Implication as I understand it is: if the arrests are real deal, CIA reports should be seen as more credible.
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
Not because these folks led the hacking effort, but because they're well placed and Russia thinks they're guilty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
If CIA reports were all based on bad intel and wishful thinking, implication goes, these folks wouldn't be on the hot seat.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Again, based off the confirmation bias that this is about DNC hack. If it's not, that's not the case.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @matthew_d_green
Incidentally, if this is abt CIA sources, why did US need a tip from UK abt initial (FSB, by all accounts) hack of DNC?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
Who says they did? If you're going to leak evidence to the public, leak the less harmful stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @emptywheel
"We learned that house was burning because we saw the smoke" not "our paid spies told us the arsonist was going there."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
Yeah, I get that. I'm pointing out details asserted as fact would not then be fact.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
They are facts. Just not all the facts. And to a person reporting them (without the full picture) they might appear complete.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
No. Not as reported. As reported they are inconsistent with the dominant confirmation bias story being told.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'll add, that there are further details that are inconsistent with CIA having that clear of knowledge.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.