That is exactly what happens in the federal agencies. Analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats comb through the data and report it. Methods and proof are closely guarded for security reasons but the conclusion is public. In any other debate (except for climate change), the testimony of the collective works of the agencies is accepted as proof.
If they checked the paper trail of voting machines and noted a discrepancy (meaning someone hacked it), why don't they present it? There's plenty of stuff leaking as it is, so this shouldn't be too hard. I don't believe that invisible proof should be accepted that uncritically, I'm sorry. If NASA would do that, one would have to admit that climate risk deniers have a point. I trust what NASA says because people I trust (bloggers, etc) have looked at the data and confirmed it, not just because NASA says it.
And NASA has a fantastic track record, when compared to lying, warmongering agencies like the CIA, NSA and FBI.
For example The NSA director says the Russians meddled in the elections:
The DNI director also said it happened:
The CIA director also said it happened:
(jump to 34:02)
Okay, so now we leave the 'Russians hacked voting machines and/or power plants' insinuation and we come to the alleged hacking of DNC servers. This is different from a paper trail that can be checked by journalists. In fact, I believe that not even your thousands of independent analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats have had a look at this 'paper trail' because the DNC simply refused to release its servers to be investigated by intelligence agencies. Instead they used some private company, who since then has issued all kinds of doubtful statements that have been proven to be wrong or unsubstantiated. The media ran with them nonetheless, as we can still see in this thread.
But leaving aside whether it was a hack or a leak, a hack by whom, etc, the content of what was released also counts for something, right? And it's the content that was so damaging to Clinton, with good reason. Why has this been glossed over so casually? Because the establishment controls the mainstream media.
But even then, Archimid, the NSA/CIA/FBI have so much surveilling power that they can look at your and my private mails, switch on our webcams, switch on our computers while they're off, track everything we do on the Internet, and so on (thanks in part to the wonderful Obama), and they said they knew the Russians were doing all those things while they were doing it, but a) they didn't stop them and b) that should make it super easy to prove. Maybe not prove hacks were conclusively done by Russian agencies, but at least prove the 'collusion' between Trump's cronies and the Russians. If only for the fact that it's constantly repeated how stupid and sloppy these people are. It should be super, super easy.
And with collusion I don't mean the standard corruption of transnational cooperation between centres of money and power. You know, Russian oil and all that stuff. No, I mean recordings or mails where they actually discuss how Putin can help Trump win the elections. That should be super easy for the NSA/CIA/FBI to produce.
So your litmus test, "I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail" is met, but to you the people checking the paper trail are lying.
If they're all from the intelligence industry, then no, we're not talking about a 'variety of people'. Traditionally it's journalism that blows the lid off conspiracies, not intelligence agencies. Remember Watergate?
[/quote]You say
Investigative journalists with a proven track record, if they still exist.
So by your own admission, it is unlikely that a person with enough credibility exists for you to believe it. That could be interpreted as regardless of who say it, you won't believe it. I think you must examine your objectivity.[/quote]
Not at all, I can come up with a few names. People at The Intercept, for instance, like Glenn Greenwald. Journalists at The Guardian, who are known for this kind of work (Panama Papers, etc). There are plenty of good, independent journalists in Europe, and probably still some left at the WP or NYT. I don't know all of them.
You're implying that I reason from this pre-conceived idea that Russia didn't meddle with the elections whatsoever. This simply isn't true. I'm sure that oligarchs literally know no boundaries and there's a very complex network of incredible wealth that tries to get bigger all the time. I'm not shocked at all by that. This is nothing new. It's how the system works, which is why we're in this mess (because the problem is not Trump, but the system).
The point is that I don't care about who is doing it, whether it's ugly Trump or beautiful Obama. As a matter of fact, if Obama or Hillary would've won elections through collusion with some foreign agency, I'm pretty sure nobody would care. This annoys me to no end.
And secondly, I fear that all this energy and attention going towards Russiagate could have very adverse effects, further cementing Trump into power, giving him full control over the GOP, and doing some really, really nasty stuff (worse than what he has done so far).
That's all. I'm not a Kremlin puppet.