Pulling from
this thread to avoid changing the topic to one current news story over there. First thought: it's a very early, dynamic story, so I'll put the consumer news guide into a followup comment ... in this post, I'll look at the level of evidence in The Blaze article compared to available evidence. In the next, I'll evaluate the level of evidence in the New York Times article.
The
New York Times article was fairly specific about the kinds of sources they had and the kinds of evidence they had. The Blaze article doesn't engage the facts presented at all, but depicts a conversation between (1) a television host who was not involved in gathering the evidence, and (2) the head of the Republican National Committee, who directly contradicts facts that are a matter of public record, as you can see if you read the New York Times article.
Mr. McCaul, who was considered by Mr. Trump for secretary of Homeland Security, initially told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “It’s important to note, Wolf, that they have not only hacked into the D.N.C. but also into the R.N.C.” He added that “the Russians have basically hacked into both parties at the national level, and that gives us all concern about what their motivations are.”
Minutes later, the R.N.C. issued a statement denying that it had been hacked. Mr. McCaul subsequently said that he had misspoken, but that it was true that “Republican political operatives” had been the target of Russian hacking. So were establishment Republicans with no ties to the campaign, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
The original set of leaked RNC emails was not terribly interesting, but show that the RNC was hacked. They imply that there's more to the story than the released RNC documents show:
But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.
“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.
The headline of the Blaze article is also interesting - it puts "false" in quotes, as though it might not be false at all.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?