s*******u
发帖数: 2249 | 1 https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-
last-years-dnc-hack/
t is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was
compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were
identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians
acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during
this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people
around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with
Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these
matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had
convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3.
Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many
media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only
with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no
choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on
Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to
Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’
s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In
retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its
embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between
the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of
the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two
nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in
the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind
that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack,
on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The
evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly
study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities.
Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what
are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few
days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This
was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language
repeated incessantly in our leading media.
ADVERTISING
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception.
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.
CURRENT ISSUE
View our current issue
Subscribe today and Save up to $129.
SUBSCRIBE
One, there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016
political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove
or disprove any of them. Who delivered documents to WikiLeaks? Who was
responsible for the “phishing” operation penetrating John Podesta’s e-
mail in March 2016? We do not know the answers to such questions. It is
entirely possible, indeed, that the answers we deserve and must demand could
turn out to be multiple: One thing happened in one case, another thing in
another. The new work done on the mid-June and July 5 events bears upon all
else in only one respect. We are now on notice: Given that we now stand face
to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that
all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously
skeptical questioning. Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail address
was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-
bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.
Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there
can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can
call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process
of doing so. Neither is there anything far-fetched in a reversal of the
truth of this magnitude. American history is replete with similar cases. The
Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898. Iran’s Mossadegh
was a Communist. Guatemala’s árbenz represented a Communist threat to the
United States. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet puppet. The Sandinistas
were Communists. The truth of the Maine, a war and a revolution in between,
took a century to find the light of day, whereupon the official story
disintegrated. We can do better now. It is an odd sensation to live through
one of these episodes, especially one as big as Russiagate. But its place
atop a long line of precedents can no longer be disputed.
Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’
experience at high levels in our national-security institutions, have put a
body of evidence on a table previously left empty.
Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and
conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue
—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line.
Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—
the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau
of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new
findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators,
prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in
these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously
left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an
admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one.
It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media,
which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC
matter from the start. | r******g
发帖数: 4002 | 2 就是那个被谋杀的犹太人Seth Rich，桑德斯的支持者。估计最后会抓一些人。 | C*******h
发帖数: 6095 | 3 唷，这是太阳从西边出来了？！
were
with
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-
: last-years-dnc-hack/
: t is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was
: compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were
: identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians
: acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during
: this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people
: around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with
: Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these
: matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had
| d*******y
发帖数: 2710 | |
|
