
U.S. Statement on Reliability of Election Results - pdog
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/us-statement-on-reliability-of-election-results.html
======
alexandercrohde
Wow, what an empty article. An official unwilling to be identified asserts the
default (not tampered with), and then implies malicious intent on Russia's
behalf as if it were a side note.

If we have a credible reason to think Russia is unilaterally attacking our
infrastructure in a way we don't do to other nations (e.g. reading tapping
their president's phone) then please provide the evidence to the public
straight up. Otherwise, don't insinuate.

~~~
YCode
FWIW anonymous but somehow legitimate sources are often official spokespeople.

The reason they won't let reporters attribute statements to them is because
while what they are saying is true it's not the official stance of the
organization and/or the guidance documents they work off havn't been updated
to include those statements.

~~~
JakeAl
But what's their reason for not presenting evidence?

~~~
YCode
That's very typical. The way it works is the reporter queries the organization
with whatever info they want and the organization responds with a statement.

"evidence" is beyond the scope of the interaction unless there is some reason
to question the integrity of the spokesperson.

~~~
alexandercrohde
As long as you're not saying "typical" means justified.

~~~
YCode
What's unjustified about the statement they issued?

------
bdamm
Kind of curious allusion to the "warnings" being sent. What's that about?
Press releases from the POTUS saber rattling or something a bit more specific?

