The New York times is describing and debunking the theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC emails.
Allegedly, this "theory" was presented by Manafort to Trump in 2016. There is no evidence or indication in the story that ANYONE currently believes this theory.
It is a strawman conspiracy theory, and the fact that NYTimes reports it, without even mentioning the leading theory, shows that they are committed to covering up, rather than disclosing the truth.
The leading theory, advanced by many independent groups, including the intelligence veterans at VIP, all the posters at Consortium News, MoonOfAlabama, etc, is that the emails could NOT have been hacked. The timestamps shown in the small portion of data that was made public (the rest has never even been released to the US Government) are impossible over the international internet.
The conclusion reached by all these people is that the documents were leaked not hacked. And there is a very obvious subject for this: Seth Rich, whose suspicious murder was never seriously investigated.
The Times continues not to tell this story, and maintains (without ever presenting proof) that the Seth Rich connection has been debunked. It has not.
The "proof" used by Crowdstrike to show that the emails were leaked to Russians were simply cyrillic characters embedded in the metadata. However, these characters could easily have been added after the fact, by Crowdstrike investigators themselves, who would then merely have to fiddle with the checksums to make it all look good. This would not be at all hard to do.
In essense, we are being asked to trust that Crowdstrike was honest and did not tamper with the emails. But we have no such assurance. Crowdstrike was not at all neutral, they were deeply tied to DNC officials, Hillary Clinton, and The Atlantic Council, who would all have liked to pin the blame on Russia.
I have often thought that the doctoring of the emails was actually done in Ukraine (because it is rather sensitive work--that you would not any further leaks about--so you want committed partisans to do it). But this is not essential, the doctoring of the emails to make it look like they were hacked could have been done anywhere--it wouldn't take vast resources, only an open computer system (such as linux) and a little bit of knowledge.
A further little thing is worthy of note also. The NSA monitors the internet (illegally, and they shouldn't). But if in fact the emails were hacked, the NSA should have evidence of this, which has never been reported by anyone.
Allegedly, this "theory" was presented by Manafort to Trump in 2016. There is no evidence or indication in the story that ANYONE currently believes this theory.
It is a strawman conspiracy theory, and the fact that NYTimes reports it, without even mentioning the leading theory, shows that they are committed to covering up, rather than disclosing the truth.
The leading theory, advanced by many independent groups, including the intelligence veterans at VIP, all the posters at Consortium News, MoonOfAlabama, etc, is that the emails could NOT have been hacked. The timestamps shown in the small portion of data that was made public (the rest has never even been released to the US Government) are impossible over the international internet.
The conclusion reached by all these people is that the documents were leaked not hacked. And there is a very obvious subject for this: Seth Rich, whose suspicious murder was never seriously investigated.
The Times continues not to tell this story, and maintains (without ever presenting proof) that the Seth Rich connection has been debunked. It has not.
The "proof" used by Crowdstrike to show that the emails were leaked to Russians were simply cyrillic characters embedded in the metadata. However, these characters could easily have been added after the fact, by Crowdstrike investigators themselves, who would then merely have to fiddle with the checksums to make it all look good. This would not be at all hard to do.
In essense, we are being asked to trust that Crowdstrike was honest and did not tamper with the emails. But we have no such assurance. Crowdstrike was not at all neutral, they were deeply tied to DNC officials, Hillary Clinton, and The Atlantic Council, who would all have liked to pin the blame on Russia.
I have often thought that the doctoring of the emails was actually done in Ukraine (because it is rather sensitive work--that you would not any further leaks about--so you want committed partisans to do it). But this is not essential, the doctoring of the emails to make it look like they were hacked could have been done anywhere--it wouldn't take vast resources, only an open computer system (such as linux) and a little bit of knowledge.
A further little thing is worthy of note also. The NSA monitors the internet (illegally, and they shouldn't). But if in fact the emails were hacked, the NSA should have evidence of this, which has never been reported by anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment