Um, no. It's a factually accurate thing to say. You are batshit. That's the part you're getting confused.
-
Ok. Here you go. This goes more in depth in terms of items mentioned in the dossier that later proved true, notably Russia’s hacking efforts to influence the election.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html …
And here's the very lengthy piece where I point out that ESPECIALLY wrt hacking, that piece is a shitshow and ALSO violates key rules about evidence wrt intel analysis. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/09/06/john-siphers-garbage-post-arguing-the-steele-dossier-isnt-garbage/ …
-
-
That piece is ESPECIALLY nice in the way it says, "this 11/2016 article (which wasn't as good as a 2015 article on the topic) proves that a 12/2016 dossier report is true. Chronology doesn't work that way.
-
Genetic fallacy.
-
So it is your argument that an report in December 2016 can be proven by a report that was public in November 2016?
-
No, my argument in this case is that you have not refuted the substance of the article. As far as I can tell, your comment regarding chronology is completely fabricated.
-
I'm sorry, you're going to have to TRY REALLY HARD TO READ. Sipher is saying that a report issued in December (he doesn't give the date bc he's hiding how late it was) is proven by this: "in November, researchers at Oxford University published a report." That's impossible.
-
And it ignores that 1) the alleged bot factory HAS NOT been proven (in fact it's owner is suing on 2 continents) and 2) FAR BETTER research on bots was available in 2015.
-
Sorry... the owner of what? Who is suing on two continents? The owner of the bot factory that doesn’t exist?
-
Alexej Gubarav is suing on two continents. He owns Webzilla. He is alleged (by name, but it's redacted) to own the bot factory in the dossier. This is really basic stuff.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Sorry, did you just cite yourself as a credible source? Credible citations do not work that way.
-
No. I pointed to a piece that laid out a side by side chronology that showed that IN EVERY SINGLE hack-and-leak post the dossier trailed actual events, often by months.
-
What is the source of your timeline, upon which your entire argument hinges? Hacking wasn’t widely reported until January of 2017, yet you are claiming this was public knowledge much earlier than the 6-months prior timeline of the dossier.
-
Source of timeline: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html … Source that RU had had success hitting major NATO targets: http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-russian-hackers-target-the-pentagon … https://labsblog.f-secure.com/2015/09/17/the-dukes-7-years-of-russian-cyber-espionage/ … First 2 are links in the post -- you might try that? You should definitely check out the first one. It'll rattle your brain.
-
This first link is the dossier, itself. I’m asking you where your timeline is coming from, given your allegations that this information was public “months” before the details in the dossier.
-
The second link (Daily Beast) is incredibly vague, and hardly constitutes “widespread coverage of Russian hacking.” It seems to me are you trying really hard to connect dots that aren’t necessarily correlated — or weren’t at the time.
-
The other one, btw, is what FBI expected DNC to find when they told them, around the time report came out and was widely reported, to Google "the Dukes."
-
But you realize you're now saying, "Golly, that crack MI6 agent shouldn't be expected to do as thorough a job as using The Google or asking actual cybersecurity experts"?
- 28 more replies
New conversation -
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.