail for a long time.

Glenn has made it clear that he believe western media should focus first on issues facing the west and specifically the damage America has done around the world.
But he takes it one step further and is automatically suspicious of the motives of those who criticize other countries for committing the same crimes America has. Especially Russia. He routinely describes those who point out Russia's issues as being hypocritical, arrogant, taking part in American propaganda, etc. So yes Democrats have been guilty of using cole war hyperbole against people like Greenwald, but Greenwald has been guilty of painting people with extreme brushes as well.

maynardsong 11th-Dec-2016 04:42 am (UTC)
I can't be the only one who dislikes Glenn Greenwald. He just reads as bro-gressive, more-liberal-than-thou, screw-feminism, screw-anti-racism to me.
tilmon 11th-Dec-2016 05:05 am (UTC)
I share your dislike for him. He is a mealy-mouthed defender of the status quo.
(no subject) - Anonymous
lovedforaday 11th-Dec-2016 01:29 pm (UTC)
that time he "jokingly" cosigned that an obama supporter would shrug if Obama went on tv and raped a nun? https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/153272732723843072

i don't care who it was directed at or how he claimed he meant it, it was still gross as fuck. but anything's fair when it comes to obama supporters, i guess.


Although if you have some legit examples of him being irresponsible/racist/problematic on his reporting let me know.

oh in his reporting. i see what you did there.

(no subject) - Anonymous
lovedforaday 11th-Dec-2016 03:09 pm (UTC)
who said i was trying to prove anything other than i think he's an asshole and don't blame people of being wary of his essays and opinions. i mean i can't imagine a ~neoliberal~ being given that much leeway if they said half the shit greenwald does on twitter.

i mean you also balked at him being called anti-racist and bro-gressive, and here he is being sexist and arguably anti-black and now he's not a saint.

Edited at 2016-12-11 03:17 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - Anonymous
lollycunt 11th-Dec-2016 05:42 pm (UTC)
Not to mention liberals rallying behind Joe Walsh now when he didn't even do anything except realize that Republicans don't care about anyone but themselves.

Though to stand up for Sarah, she has said all along that her focus in on Trump's authoritarianism and she praised Frum for statements calling that out, she didn't vouch for his entire history. I think she is being consistent from that perspective.
prehnite 11th-Dec-2016 07:27 pm (UTC)
Just chiming in to say that I always appreciate your comments.

And hell, I, the OP, definitely think Greenwald can be an ass and an arrogant one at that. He's still a damn good reporter, though, and I haven't yet found fault with his work as a journalist.
snarksnarklaugh 13th-Dec-2016 03:49 am (UTC)
I find that a lot of gay men are very screw feminism and it totally doesn't make sense to me. EVER. Or than someone don't want competition for all the dick. They turn into catty miserable flat chested middle school girls about it.

Holier than thou isn't just for right wingers. It's very vote 3rd party because the parties are the same bs.

elialshadowpine 11th-Dec-2016 02:39 pm (UTC)
Okay, this one pissed me off. Incoming long-as-fuck rant. I apologize in advance for the comment-splosion.

Sure, I can agree with "let's make sure", but... that's not really what this piece is. Instead of arguing on what would be perfectly logical, factual, reasonable bases, it instead -- repeatedly -- focuses primarily on not believing the reports because, well, the CIA lies, don't you know? That little bit of disclaimer towards the end is, as far as I can tell, only there to keep more people from yelping that they're biased.

Pretty much everybody knows that the CIA lies. Bears, woods, shit, all that. I have not personally seen anybody insisting that it must be true, even those on my friends pages across social media (roughly ~1500 individuals, although that is not exact) who are die-hard Clinton supporters. The people I know who I would say would be the most likely to want to believe this is true are also waiting to have more evidence. I will grant that this is based on my sampling of what the people I know/follow post, and hey, maybe there is some massive group of people who are taking the ball and running way too far with it. But I'd like receipts on that, and no, I am not going back into Google for this one.

I actually did some further googling and reading on the situation, because I did want to see if I had maybe remembered things wrong. So, this goes back to October, prior to the FBI "leaked" emails, by a week or so, I think. Of course, shit about "MORE EMAILS" quickly derailed the whole Russia thing because apparently Clinton's emails are more important than making sure back at that point in time to take whatever steps needed to protect the voting system from hacks.

Now, this isn't the hack that WP is talking about, but it is related. In the run-up to the election, after that came out, I read articles from multiple people at multiple sources (some known-trusted, some personal blogs/websites) all of whom were involved in IT/security and who also had experience with voting machines in their state/s. One thing was repeatedly stated, which is that there are types of voting machine that have wifi (...WHY????? the fucking MOMENT you put those online, you are open to hacking, THIS IS NOT ROCKET SURGERY *fumes*), and... as I just ranted, are thus hackable, and potentially in a way that is untraceable. The suggestion was to disable any internet connectivity whatsoever, but this did not seem to gain much visibility or traction.

Not that the state or federal gov'ts have a great track record of keeping up with IT security. At all. In fact, it's absolutely fucking pathetic how little the fucking gov't seems to know of the internet and technology as a general rule. But this one is pretty fucking basic. ANYWAY.

elialshadowpine pt211th-Dec-2016 02:39 pm (UTC)
Going back to the October leak; I'm pretty sure that this is the one where Clinton stated that 17 different intelligence agencies agreed that there was evidence of Russia-linked hacking. This quote from her is verified by PolitiFact as true; honestly, though, I didn't look at it much further because the Google search was swamped with obviously Republican biased "news" sites that were attempting to disprove this claim. Now, I have already spent what is probably too much time (except not really, since I wanted to double-check anyway, but I wouldn't have dug this far, I don't think) on this so no, I did not look in exhaustive detail, but PolitiFact is pretty well-substantiated.

If I recall, concerns about Russian interference with the election were ongoing since about... um. March? I think. Even if I have the exact month wrong, I remember it was during the primaries because there was arguing about whether Russia was trying to interfere in the Bernie/Hillary race. So, this is not something brand fucking new here. This is something that the CIA and other int'l agencies have probably been watching since then and trying to pile up enough evidence to warrant suspicion.

So, this post here comes off to me as though they're saying, well, we shouldn't believe it because there's no evidence and the CIA lies, with no mention that I can see of precisely how far BACK in the year these concerns have gone. I googled Glenn Greenwald + Russia and came up with a whole bunch of times he's quoted, throughout the year, as stating that it (effectively) wasn't Russia. And, no, those were not all of the, "Hey, maybe we should wait for more evidence" type, either. With what seems to be a history, at least in 2016, of defending the country that the CIA+other int'l believes is behind the hacks... well, that makes me raise an eyebrow.

It certainly does not help the author's credibility when he repeatedly makes judgemental statements about Democrats. If it were one mention, I would shrug it off, but it's repeated at length throughout the piece. There are about four or five different long paragraphs (and holy shit does this guy use run-on sentences, and I thought I was bad about it) that include such comments as: "Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory."

That is not exactly making me want to sympathize. I still agree with the overall point of not judging that it is precisely what happened, but I want receipts on the supposed fact that Democrats as a general whole are taking it as absolutely confirmed. Cause I haven't seen it. But, you don't have to be an asshole to make the extremely valid point of caution, and this guy is being an asshole. I do not know anything about the individual except from what I mentioned above on doing a bit of further looking; however, I'm acting primarily on his statements within this piece.

elialshadowpine pt311th-Dec-2016 02:40 pm (UTC)

Additionally, the claim seems to be based on the fact that there has not been evidence leaked. Okay, valid. Also, inter-agency bickering between the FBI/CIA. Yeah, I can buy that. Sure. That said, I have a question that Greenwald does not seem to address. Right, so, let's say this is another CIA lie (and I'm withholding judgement either way), and run with that. Why did they wait until now to leak this? Why didn't it come up in March, or July, or August, or October, which are the months I remember stuff re: Trump/Russia connections being made. Why wait until after the election results? If there is inter-agency bickering, why didn't they release this after the FBI "more emails" thing?

Why are anonymous sources only coming forward after the election, when there are so many ways that the election could be influenced? There have been so many different possible ways to influence the election at this point that it is scary. The vast majority of them are ones that the Founding Fathers could not have predicted, because they are based on technology that simply did not exist then.

If this was all bullshit, why didn't they come forward beforehand? It does not logically compute for me. If the CIA has an agenda in bringing this forward now, what is it? I suppose you could argue that they have an agenda in discrediting the Fanta Fascist, and any Clinton supporters were convinced that she would win... but, if they were also concerned about Russian tampering, then why would they wait?

That's the part of this that makes me take the accusations seriously; the course of events over the past year (and I am seriously whimpering because I just realized not one single article I have read about this has brought up the length of time that there have been questions about Russian involvement; does the news seriously only have a one-to-two month attention span now?) are such that, from the outside, it seems fairly logical and consistent that there wouldn't be any leaks until they had what they thought was plausible evidence. THAT makes sense. Otherwise, I am very confused, and also curious as to what the agenda is, because I'm coming up blank.

I suppose the only real one I can think of is tipping the Obama administration into launching their own investigation, and if it is found that the Fanta Fascist & co. do in fact have some sort of connection to Russia, or there was Russian tampering, then... *thinks* Well, were a knowing connection to Russia to be proven, and at a level that more than the Fanta Fascist would be aware of, that perhaps could call the legitimacy of the campaign into question entirely. I don't believe we have any precedent for this situation; I know we have precedent for treason but I'm not sure if there's anything that specifically covers the situation of multiple key members of a campaign committing treason.

(I must add: I am not saying this is what happened. I'm going along the "what if" train here.)

I'm pretty sure at that point, it would end up in Congress. That would be a headache.

If an acting link is found between Fanta Fascist (individually) and Russia, there is certainly impeachment, but that does result in Pence becoming Acting President, as I understand. A misunderstanding that is coming up in quite a few places about the process for removing a President-Elect/President is that if such were done, then Clinton would automatically be put into office. No, it doesn't work like that. On one hand, I don't want to crush people's hopes but at the same time, there is a great deal of misinformation about how the various processes work. *sigh*

Greenwald's main defense seems to be that we don't have evidence yet, and thus people should not jump to conclusions. That works both ways. You shouldn't be disregarding the concerns, either, and even though at points he interjects that the concerns should be taken seriously, it's done in such a fleeting way compared to the rest of the piece that it just comes across as CYA. The overall tone and content of this suggests that he has already come to a conclusion of his own, though he doesn't outright say so (although when I looked at comments he made previously in the year regarding this, he sees to consistently brush this off).

OK. Rant mode off for now.
(no subject) - Anonymous
elialshadowpine 12th-Dec-2016 12:04 am (UTC)
I had to think on this a little. I thought I pointed out various areas where I either disagreed, was put off, or where I had further questions because it does not logically follow to release this now. That said, the human race are not Vulcans, and logic does not always enter into decisions. As a very logic-based autist, I sometimes have to remind myself of this.

TBH, it boils down to that even if I agree with someone -- and while there are certain things that I do agree with, such as withholding judgement until there is further evidence -- I can still be pissed off that they're being an ass in their overall tone and attitude. And Greenwald is being an ass in multiple places in this piece. We may agree on what some would consider the "important" things, but I consider the way in which the information and opinion is delivered to also be important. This is likely because I'm a writer and editor by trade; language and the way it is used is important to me, even if it's not to others.

I suppose it especially bothers me from people that I generally agree with, because they could have put it in a way that wasn't insulting. There are statements made in various places that are off-putting, at the very least.

I also can absolutely not tell from Greenwald's writing if he is referring to the Democratic party, registered Democrats, or people who tend to vote Democrat. If it's the latter, then I'm very much not cool with some of the descriptors used because that's a lot of people to tar with an extremely negative brush.

As far as the second paragraph:

Perhaps I tend to attract overly cynical people? I don't know, because the general commentary I've seen has been fairly muted considering the seriousness of the matter. But I haven't been keeping a terribly close eye on responses to it from prominent Democrats, because, well, I only have so much time, and trying to keep up with the speed of 24/7 news is about as bad as Twitter.

So I am going by the stuff that I've seen reblogged and RT'd, etc, on various social media. If you happen to have come across any articles or such that go into more detail on what you've said regarding seeing respected journalists and public figures accepting this as fact, I'd appreciate links. I'll note I'm not asking for "receipts" so much as I'd genuinely like to know... well, their direct statements, but also who I ought be disappointed with, although I'm not quite sure why I'm asking for that. 2016 has provided me with a long list of people to be disappointed with/in. Including family. *sigh*

Also, it's something that if it is a widespread issue that I haven't come across (and I'll freely admit that my friend/following sample is not exhaustive), I'd like to post about it on my own social media. I should specify here that when I mean "widespread issue", I mean people like public figures and those who are well-respected, and not your average person clicking share/reblog on FB or Tumblr. I expect better of those in positions of power/authority.

That way, I can point out that it is not overreacting to take this extremely seriously and it must be investigated thoroughly, because the implications are incredible in a brain-breaking sort of way. BUT. It is also not something to be treated as absolute fact because of the implications that could have, too. That's why there's an investigation; to find out whether or not it is true. But if any prominent Democrats, especially those holding office, are making statements that this is what happened, period, that's just not cool either, and it is indeed dangerous. We don't need a diplomatic crisis with Russia over, well, overreactions.

Again, if you do have links, I'd love to see them, and I mean that in all sincerity. At the same time, I understand entirely if you don't have the time for that.. I've tried to Google but I'm either not getting the right search terms or Google is just swamped with repetitive articles that are basically repeating the WP's article. I don't have the energy at the moment; I've been up for just over 24hrs at this point. -_-

I'll also note that being Team No One is absolutely a thing.
soliano 11th-Dec-2016 05:14 pm (UTC)
FWIW, isn't LJ a Russian product now?
prehnite 11th-Dec-2016 07:30 pm (UTC)
Yeah. It was sold to a Russian company in 2007 (I remember this because it was shortly after that whole strikethrough thing).
bnmc2005 12th-Dec-2016 04:37 pm (UTC)
I brought this up previously.

Remember when LJ would go down for a day because of the DNS attacks and the war with Georgia?


Not necessarily related but ONTD gossip was a huge promoter of Trump and his shows for a long while before the election. Every Apprentice related item and anyt time that fucker opened his mouth there would be a thread on it over there.

Trump created a dominate media presence Looooong before the election and continues to do so. All indication is that he's not going to let up either. No doubt, NBC, ONTD still be promoting his show - his empire - after he's in office.

How do we fight back against a presence like that. Tell people not to watch?

How about boycotting The Apprentice?
snarksnarklaugh 13th-Dec-2016 03:17 am (UTC)
Leaking to the press is a long held tradition.
If it works for wikileaks,Russia,etc why not ?
If court of public opinion and actions can stop things before it needs to be put into an actual court than do it.

F.B.I. always know to be more heavily infiltrated by Russians and more traitors than C.I.A.

At least I'll say only Fox is as bad as any fucking Russian journalism. While I'd actually like to give credit to all the fine Russian and foreign journalist in Russia who don't give in to intimidation,jailing,murders,and disappearances.

This page was loaded Aug 18th 2019, 9:44 pm GMT.