US govt "report" about "Russian hacking" of USA 2016 election

[Warren D Smith]

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

"This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment;
its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified
assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information
on key elements of the influence campaign."

WDS COMMENT:
I just read this report. It has fairly dramatic and supposedly "high
confidence"
conclusions e.g. see pages ii & iii.
But, at least in this declassified report, the actual evidence
they present, or even merely "vaguely describe," is somewhere between little
and none.

So I am not at all convinced. Far as I can see, it comes down to
"trust us, we're
experts." Trouble is, I know that, and everybody who watched the video
of him knows, that, e.g, James Clapper is a liar. I also know that James Comey
issued incompetent statements of pseudo-expertise about election security.
So if Clapper and Comey tell me to trust them, then that seems
insufficient. To convince me, more is needed. And I'm not seeing it in this
so-called report.


--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[Warren D Smith]

Just saw TV news coverage about the US govt report
on Russian hacking. Which I had read beforehand. I was appalled.
As far as I could tell, not one of the several TV news
shows had read the report in its entirety.
They apparently just flipped to the "results" page, and read no further.
Some took the attitude that several US intel agencies
had said they had "high confidence" therefore case closed (no actual
evidence needed).
Others just made up statements the report never said.
But which also had no available evidential basis.

E.g, there is no evidential basis for the claims that
no vote was changed by the Russians, or that no voting machine
was hacked, or that the election outcome was unchanged.
(These might be true, but the report gives no evidence,
and indeed essentially all attempts at a forensic audit of
machines, were blocked, preventing there from being any evidence.)
Even though these claims have been stated as fact, on TV.

And as far as I can tell, virtually every interested party has now
issued conflicting statements, and all of them are known liars.
Except maybe Julian Assange, if we regard him as a Shining
Light of Truth -- and by comparison to Trump, Clapper, TV news guys,
etc, he has been -- who says his source was not the Russians nor
indeed any "state actor." But even if we take that as true, that still
would not prove much.