Why doesn't the CIA just release the evidence?

[B2G]

I mean come ON!

[Skinner]

1. Vox suggested that doing so might compromise sources.

Which would be bad.

What makes this fight so tricky is that the CIA’s best evidence really might be information that it can’t release publicly without compromising valuable sources of future intelligence. That means the CIA needs to convince a skeptical public to accept its conclusions without sharing all of the information that led the intelligence agency to make those conclusions in the first place.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/13/13922054/cia-russia-hacking

[B2G]

2. Then why doesn't the CIA say that?

Vox is guessing.

[Bucky]

3. CIA's job is to be as dark as possible

They can't just say that, even tho everyone know revealing how they know it's Russian work will tell the Russians who we found out through.

Anyway, it's illegal for the CIA to "just release it". They need to follow what the president says.

[LanternWaste]

13. Possibly for the same reason the British never said "we've cracked Enigma."

Possibly for the same reason the British, during WW2 never said "we've cracked Enigma."

The opposition could (most likely would) deduce a leak, infer its location/personhood, and then refrain from using it again, thus depriving an additional intelligence source. Yes Vox is guessing... we all are.

[dumbcat]

4. Sources and methods n/t

nt

[TexasProgresive]

5. It's a catch 22

If they release full details the Russian intelligence people gain knowledge of how to defend against us. The same reasons the Allies did not let on that the NAZI code was cracked during WWII.

[Ron Obvious]

6. I can only imagine the sneering at the CIA here if this had happened under Bush.

I'd like to see something more concrete too. Assertions don't do it for me.

[hughee99]

7. For all the "high confidence" statements that

Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2016, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Unnamed CIA officials have made about their findings, it sounds like they don't actually have proof, or at least the kind of proof they could reveal without compromising their methods or assets. As pissed as people seem to be with Comey discussing details of an investigation or vague statements about a continuing investigation, I can understand why the CIA doesn't want to wade into those waters.

[hughee99]

12. McFadden also reported that a hacker actually

Got into Clinton's private server. Was that good enough for you?

[sofa king]

8. I can offer another reason.

The results were which were released on Friday appear to have been timed to influence the Electoral College vote, but there's still half a news cycle to go, starting tomorrow afternoon. (I'm still trying to get used to the idea that the "Friday news dump" is now the most important day in the election media cycle.)

Perhaps we'll see something... more... tomorrow. It would have to be very large and damaging, at this point.

[TheBlackAdder]

10. The CIA (and supposedly the FBI) is to provide information to politicians, not be a political force.

[B2G]

11. What information have they provided?

Have there been hearings or briefings?

I haven't heard anything concrete coming out of congress.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. The role of those agencies to to research and report on politician and gov't requests, neutrally.

.


Those are closed sessions that are not privy topublic disclosure, unless the politician or agency releases it.

Of course, we are now seeing rogue actions to affect political change, which is not good.


.

[HoneyBadger]

15. If I had to guess

They are on vacation until 2017, and operating with a skeleton staff till then. These are not cops walking a beat and working a shift on Christmas, they are well compensated white collar government employees with trips, holiday shopping, scheduled vacation time, etc planned.

[think]

16. Good question.