"US government took the rare step of publicly pointing the finger at the Russian government, accusing it of directing the recent string of hacks and data breaches. The intelligence community declined to explain how they reached their conclusion, and it’s fair to assume they have data no one else can see."
So, if the evidence exists (and I personally believe it does, though I also understand those who disagree) it hasn't been made public.
I for one would really like to see this evidence and I'm very reluctant to just assume these people have it right as they have had it wrong so many times.
Anyway, the sheer fact that a phishing attempt at a personal email accout yielded anything already points to gross incompetence in the government. The miasma of email scandals around Clinton and her friends just keeps on spreading...
I'm not American so I have no skin in the game, but I'm surprised that Trump keeps banging on about the email server. If that (and that someone in her organisation got phished) is the worst you've got on Clinton, I'm glad that you're going to have such a clean president.
Not sure why you feel a risotto recipe is supposed to be critically important to the American public.
I mean, don't we already know to add the broth in a little at a time? Are there really people that dump the entire broth in at once?
Non-partisan outrage and country-before-party are necessary reguardless of the names or affiliations.
We have only a very general statement that does not say anything is actually 'confirmed'. It is speculative, so you could say the intelligence isn't convinced this time either. However, politicians are already spinning it for their agenda. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
Not to sound arrogant, I really like to know some reasoning behind it. I'm even more curious to understand if you are an American citizen.
With the lack of any publicly available evidence, I guess the reasoning behind it largely comes down to trust. You either trust the government on this or you don't. On this issue, I do, but again, I wouldn't fault you for disagreeing. If I had to elaborate, I'd say:
The cost of being caught in a lie is sufficiently damaging to the organization that makes the claim. What benefit do they gain by making such a claim? does the risk of getting caught in a lie outweigh the benefit? I just don't see the lie as being a risk worth taking.
There have been many times in the past where 'blaming it on Russia' could have been politically convenient. If you do it too often, you become the boy-who-cries-wolf. Would the risk of reputation loss outweigh the benefits gained by telling the lie? again, I don't see the lie as being worth the risk.
Not losing the most important general election of this first half-century?
This might actually explain KGB/FSB's apparent preference for Trump: the enemy of one's enemy...
I only intended to point out that various agencies do have interests in the outcome of elections.
Before the first debate Trump was down by 1 point (but trending upward) according to the RealClearPolitics average. That's within the margin of error on even the largest polls, meaning he was basically tied with Hillary. Then the Alicia Machado story broke at the end of the first debate, and his poll numbers went down to about -4. Then the bus tape came out, and he's now at roughly -7. That's well outside the margin of error. In fact, his poll numbers are now at the point where no one has ever won the presidency while being this far down so close to the election. He might still pull it off, but he's got a steep road ahead of him.
So he's gone from basically tied, to the point where he'd need something huge to happen in order to win. The biggest stories in that period of time were Alicia Machado and the bus tape. Most of the polls give detailed demographic breakdowns. He's dropped a little with men, but most of the damage was with women, where he's seen a double-digit loss of support in some polls.
What do you mean if?
Perhaps my original comment was unclear, but I believe the statements made in the article imply the latter.
Many people do not agree, believing that their government (as defined by what they think it should do) is on their side.
It is a matter of trust or distrust by default. Personally, I believe the spirit of the US Constitution is to distrust those in charge.