U.S. Statement on Reliability of Election Results

nytimes.com

8 points·pdog··7 comments

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.

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.

But what's their reason for not presenting evidence?

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.

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

What's unjustified about the statement they issued?

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com