So, libs, what say you to this?

[ChrisL]

Merged with 2nd newer thread. Same source link..

 

[ChrisL]

Why is the DNC smashing hard drives? Why did Hillary delete 30,000 emails? Why is the DNC refusing to turn over computers that could contain the evidence that would back up their story of Russian hacking? Why is the DNC so uncooperative with the FBI? What is up with Debbie W. Schultz? ALL of the evidence so far is pointing to something stinking in the DNC, and it's not Russians!

 

[ChrisL]

Merged with 2nd newer thread. Same source link..

I notice that you didn't vote on the poll. Trying to remain "neutral?"

 

[Snouter]

So just about everyone (except for really sick - mentally ill - fucktards) knows the fake Russian thing was simply an American democrat insider trying to do the right thing.

 

[Care4all]

Why is the DNC smashing hard drives? Why did Hillary delete 30,000 emails? Why is the DNC refusing to turn over computers that could contain the evidence that would back up their story of Russian hacking? Why is the DNC so uncooperative with the FBI? What is up with Debbie W. Schultz? ALL of the evidence so far is pointing to something stinking in the DNC, and it's not Russians!

Chris you believe a lot of fake news. Why don't you try researching those things that you mentioned from opposing sources..,then make up your mind instead of just believing the first thing you read?

the DNC is not smashing hard drives

the 30000 emails were private/personal emails and she had every right to delete them, in fact ...govt regulations REQUIRED that she did NOT turn those personal emails over for the gvt records

the DNC never refused and were never asked to turn over computers?? They gave their server hard drive to the company they hired to investigate...and copies of the hard drive that involved the hack were given to the FBI from this cyber investigation company, along with them giving the copies to 4 other private cyber security companies for them to investigate and analyze as well...

Wasserman schultz has not been involved with the DNC as head, for over a year...what are you talking about? (stop reading the hyped up, right wing faux news)

 

[Faun]

It's just for my own curiosity. I want to see how many suckers who believe "The Russians are coming" actually exist in the real world!

There are currently 3 such votes. That satisfies your curiosity, does it?

It makes me feel good that perhaps the world isn't as insane as I think it is.

Why would the poll indicate that to you when it's a nonsensical, meaningless, beyond unscientific poll?

 

[Care4all]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

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

It 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.

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.

the article, which I read in full, has sort of been debunked...

Also, the Russian embassy homes in / near D.C. were shut down and diplomats kicked out because our gvt believed they, the Russians in these embassy homes, were involved with the DNC theft and leaks and it was reported that they had super duper spying equipment in them...

These Russian embassy centers could have easily had a server fast enough to download the files in the 87 seconds the article mentions.

But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.

If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing. (“[H]ouses 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.”) About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself “Forensicator,” on the “metadata” of “locked files” leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.

This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the “metadata” of “locked files” that only this analyst had access to? Still, if I’m understanding it correctly, Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet. Instead, he and a few retired intel-community members and some pseudonymous bloggers believe the data was transferred to a USB stick, making the infiltration a leak from someone inside the DNC, not a hack.

The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.

If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible.

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk

So far the metadata analysis which has been analyzed by former Top intelligence officials has revealed that the "hack" was an inside job and that the data was copied to a thumb drive and that this all occurred on the East Coast and not in Russia or any other country. This is the only physical proof that has been submitted as to where the hacks have come from. It is definitely more proof than the Russian conspiracy theory. Lol. Metadata doesn't lie.

if you read my post and had gone in to the link provided it shows that analysis is simply inaccurate and merely supposition using faulty assumptions.

They guessed it had to be a thumb drive download, because of the speed of the download, and they said the average internet speed could not have achieved that in 2016.

BUT THEY WERE WRONG, Places like the DNC and any big business or Russian Intel agents living on embassy properties surrounding the DNC headquarters could achieve this speed back in 2016....

SO, the conclusion it had to be a thumbdrive for that download speed is demonstrably WRONG....which makes your original article, fall flat.

Oh, so it was Russians who live in the US, Russian spies? ROFL. OMG. You people have totally lost your collective mind. Don't pull a muscle with all of those acrobats. Anyhow, I'm sure more information is forthcoming, so we shall see. Seems veterans of the intelligence community are of the idea that the leaked emails were an inside job based on the metadata that THEY analysed.

you are just not that informed or lack the interest to get to the truth or maybe just don't have the time to do so because you work for a living....?

the Russian (diplomat) spies that Pres Obama expelled from the Nation due to their illegal involvement with our elections lived there in DC in these two beautiful mansions their Russian /Embassy own...it was reported that these mansions were safe centers for Russian spies and were equipped to the hilt with spying mechanisms...


the unnamed alleged veterans of the intelligence community may not be veterans at all...why do you even believe this ''author'' of the article that made no sense, with anonymous sourcing? His whole article is full of insensible fluff with absolutely no proof and boils down to one thing.... one of them says the Guciffer download of the DNC stolen emails took 87 seconds and he thought the only way it could download that fast is by using a thumb drive and not by a download from somewhere at a distance from the DNC headquarters...like in Moscow...

AND that assumption is faulty because the internet speed needed to transfer the files that quickly was available in 2016 to big businesses or basically, entities willing to pay for it... it is more than likely these Russian embassy homes used to spy on us, were two of those entities that had service fast enough to transfer those files....and it is very possible that's where Guciffer got those email files from.... it can't be ruled out...in fact it is likely.

I'm sure our intel community who got them kicked them out, knows more and hopefully we will too, when the counter intelligence part of the investigation is over.

 

[ChrisL]

Why is the DNC smashing hard drives? Why did Hillary delete 30,000 emails? Why is the DNC refusing to turn over computers that could contain the evidence that would back up their story of Russian hacking? Why is the DNC so uncooperative with the FBI? What is up with Debbie W. Schultz? ALL of the evidence so far is pointing to something stinking in the DNC, and it's not Russians!

Chris you believe a lot of fake news. Why don't you try researching those things that you mentioned from opposing sources..,then make up your mind instead of just believing the first thing you read?

the DNC is not smashing hard drives

the 30000 emails were private/personal emails and she had every right to delete them, in fact ...govt regulations REQUIRED that she did NOT turn those personal emails over for the gvt records

the DNC never refused and were never asked to turn over computers?? They gave their server hard drive to the company they hired to investigate...and copies of the hard drive that involved the hack were given to the FBI from this cyber investigation company, along with them giving the copies to 4 other private cyber security companies for them to investigate and analyze as well...

Wasserman schultz has not been involved with the DNC as head, for over a year...what are you talking about? (stop reading the hyped up, right wing faux news)

The source I posted is a well respected liberal/progressive publication that was actually LAUDED by Obama. Lol. Apparently THEY believe this is true. The DNC has not cooperated with the FBI investigation Lol.


"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."

 

[ChrisL]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

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

It 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.

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.

the article, which I read in full, has sort of been debunked...

Also, the Russian embassy homes in / near D.C. were shut down and diplomats kicked out because our gvt believed they, the Russians in these embassy homes, were involved with the DNC theft and leaks and it was reported that they had super duper spying equipment in them...

These Russian embassy centers could have easily had a server fast enough to download the files in the 87 seconds the article mentions.

But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.

If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing. (“[H]ouses 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.”) About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself “Forensicator,” on the “metadata” of “locked files” leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.

This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the “metadata” of “locked files” that only this analyst had access to? Still, if I’m understanding it correctly, Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet. Instead, he and a few retired intel-community members and some pseudonymous bloggers believe the data was transferred to a USB stick, making the infiltration a leak from someone inside the DNC, not a hack.

The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.

If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible.

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk

So far the metadata analysis which has been analyzed by former Top intelligence officials has revealed that the "hack" was an inside job and that the data was copied to a thumb drive and that this all occurred on the East Coast and not in Russia or any other country. This is the only physical proof that has been submitted as to where the hacks have come from. It is definitely more proof than the Russian conspiracy theory. Lol. Metadata doesn't lie.

if you read my post and had gone in to the link provided it shows that analysis is simply inaccurate and merely supposition using faulty assumptions.

They guessed it had to be a thumb drive download, because of the speed of the download, and they said the average internet speed could not have achieved that in 2016.

BUT THEY WERE WRONG, Places like the DNC and any big business or Russian Intel agents living on embassy properties surrounding the DNC headquarters could achieve this speed back in 2016....

SO, the conclusion it had to be a thumbdrive for that download speed is demonstrably WRONG....which makes your original article, fall flat.

Oh, so it was Russians who live in the US, Russian spies? ROFL. OMG. You people have totally lost your collective mind. Don't pull a muscle with all of those acrobats. Anyhow, I'm sure more information is forthcoming, so we shall see. Seems veterans of the intelligence community are of the idea that the leaked emails were an inside job based on the metadata that THEY analysed.

you are just not that informed or lack the interest to get to the truth or maybe just don't have the time to do so because you work for a living....?

the Russian (diplomat) spies that Pres Obama expelled from the Nation due to their illegal involvement with our elections lived there in DC in these two beautiful mansions their Russian /Embassy own...it was reported that these mansions were safe centers for Russian spies and were equipped to the hilt with spying mechanisms...


the unnamed alleged veterans of the intelligence community may not be veterans at all...why do you even believe this ''author'' of the article that made no sense, with anonymous sourcing? His whole article is full of insensible fluff with absolutely no proof and boils down to one thing.... one of them says the Guciffer download of the DNC stolen emails took 87 seconds and he thought the only way it could download that fast is by using a thumb drive and not by a download from somewhere at a distance from the DNC headquarters...like in Moscow...

AND that assumption is faulty because the internet speed needed to transfer the files that quickly was available in 2016 to big businesses or basically, entities willing to pay for it... it is more than likely these Russian embassy homes used to spy on us, were two of those entities that had service fast enough to transfer those files....and it is very possible that's where Guciffer got those email files from.... it can't be ruled out...in fact it is likely.

I'm sure our intel community who got them kicked them out, knows more and hopefully we will too, when the counter intelligence part of the investigation is over.

Your denial is actually kind of amusing, but don't worry. The independent investigators are still analyzing data and will be coming out with more dirt, I'm sure.

 

[Picaro]

Why is the DNC smashing hard drives? Why did Hillary delete 30,000 emails? Why is the DNC refusing to turn over computers that could contain the evidence that would back up their story of Russian hacking? Why is the DNC so uncooperative with the FBI? What is up with Debbie W. Schultz? ALL of the evidence so far is pointing to something stinking in the DNC, and it's not Russians!

Internal feuds among criminal sociopaths over dividing loot are as common as dirt among those types. Power shifts almost always set them off.

 

[ChrisL]

If all of the things that the DNC has been doing over the past year or so don't concern you, then you must be really, really stupid is all. It is all adding up quite nicely to equal an inside job and an attempt to cover it up and to use the convenient cover up to harm the current administration and, in turn, OUR country!

 

[Picaro]

They're exactly the kind of scum Thomas Jefferson would have deported in a heartbeat.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

ChrisL wants America to roll over and take Putin's cock up our ass.
Cuck.
Traitor.

What a disgusting person you are. Unfortunately you probably represent most liberals and the Left.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrisL wants America to roll over and take Putin's cock up our ass.
Cuck.
Traitor.

What a disgusting person you are. Unfortunately you probably represent most liberals and the Left.

It's just projection. Apparently he wants a penis in his bum.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

ChrisL, THANK YOU for your informative and thorough post. Some people here get twisted beyond recognition when the truth is exposed. They're so used to feeding off the lies and deception of the DNC they have no concept of what truth and reality are.

 

[Picaro]

ChrisL wants America to roll over and take Putin's cock up our ass.
Cuck.
Traitor.

What a disgusting person you are. Unfortunately you probably represent most liberals and the Left.

Doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form. These vermin aren't liberals, they aren't leftists, they;'re just scum trying to use ideological labels as cover, that's all. The right wing has the same types of sociopaths littering its spectrum. They think it gives them cred, but being sociopaths who can't relate to basic human empathy in any way, they always give themselves away, since they have no clue as to how to fake what they've never experienced.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

This isn't a new story tho. It was reported last year that a disgruntled former staffer was the likely source for the leak.

Not sure why nearly a year later it's just now gaining traction.

No mystery at all.....
Because the DNC excels at corruption and has many assets in place to protect it.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

ChrisL wants America to roll over and take Putin's cock up our ass.
Cuck.
Traitor.

What a disgusting person you are. Unfortunately you probably represent most liberals and the Left.

Doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form.

That's exactly why I used the words "probably" and "most"

But thanks for enlightening us all.

 

[Picaro]

ChrisL wants America to roll over and take Putin's cock up our ass.
Cuck.
Traitor.

What a disgusting person you are. Unfortunately you probably represent most liberals and the Left.

Doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form.

That's exactly why I used the words "probably" and "most"

But thanks for enlightening us all.

You're welcome. I also do tax returns and plumbing.

 

[kwc57]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

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

It 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.

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.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.

Why should I produce evidence? I didn't make the accusation.

Are you rightwinger's sock? I was speaking to him, not you.....but you felt compelled to answer? But to answer the question, if the left is going to continue making accusations, they really do need to back them up. Else, they are just delusional fantasy and hopes.