如何看待前CIA局長作證表示有足夠的證據表明俄國干涉大選以及和川普團隊的聯繫但是是否有共謀仍需要調查？

01-07

我覺得需要解釋下這個問題：
1，俄國有干預大選
2，這中間和川普團隊有各種聯繫
3，但是這個聯繫當時的證據不能被證明，在美國的司法體系下，共謀也是很難被證明的，如果是不知情的情況下則不算有罪，所以需要繼續調查
如果你覺得我的問題的原意，和我下邊具體解釋的有區別，請在回答時候說明下。或者不太了解共謀的意思也可以說明下。

原始的transcript 還沒有出來，不過有興趣的可以聽聽youtube 上的視頻，關於俄國干預以及川普團隊的關係，請從12分開始看
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGg8gpGqr-w
共謀需要更多調查的證言
I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals. I don"t know whether or not such collusion -- and that"s your term, such collusion existed. I don"t know. But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials「
原稿來自：
Gowdy Grills Brennan: Do You Have Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Or Not?; Brennan: amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;I Donamp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#x27;t Do Evidenceamp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;
-------
Opinion | Brennan』s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump
-------------------------
CIA director alerted FBI to pattern of contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates

你這翻譯也沒誰了，還有足夠的證據，你看that後面接的是什麼？你會不會英文啊，或者說你會不會中文？這就是個歧義病句，一會你可千萬別改題目。

這官員說話這麼官僚，比你中文說的小心一百倍，一句實錘都沒有，文字遊戲一大堆，是出了什麼事都不用承擔責任的，果然是混政治情報圈的人。而且這話說了有半年了吧，同樣的話再重複一遍就是另一個新問題？你們的證據怎麼還不拿出來？而且只是個能讓你們尋求更多調查的證據，這種證據是什麼樣誰都知道。

狼來了！狼來了！狼來了！說一百遍，說上四年，看誰還救你，這是一個民眾壓根不關心的問題，喊美國第一的人是俄國姦細？媒體不是很不喜歡美國第一這個口號嗎，不是狹隘的racist？

天天喊俄羅斯，除了給白宮添堵，並自我安慰取得了阻擊川普的勝利外，沒什麼意義，除非你能證明川普本人叛國，菲林之類的外圍人士沒有任何實際威脅，川普支持者一絲一毫都動搖不了，反而覺得建制派可恨，需要更多時間來drain，不如你們多去關注醫改法案，基礎教育改革，甚至食品券都是不錯的議題。拿俄羅斯做文章，這是建制派對付建制派的把戲，離民眾遠的不行，大選證明了類似的手段效果有限，只能讓媒體自嗨，自我安慰一下：川普正在完蛋。結果現在還來，對付民粹不能發明點對付民粹的方法？

我看三德子都是個更大的對手，建制派這個水平沒有任何變化，如果再推出個像希拉里那樣的建制派政客，估計下次還要栽蔥（還真有可能，一來民主黨現在沒人，二來他們已經把失敗責任拋給境外反美勢力了並沒做哪怕一絲一毫的任何反省，甚至覺得暗箱操縱初選和媒體本來就是理所應當的，錯都在黑客，而且現在還在做。三來，以他們現在的邏輯，肯定會覺得民眾已經厭惡了大老粗，急需一個文質彬彬的建制達人）。

russia，russia，russia，可現實中根本就沒人討論這種問題，減稅，醫改甚至科研經費倒是有。川普一邊被媒體認為是極端右派的國家主義者，需要用博愛，國際主義來壓制，一邊被認為是裡通外國，賣美國的賣國賊，摸摸自己的大腦，你們感覺矛不矛盾？通俄這種帽子貼到社會主義左派頭上都比這個讓人可信，畢竟美國還有不少人堅定的認為俄國依然是共產主義國家。你們這就叫自我欺騙，忽略邏輯矛盾的雙想（double think），是應該多讀點1984，我看紅脖子這方面智商應該比這一搓人都高。

你邀請我來回答問題真是犯了常識性錯誤，因為我總是好心地指出你犯了什麼常識性錯誤。

比如你竟然把高迪的提問拿來討論就是犯了常識性錯誤。顯然你連高迪是誰都不知道，就如你之前沒搞清Chuck Grassley到底是誰就夸夸其談所犯的錯誤如出一轍。

要我是你，打死我也不會選高迪的提問來討論你想討論的問題，因為他的問題總是讓你們這類人陷入絕望。但你顯然沒聽懂他問的問題，也不明白他為什麼要問這樣的問題，更不明白他迫使Brennan回答了什麼問題。

實際上這個聽證會上最大的亮點是好幾個共和黨議員紛紛把自己剩餘的時間捐讓給高迪，讓他多提問。這個場面是很令有些人絕望的。這在國會聽證會上是極其罕見的。但為什麼會這樣？回答這個問題是需要常識的。

過去幾年來巴馬政府治下的官員們過堂時幾乎無人能從高迪的問題下全身而退，從希拉里到科米都砸高迪手上了。這就是為什麼川普當選後高迪是共和黨選民中呼聲最高的AG提名人。這也是為什麼科米被炒後高迪是呼聲最高的FBI候選人。

John Brennan這次也不例外。他在高迪的緊逼下說出的「I don"t do evidence」一定會成為名言。CIA前局長正式告訴大家CIA的工作與收集證據無關，或者用他的說法，CIA收集的東西只是情報，而不是證據。

最精彩的是Brennan用一句話概括了整個聽證會的價值和結論：

I don"t know whether or not such collusion -- and that"s your term, such collusion existed. I don"t know.

這個結論不僅與參院情報委員會的民主黨大佬范恩斯坦數次在公開場合的回答高度一致（No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion，最近的一次是5月18日在CNN），與前DNI的克拉珀上電視說的高度一致（No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion，3月3日在NBC），而且與前FBI局座科米的結論也高度一致，連你最喜愛的主流媒體也不敢否認這點。

結論：你的解讀和提問所呈現的並不完全只是英文理解問題。

上聯：very fake news

下聯：almost entirely wrong

求橫批！

黃左逼們要不要來賭一把川普會不會在一年內被impeach？我賭1000美元壓「不會」，來不來？

我說你們真是吃屎都趕不上熱的。前段時間聽到comey要上國會被質詢，立馬高潮的水流一地，結果呢？最後連假印第安人都治好爬在地上裝死呻吟「crazy」

brennan這臭大街的也好意思拿出來現，沒有調查他跟沙特的關係算厚道的了

這位前CIA老大也是挺逗的，在眾議院情報委員會的公開聽證上說他對Trump聯俄問題非常擔心，結果被Gowdy追問他是否有證據證明Trump或者Trump的競選委員會成員真的聯俄了，這位CIA老大表示，俺不負責證據，那是FBI的鍋。

Gowdy Grills Brennan: Do You Have Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Or Not?; Brennan: amp;quot;I Donamp;#x27;t Do Evidenceamp;quot;

GOWDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, thank you for your service to our country. Let"s go back to where we were a couple minutes ago, you mentioned or you testify that you had a conversation in August of 2016 with your Russian counterpart, you testified that you briefed at least eight members of Congress throughout (inaudible) of your investigation.

When you learned of Russian efforts -- and we"ll get to that in a minute because my understanding from your unclassified report is, Russia has historically attempted to interfere with our electoral process. And they did so without coordination, collusion or conspiring with any of the candidates, so they have a history of doing it. We"ll lay that aside for a minute, 2016 electoral process. When you learned of Russian efforts, did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?

BRENNAN: As I said Mr. Gowdy, I don"t do evidence...

GOWDY: Well, I...

BRENNAN: ... and we were uncovering information intelligence about interactions and contacts between U.S. persons and the Russians. And as we came upon that, we would share it with the bureau.

GOWDY: I appreciate that you don"t do evidence, Director Brennan. Unfortunately, that"s what I do. That"s the word we use, you use the word assessment, you use the word tradecraft. I use the word evidence. And the good news for me is lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

Now, there are only two types of evidence; there"s circumstantial and direct. So if it"s more than circumstantial, by necessity, it has to be direct. Those aren"t my words; those are the words of one of my colleagues on the other side of this very committee. Another Democrat colleague on the other side of this committee also used the word evidence, that he has seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and yet a third California Democrat, said she had seen no evidence of collusion.

So that"s three different members of Congress from the same state, using the same word, which is evidence. And that"s the word that my fellow citizens understand, evidence. Assessment is -- is your vernacular. Tradecraft is your vernacular. You and I both know worth the word evidence makes. And we"re not getting into whether or not you corroborated, contradicted, examined, cross-examined. We"re not getting into how you tested and probed the reliability of that evidence; it"s a really simple question.

Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy, between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?

BRENNAN: I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals.

I don"t know whether or not such collusion -- and that"s your term, such collusion existed. I don"t know. But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials.

GOWDY: Do you know the basis of that information that you shared with the bureau? What was -- the nature of the evidence?

BRENNAN: I think, Mr. Gowdy, this committee has now been provided information that relates to that issue in terms of information that the agency shared with the bureau and that is something that is appropriately classified.

GOWDY: All right, and you learned that when? When in this chronology did you learn of the contacts between these official members of the Trump campaign or -- because there"s kind of a tripartite hierarchy. There"s Trump himself, there are official members of the campaign, and then there are folks who represented themselves as being connected with him.

BRENNAN: I"m not going to try to identify individuals nor try to parse it.

GOWDY: I don"t want you to parse it, I just want you to identify the individuals. I don"t want you to parse it.

BRENNAN: I"m not going to identify the individuals because this is information that, again, is based on classified sources and intelligence. And I think this committee has access to it...

GOWDY: Were they official members of the campaign?

BRENNAN: I"m going to defer to current agency officials to be able to further provide to you information related to that. But my understanding is that this committee has access to the documents that we would have provided to the bureau.

GOWDY: All right. Last question because I"m out of time, we can use the word onus, we both know what the other one"s talking about. How did you test, probe, examine, cross-examine, otherwise test the reliability or believability, credibility, of that evidence you uncovered?

BRENNAN: I made sure that the components within CIA that have responsible for counterintelligence, cyber, and Russia, were actively working to understand as much as possible about the reliability, accuracy of the information that they already collected and information that was available that needed further corroboration.

GOWDY: We"ll come back to it next round.

麥卡錫:我覺得你杜魯門和你們國務院全家都是共碟！

杜魯門:你有證據么？

麥卡錫:我有情報！我有名單！

杜魯門:你有證據么？

麥卡錫:我有薇諾娜文件！

風水輪流轉，現在輪到民主黨玩這套了

參議員先生，你還有沒有良知？難道你到最後連一點起碼的良知也沒有保留下來嗎？

——約瑟夫.韋爾奇

放下吧，題主，科密已經和盤托出，你繼續糾纏和那撒潑打滾的有何區別？放下吧。

俄羅斯想干涉美國大選。

特朗普知道俄羅斯干涉對其有利。

所以特朗普不坐待其利，反而要串通俄羅斯去共謀？

民主東林黨就這智商難怪輸得底褲都沒了。

「, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals. I don"t know whether or not such collusion -- and that"s your term, such collusion existed. I don"t know.」

局長說不知道，題主言之鑿鑿地說局長知道，局長知道了個啥？

你們吶，不要總想搞個大新聞！

這種事情要嘛做成鐵案要嘛別bb，說多了一點意思都沒有，一件事翻來覆去炒又拿不出來東西，最後沒人會當回事

Brennan對於俄國和川普團隊聯繫的答覆從他的證詞里就可以得到答覆了，這個如果更詳細的情況可以建議看華盛頓郵報的相關報道。

"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign"

--------------------------

關於很多答主提到的I don』t do evidence的答覆

"I don』t do evidence, I do intelligence」

CIA 局長不管證據管啥呢？當然是情報(Intelligence)了！

你問這倆有什麼區別？

對我們大多數來說可能並沒有特別大的差異，但是在FBI，檢察官和CIA這三個機構當中這個的意思的差異是很大的。

這就是為什麼Brennan在一開始(視頻21：00）就強調和解釋了他和FBI 還有檢察官不一樣，他做的是情報，

「I never was an FBI agent or prosecutor so I don』t do evidence, I do intelligence throughout the course of my career. as an intelligence professional what we try to do is make sure we provide all relevant information to the bureau if there is an investigation underway they』re looking into criminal activity. 」

---------------------------------------------------------------

聽證會真正的看點和雙方應對的手法

回到聽證會的內容，整個聽證會的看點有兩個

1，Brennan 的證詞反駁了川皇關於「他的手下和俄國的聯繫」是空穴來風的幻覺，這個雖然新聞已經跑了幾天了，但是在Brennan這裡算是得到了證實，從他已有的情報得出有必要繼續調查川普的手下

這是我標題的前半部分，不像幾位答主的回答，共和黨的幾個議員根本就沒有想要在這個問題上做文章，也沒有質疑川普團隊到底有沒有和俄國人有聯繫或者被收買等等，主要的問題都是集中在「共謀證據上」

2， Brennan 和共和黨議員在「共謀證據」上的攻防，這裡面所有的共和黨議員說這些的目的無非就是2個

攻擊其他民主黨議員所提到的「證據」的存在性

這個問題是欺負Brennan回答不了，他已經離職了4個月，新的信息他應該是不知道的，而且他也不知道民主黨議員說的證據到底是什麼，所以也無法回答這個問題。
共和黨的議員的手段就是不停的假裝他們現在獲得的信息和去年是一樣的，然後以此來攻擊其他民主黨議員發言的正確性。

攻擊他去年的「情報」到底是不是「證據」

其中主要就是兩個混淆的策略

利用每個人心中對於「證據」這個詞的不同解釋來混淆視聽，通過把CIA 說的情報，FBI 的證據通通和法院說「證據」畫等號，可惜Brennan沒有山當
混淆FBI覺得需要繼續調查的證據，和「共謀罪」定罪的證據

----------------------------------------------------

具體手法可以看我放出的那個transcript裡面保守派心中的正義衛士Gowdy的對話

他的這段問話就是教科書一樣的看似兇猛，其實毛都沒問出來，只能騙騙看了節選，而沒有看之前聽證會的人，或者一些根本不了解這個聽證會為什麼會進行這些問答的人。

套路無非就是我之前提到的內容：

1，強行把Brennan 說的評估（assessment）和法律上的「證據」劃等號，把一個有沒有理由繼續調查俄國共謀變成了有沒有證據認定和俄國有共謀

2，利用時間差，把4個月多後民主黨議員說的證據，強行引申到Brennan 2016年時候得到的信息上。

3，一直在說，我們都懂我說的啥，我們都懂我說的意思，讓人以為他們說的是同一個東西，但是BRENNAN 多次否定了他的用詞

這3個可以在我下邊節選的內容里都能看到

4，之後又是最近共和黨特別愛用的手段，問明知道是機密信息對方無法在公開聽證會上回答的問題（這個手法在各類聽證會上很常用）

因為Brennan沒有像其他人一樣回答說這是機密信息，我不能回答（這樣可以被攻擊為逃避問題），而是直接說了，這些信息CIA，FBI都給你們了，你幹嘛問我啊？

-----

Gowdy結尾的問題，是他這次問答最大的敗筆

Gowdy結尾的問題：「你如何測試，調查和檢驗你所發現的情報（證據）的可靠性？「

這是一個明顯的送分題，平白的增加了Brennan證詞的可信度，不過可以理解，他之前的問題都沒有得到他想要的答案，造成本來準備的致命一擊從出手。

不過我不得不說，他吸取了Ted Cruz 上次在Sally yates的聽證會上的失誤，並沒有像Ted Cruz 一樣在證據不充分的情況下，強行甩結論。

節選

1，「GOWDY: I appreciate that you don"t do evidence, Director Brennan. Unfortunately, that"s what I do. That"s the word we use, you use the word assessment, you use the word tradecraft. I use the word evidence. And the good news for me is lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said there is more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.Now, there are only two types of evidence; there"s circumstantial and direct.
2，So if it"s more than circumstantial, by necessity, it has to be direct. Those aren"t my words; those are the words of one of my colleagues on the other side of this very committee. Another Democrat colleague on the other side of this committee also used the word evidence, that he has seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and yet a third California Democrat, said she had seen no evidence of collusion. So that"s three different members of Congress from the same state, using the same word, which is evidence. And that"s the word that my fellow citizens understand, evidence. Assessment is -- is your vernacular. Tradecraft is your vernacular. You and I both know worth the word evidence makes. And we"re not getting into whether or not you corroborated, contradicted, examined, cross-examined. We"re not getting into how you tested and probed the reliability of that evidence; it"s a really simple question.
Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy, between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?」

結尾部分：

------------

我對這個問題下的答案是有些小失望的，我貼了」Gowdy Grills Brennan: Do You Have Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Or Not? Brennan: "I Don"t Do Evidence」作為引用之一有兩個原因

1，這個文章我看的時候一眼就看出他的解釋問題是在胡說，但我當時找不到其他的transcript，而我又不習慣引用了內容之後不給來源，所以我就發了

2，我當時內心還在想說，雖然他的解釋有各種問題，但是稍微聽了聽證會的人肯定不會用這上邊的例子來反駁題目

結果沒想到我大錯特錯了....真的有人根本沒有看聽證會就點進去，然後沾沾自喜的把文章的明顯錯誤的分析翻譯過來，貼出來用來反駁, 怪不得現在這麼多人喊fake news，fake news，自己連分辨文章來源的可靠性都做不到，如何有能力去分辨信息的真假呢？

從我之前和知乎上川普問題下邊的幾個答主的回復來看，很多答主要麼可能真的看不懂英文，有些則是只有用了特定的翻譯器才能得出他的結論，或者沒有基本的邏輯的常識，輕易的掉進Non-denial 這種最基本的陷阱中。 真心的希望這些答主，下次能少花點時間往自己的文章里夾帶私貨，多花點時間看原文上。

誒，可能這樣的題目本來就不適合在知乎上討論吧，畢竟如果你去這些國外川粉或者保守派聚集的網站可以看到，知乎很多答主們的英文能力最起碼達到了他們所在群體的平均水平，所以也算是我國英語事業一大進步的體現了，最起碼已經和一部分母語是英語的人接軌了~~~呵呵。