# White House announces Russian sanctions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 29, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863 "2016-12-29T20:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/161 "2017-01-01T16:05:37Z")
Yeah, he knows a lot about hacking. Like he knows a lot about “cyber”. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/162 "2017-01-01T16:32:02Z")
ditto Obama, of course … ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/163 "2017-01-01T16:32:33Z")
I’d be willing to put the CIA’s accuracy up against Trump’s. The guy doesn’t even know what he said on Iraq, whereas the CIA at least acknowledges they were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/164 "2017-01-01T17:31:47Z")
Meh, even the CIA seems to be hedging their bets on whether it was the Russians or not. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/165 "2017-01-01T17:33:56Z")
I remember back in the day when it was always the Chinese. I guess it depends on what suits the game. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/166 "2017-01-01T17:51:57Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > I remember back in the day when it was always the Chinese. I guess it depends on what suits the game. “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” Applies perfectly to this red-baiting stupidity right now. ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/167 "2017-01-01T17:57:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Meh, even the CIA seems to be hedging their bets on whether it was the Russians or not. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/168 "2017-01-01T17:57:46Z")
Prob the North Koreans by March /boohiss ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/169 "2017-01-01T18:07:32Z")
Got to be, we are assured by an expert that its “red-baiting”, they are the only actual Communists left. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/170 "2017-01-01T18:22:55Z")
> [@Club\_33](#): > > Cite? I’m on a phone right now, so i’ve got limited ability to hotlink or format, but in the JAR, they used the word “likely”. They don’t appear to believe it’s a certainty. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/171 "2017-01-01T18:52:38Z")
The truly appalling thing about this is no one is accountable in the USA. The enemy is the enemy for now and next time it might be someone else and of course we have evidence and of course we can’t tell you about it. Why is no one accountable, doesn’t it undermine still further whatever is left of democracy in the country … ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/172 "2017-01-01T18:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > …They don’t appear to believe it’s a certainty. Such is the nature of modern day intelligence work. On Dec. 8, 1941, they would have said that the attack on Pearl Harbor was “almost certainly” the Japanese. Of course, it might have been any number of countries that would have preferred the calm, steady American leadership of Trump. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/173 "2017-01-01T19:07:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m on a phone right now, so i’ve got limited ability to hotlink or format, but in the JAR, they used the word “likely”. They don’t appear to believe it’s a certainty. Let’s examine that statement and see what the point might be. The use of probability-based assessments is typical of the vast majority of technical analyses of complex issues. For instance, if you read the thousands of pages of the latest IPCC assessments on climate change, terms like “likely” and “very likely” appear throughout, along with lesser probabilities on many issues. Almost nowhere does a term like “absolutely certain” appear, and indeed with rare exceptions such a term is incongruous with the conduct of science. Yet in the IPCC analogy, when “likely” and “very likely” is associated with thousands of independent lines of evidence, the overall scientific level of confidence on general conclusions is fairly clear, and harping on specific individual uncertainties is generally recognized as denialist mendacity. In the hacking case, much of the specific evidence is classified, but from a general audience standpoint, when three government agencies and a bunch of European nations all state that they have evidence of Russian hacking, and the president, with access to all available details, feels the evidence is strong enough to justify significant diplomatic sanctions, then it seems pretty convincing. Much as in the climate debate, when deniers and contrarians insist on a myopically misplaced emphasis on the use of probabilistic terms in technical analyses, they are trying to reprocess the argument in such a way that “likely” now means “maybe, maybe not” and their preferred position of denial of things they’d rather not believe is falsely portrayed as a significant possibility, despite overwhelming reason to believe otherwise. Or, IOW, stop microanalyzing individual words and putting your own interpretations on them based on what you want to believe, and rationally look at the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/174 "2017-01-01T20:02:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In the hacking case, much of the specific evidence is classified, but from a general audience standpoint, when three government agencies and a bunch of European nations all state that they have evidence of Russian hacking, and the president, with access to all available details, feels the evidence is strong enough to justify significant diplomatic sanctions, then it seems pretty convincing. Argument from authority. Which may work when combined with some evidence. None was presented except a piece of code that may have originated in Russia but, as arstechnica article stated, can be bought in hacker “market” by anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/175 "2017-01-01T20:26:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m on a phone right now, so i’ve got limited ability to hotlink or format, but in the JAR, they used the word “likely”. They don’t appear to believe it’s a certainty. I’m on a phone but here are the first paragraphs of that report: > [@](#): > > This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE. > > Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security. The CIA does not take credit for the JAR. The JAR specifically says it “expands” not “amends” nor “repudiates” the report that initially pointed the finger at Russia. I also don’t see the word “likely” in there. Maybe it is in one of the other 12 pages of the JAR, but this report clearly says Russia did it. Wherever you got this idea that the CIA is backing away from the assessment, it clearly isn’t from this report. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/176 "2017-01-01T21:30:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In the hacking case, much of the specific evidence is classified, but from a general audience standpoint, when three government agencies and a bunch of European nations all state that they have evidence of Russian hacking, and the president, with access to all available details, feels the evidence is strong enough to justify significant diplomatic sanctions, then it seems pretty convincing. I distinctly remember when a bunch of US intelligence agencies and European nations all said they had evidence that Saddam was trying to obtain WMDs. The president at the time, with access to all available details, felt the evidence was strong enough to justify a war. It was all very convincing. So convincing that even HRC voted in favor of the war. It was also all very wrong. Given that recent experience, I think a bit of skepticism here is in order. YMMV. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Or, IOW, stop microanalyzing individual words and putting your own interpretations on them based on what you want to believe, and rationally look at the big picture. I am rationally looking at the big picture. The intelligence community gets stuff wrong sometimes. They’ve done so in dramatic fashion in recent times. If you want to take their word for something, be my guest. In the land of reality-based worldviews, some of us would like to see a bit more evidence first. I’m not alone in this either: [Salon: Down the rabbit hole: Government’s first report on Russian hack is woefully inadequate](http://www.salon.com/2016/12/31/down-the-rabbit-hole-governments-first-report-on-russian-hack-is-woefully-inadequate/) [Rolling Stone: Something About This Russia Story Stinks](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439) [Ars Technica: White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election](http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/) ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/177 "2017-01-01T21:34:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In the hacking case, much of the specific evidence is classified, but from a general audience standpoint, when three government agencies and a bunch of European nations all state that they have evidence of Russian hacking, and the president, with access to all available details, feels the evidence is strong enough to justify significant diplomatic sanctions, then it seems pretty convincing. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > Argument from authority. Which may work when combined with some evidence. None was presented except a piece of code that may have originated in Russia but, as arstechnica article stated, can be bought in hacker “market” by anyone. You’ve demonstrated, here, that you don’t understand the concept of “argument from authority” as a type of fallacious thinking. Here’s the Rational Wiki definition of the fallacy: > [@](#): > > A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.) [Argument from authority - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) The essence of the fallacy is the citation of one or more ‘authority figures’ who are _not_ authorities on the topic in question. Wolfpup cited _actual_ authority figures on the topic in question (“three government agencies” et al). Wolfpup therefore made an argument that is valid rather than fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/178 "2017-01-01T21:42:14Z")
Trump said today that he doubts it was the Russians behind the hacking. “It could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.” He went on to say, “You’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday” what he knows. What is with his need to claim special knowledge? It’s as if he’s a child on the playground taunting another kid, “I know something you don’t know.” In less than three weeks, the man will be POTUS and of course he’ll know things we don’t know. And he already gets the intelligence briefings so he’s already got info we don’t have. That’s the nature of the job. Why does he need to tease us with this fact? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/179 "2017-01-01T21:46:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So convincing that even HRC voted in favor of the war. They voted to give the President the ability to declare war. I though he was going to use it as a threat, not declare war so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863/180 "2017-01-01T21:53:41Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > What is with his need to claim special knowledge? It’s as if he’s a child on the playground … Asked and answered. In addition to Man-Baby’s need to be one-up on every other inhabitant of the planet, there’s apparently still some little corner of his mind flooded with fears that he _won’t get to be President_–that something will happen to prove Putin actually did more to elect him than most people believe (hacked voting machines or such). Seems unlikely to me. But Trump is an insecure guy. He worries. Hence the ‘let’s move along’ and ‘there’s no real way to know!’ themes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-house-announces-russian-sanctions/775863.md?page=10)