Sunday, August 13, 2017

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

From The Nation:
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
  • There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
  • Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.
This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting. (Read more.)

Governor Mike Huckabee comments:
You probably didn’t see anything about this in the news, but The Nation – a widely respected, leftwing magazine – just published the results of a forensic investigation into the metadata of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks. It reached two conclusions:

The time stamps prove it was impossible for those files to have been stolen over the Internet because no ISP could have transferred that much data that fast. It had to have been copied directly onto a storage device like a USB stick, which suggests it was an insider leak. And the proof cited by US intelligence agencies of Russian involvement was fraudulent, based on cutting and pasting data into a blank Russian language template.

A reminder: Julian Assange still insists that WikiLeaks didn’t get the files from Russia, and the US intelligence agencies that say this was a Russian hacking were never allowed to examine the DNC’s computers (the DNC having been run by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who seems to freak out at the thought of any legal authorities getting anywhere near her laptop.)
I’m sure this will be dismissed as conspiracy stuff, and maybe it is. But why would the Nation want to join the vast rightwing conspiracy, especially knowing that if the DNC/Wikileaks documents were shown to be an insider leak, it would blow away the “Trump/Russia collusion” mantra that’s been obsessing the media and hampering Trump since Inauguration Day? (Read more.)

No comments: