The Real News Network has the interview Has Mueller Caught the Hackers?.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 12 officials with the GRU, Russia’s main foreign intelligence agency, for allegedly meddling in the 2016 election, including hacking Democratic Party emails. Case closed? Author and investigative journalist Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News joins TRNN’s Aaron Mate to discuss.
This is quite a back and forth between Aaron Mate and Michael Isikoff. I have a lot of respect for Michael Isikoff, but I don’t believe he is God.
He admits his lack of computer expertise in judging some of these claims. I have read computer experts that I have a lot of faith in (besides my own expertise) that makes it trivial to knock down the claims of the “intelligence” report that supports much of what Isikoff believes.
Isikoff uses the old debate trick by asking Mate if he has a better explanation. As I have said many times about people who say “I can’t imagine another explanation”, that this says more about their lack of imagination than it says about the story they believe to be true. Like a mathematical proof, you can convincingly knock holes in a proof that destroy that proof without having a better proof of your own. There are many mathematical proofs that have been postulated to “prove” one thing or another that were shown to be wrong long before anybody came up with a proof that did not get knocked down. Mathematicians may say that they strongly believe something is true, but are willing to admit there is no proof yet. There are mathematicians who will spend a career trying to prove a mathematical conjecture that they do not succeed in proving, and do not succeed in disproving.
Remember that there were politicians, journalists, and other “experts” who were so sure about the story of Iraqi WMD that turned out to be completely fictitious. Isikoff mentions that there have been two different administrations, Obama and Trump, who have made the same claims about Russia. What he fails to mention is that there has only been one intelligence apparatus (some call the deep state) that has existed throughout most of the past administrations perhaps dating as far back as WW II or before.
I always think of the lawyer’s ploy when confronted by a witness who has a record of lying, but swears to be telling the truth. The lawyer asks, “Do you expect us to believe that you were lying before, but are telling us the truth now?” Dor me, that is a very effective question. Once you lie, you destroy your credibility. It is almost impossible to get your credibility back. That is one reason I hate lies even if they are coming from “my side”.