https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ It seems that a team of forensic professionals have raised key and valid points to the DNC "Hack" claims. All relevant information is contained in the link above. The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics. NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here]. Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.” Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes: -(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and -(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” * * *
And before anyone attacks the "source" these same people raised objections to the war in Iraq intelligence.
Give it up Pride. If poor Donald and his team are innocent they will be found innocent. This is third rate shit and can find no other reporting on this except at consortium news. There is only one investigation that matters at this point.
It's hard for me to see a scenario where any of this is going to lead to anything. I mean with all the special interests out there, all you need to do is spread misinformation to create doubt amongst the people, and then they lose interest.
of course I am going to attack the source. can you find any other reasonable news outlet who is covering this? No, of course not. It's like the Palmer Report for the left.....it's full of red meat for progressives but it's mostly bull shit.
I hope this link works. It seems a federal judge appointed by Obama has ordered the State Dept to delve more deeply into finding Clinton emails Here is a quote taken from the judge's order "this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case. Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state." Again I don't know what may come of this but it simply is NOT much ado about nothing. Federal judge orders State Department to search for more Clinton Benghazi emails CNN A federal judge has ordered the State Department to search for any additional Benghazi-related emails then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have sent or received from aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills or Jake Sullivan at their state.govaddresses. Read the full story
Right. Dont take the time to post in this thread if you lack the capacity to read the links. They cite their data and past history. I dont expect major news sources to pick this up. It doesn't fit their agenda.
