emptywheel

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.