RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Feldman writes: "Yesterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer's pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job."

Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story. But the article offers neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. (photo: Patrick Lux/Getty Images)
Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story. But the article offers neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. (photo: Patrick Lux/Getty Images)

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

By Brian Feldman, New York Magazine

12 August 17


esterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer’s pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job. Maybe unsurprisingly, it’s proven especially popular among people who hold it as an article of political faith that the Russian government and intelligence services played no role in the theft and publication of a cache of emails from DNC staffers:

Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality.

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. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+54 # laborequalswealth 2017-08-12 08:54
This is why the Democratic Party is now on life-support. While they engage in a circle jerk over this nonsense of "Russian Hacking", Trump and his Flying Monkeys are destroying the country at a gallop.

This is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues that the Demos are refusing to fight about e.g. Single payer, tax breaks for the rich, pollution, destruction of our public school system, etc.

Stop wasting time and money on this Russian nonsense and start paying attention to what this pack of psychopaths is doing to our country!!!
-12 # RMF 2017-08-12 10:46
laborequalsweal th -- please explain why, by your lights, there is no connection between "Russian Hacking" and "Trump...destro ying the country."

On second thought I will do it for you -- it's obvious (to any rational mind anyway) that the Trump/Russian gambit, as shown by info from media and govt investigations, played an important role in influencing the election outcome.

Moreover, the Russian meddling, combined with defection from the progressive cause by Hillary-haters like yourself (and others here on RSN) were critical to the GOP ascendency to power in all three branches of govt.

What's more, your criticism of the Dems re health care egregiously misstates facts -- who was it standing together in opposition to defeat the repeal of Obamacare -- oh yeah, wasn't that the hated Democrats.

Here is a real fact for you re health care -- about 150 million Americans get health insurance from their employers -- to throw all those workers off their employer-provid ed insurance in a move to single payer would be a chaotic disaster, AND DESTROY THE POTENTIAL FOR SINGLE PAYER FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE!

A responsible approach, one with some chance of success, would be to include a public option on the exchanges. Then overtime, with gravitation to a Medicare buy-in there would then be a foundation for evolution to single payer.

You Hillary-haters are just like the alt-right -- you want to choose and impose your own false "factoids" on any issue.
+6 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 18:24
And you Hillary apologists are just like climate change deniers. You ignore the evidence, refusing to believe anything that doesn't fit your preferred narrative: Hillary as victim.

Wow. What a role model.
-2 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:28
Coming from a Hillary-hater, one of those who applauded Trump's victory as having (as one you put it) "saved the world from Hillary Clinton," I don't put much stock in what you have to snarl.
0 # librarian1984 2017-08-13 22:26
Find one post where I 'applaud' Trump's victory. Neither one had any business running for president. The two most distrusted, unliked candidates in history.

You may focus your attacks on me but there are millions of us who couldn't bring ourselves to vote for either one of those losers.

Believe me, eric, the feeling is mutual.
-7 # RMF 2017-08-13 13:30
librarian -- if you want to know whether I am a climate-change denier why not just ask me -- instead of making assumptions w/o evidence (oops, I momentarily forgot that is, with remarkable uniformity, how you assemble your comments -- w/o any evidence whatsoever!)

I do imagine, however, you probably know my position on climate change, but just want to cast aspersions as your preferred disinformation technique -- one wonders where you were trained in that skill. Nonetheless, it's increasingly clear you are just a partisan hack of some kind, with comments lacking any fact-based analytical content. The only real question is whose interests -- and what master -- you ultimately serve, but you do resemble a GOP advocate of disinformation masquerading in progressive sheep clothing.
+3 # librarian1984 2017-08-13 22:21
Your reading comprehension is not very good, yeah? You are LIKE climate change deniers in ignoring evidence. (It's those little nuances that make all the difference, eh?) I think I can guess what your SATs were like. Ouch.

Do you think I got my 'training' in Russia? lol. I find when people start throwing accusations around (false assumptions, lack of evidence, disinformation, smearing, partisanship, no analytical content, in the service of a 'master', pretending to be progressive -- you really packed a lot of venom in a few sentences -- impressive!) -- it's a pretty good indication of what that someone is up to. Projection, comrade. You're a textbook case. (Also one of your girl Hillary's big tells.)

I have to say, getting dissed by you and eric, the two biggest Hillary apologists here, probably counts as a merit badge somewhere good -- but I note you're not taking my advice to ignore my posts, RMF. Yet they make you SOO unhappy ;-(

I agreed with your comments on the Kaepernick article .. but you seem out of your depth when it comes to politics. Maybe you should do some reading. Oh wait .. that's the problem, yeah? The reading comprehension. Sorry. Maybe someone could read TO you? Do you think that might help?
+1 # NAVYVET 2017-08-14 14:49
Please stop ramming each other with your argument tricycles and calm down. We are in a mess, our country and the whole world imperiled by a nut-case president and his White House and cabinet cadres of Fascists, which I can safely assume NEITHER of you approve of.

So shake hands, please. 2016 is past. We need to aim for 2018. What we need is some peace and a mutual vision of the kind of world most progressives want--and then work toward it. Arguing won't do that. At least speak to each other like adults, and join the rest of us in fighting the REAL enemies of all of us.
-2 # librarian1984 2017-08-15 08:58
I play nice with the other kids, Mom, but eric and rmf are poopy-heads

+1 # RMF 2017-08-16 12:44
My objection is your continued, repetitive claim that the Dem Party is the equal of the GOP in venality. But with a GOP-Nazi administration in the WH, and GOP enablers in Congress, the falsity of this equivalence is apparent. The idea that somehow the two parties are so similar as to make them clones of one another is absurd on it's face -- that the party of Elizabeth Warren and other progressives is somehow the moral equivalent of a depraved GOP is intellectually and politically dishonest in it's assessment.

And as to an understanding of politics, I simply add that an approach like yours, based on a strategy of "my way or the highway" is not only doomed to failure but also runs a high risk of enabling GOP-Nazi control for decades, and through accelerating GOP attacks on voting rights for minorities and others, be a deathknell for American representative government. It's a pathetic set of circumstances, and the Hillary-Haters helped make it happen. I hope you are proud of the developing outcome we now observe as a slow-motion accident with consequences beyond the imagination of even the most pessimistic.
+3 # dquandle 2017-08-12 12:26
-1 # sbessho 2017-08-12 13:26
"Single payer, tax breaks for the rich, pollution, destruction of our public school system, etc."

Which of those is going to pass in a Congress controlled by the flying monkeys? Discrediting the GOP by tying it to Trump and his scandals (there will be more) is a better strategy.
+5 # lfeuille 2017-08-12 19:38
They should be building support for them and promoting candidates who support them and using them as themes for the '18 elections so that maybe by '19 they can pass.
+8 # Texas Aggie 2017-08-12 17:01
You will note that it is Robert Mueller who is looking into the whole Russian related problem with drumpf, not just the Democrats. You will also note that the majority of the Democrats are actually focussed on the things you list - single payer, tax breaks, pollution, the public school system, voter suppression, police overreach, funding cuts for the civilian side of government, etc. And finally, you will note that thanks to voters sitting on their backsides, the republic wreckers were able to get a majority in each house along with the WH.

Granted that HRC was a really bad choice, but is anyone ready to claim that she's the same or worse than what we presently have? Not even close! She wouldn't have gotten us into a nuclear war. She wouldn't have shut down the EPA, the Dept of Energy, the Civil Rights section of the Justice Dept, supplemental insurance premium payments on the ACA, the whole program to convert to renewable energy, and so on and so on. She is in bed with AIPAC, but not with the Saudis. She is the most investigated woman in history, but nothing has ever been shown. Drumpf, on the other hand has all of her bad qualities squared and none of her good qualities. So thanks all of you who sat the election out.
+6 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 18:27
Where is the evidence Democrats care about single payer or jobs or pollution or schools or elections or police abuse.

Ed Markey and Ted Lieu introduced legislation recently to keep the president from launching a nuclear first strike without Congressional approval. They wrote it last year -- when they thought Hillary would be president.

Both candidates were unfit for the office -- and Hillary cheated.
-6 # RMF 2017-08-13 13:09

With 150 million workers covered by employer-provid ed insurance a rapid move to single payer would be a disaster AND DESTROY EVEN THE LONG RUN POTENTIAL OF ESTABLISHING SINGLE PAYER.

So, librarian, if you want to be taken seriously (rather than as the anti-Dem conspiracy theorist you resemble) TELL US WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE 150 MILLION INSUREDS UNDER YOUR SCHEME OF THINGS!

The wisdom of Obamacare is that it laid the foundation for getting to single payer over time, by getting Americans to buy-in to single payer consciously, as well as in their tax bills.

But instead the Hillary- and Obama-Haters demand for the whole enchilada right now are deep-sixing any chance for getting to single payer in the future. THE ONE PERCENTERS THANK YOU FOR THAT!

Moreover, that unreasonable demand shows how the Hilary-Haters fail to understand the working of politics. The imposition of single payer en masse would violate principles of good government in a democratic nation, composed of a wide diversity of voters, many fairly called low-information (ironically, in this characteristic, not unlike the Hillary- and Obama-Haters.)
+2 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 00:49
You and eric are full of excuses for why we can't do anything for the citizens. How very Vichy of you. TPTB may give you both gold stars.

Has anyone said we need to implement single payer within a week? (Sanders' plan calls for making the public option available in all 50 states first.) You both consistently argue against things nobody said.

So now *we're* the ones stopping single payer? uh huh. And *we're* the ones who made Hillary lose to a clown? Sure. And the ACA 'laid the foundation' for decent healthcare at some vague point in the distant future? Riiiiight. I'm sure that's a big comfort to the 16 million or so still not covered.

But you keep drinking the koolaid. Not everyone can be an independent thinker. The world needs drones too.
-9 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:31
"Hillary cheated." Your proof is . . . oh, gosh golly, ****BERNIE**** wasn't handed the Democratic nomination on a silver platter, what more evidence do you need?
+1 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 00:51
EJUSA report, eric. THAT is the proof. But of course you won't read it. You're much more interested in arrogant snark. Quit pretending you care about the truth.
-2 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:25
People who keep shrieking that there can't, can't, CAN'T be any Russian hacking involved and that the leaks were from a heroic insider determined to expose the sinister plotting to satanic Hillary Clinton and her demonic cohorts at the DNC (and unfortunately I'm not exaggerating by much) don't impress me. I know hate-driven rumor-mongering when I see it.
+4 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 00:06
EJUSA report, eric, for the hundredth time. VIPS memos #48-50. Podesta emails.

All the evidence you need can be found there but you refuse to look at it, content to sling repetitive insults. Fine. You're not part of the discussion. You're human spam.

If you can look at those three items and STILL disagree then there's a discussion. But when you have to exaggerate and mischaracterize our arguments, when you refuse to look at the evidence, it shows you have no legitimate defense .. and know it.

But WE'RE irrational? Right.
+4 # Trixie 2017-08-14 23:07
Quoting ericlipps:
People who keep shrieking that there can't, can't, CAN'T be any Russian hacking involved and that the leaks were from a heroic insider don't impress me.

You haven't even read the article that this is based on yet you dismiss it. You need to read the article and adjust your Hillary bias.

I would believe Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity light years before I would believe someone who used "password" for their password. (John Podesta)

Bill Binney designed and managed NSA programs. He knows what he's talking about. Ray McGovern did the President's Daily Brief for multiple presidents. These are principled people who resigned or retired when they were asked to do things that were unethical or illegal. We need more like them!


William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterroris m Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing

Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intell igence officer and CIA analyst

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
+27 # Mainiac 2017-08-12 09:41
Let me ask this question: Where is the evidence that it was Russia, either Putin himself or Russian government officials or Russian-related hackers who interfered in our election? Back when this claim was first run up the flag pole, our intel agencies replied that they had no evidence to show that such was the case.
+19 # harleysch 2017-08-12 10:17
Mainiac is absolutely right. Feldman's "rebuttal" is so weak, he won't even mention the name of the group which produced the forensic evidence, the VIPS -- Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This is not an anonymous group, but former officials who put their name to the report -- such as former NSA tech expert Bill Binney and Ray McGovern.

That Feldman's article is absurd is his charge that the claims of an "anonymous analyst" should "set off alarm bells"! What have we seen from the so-called intelligence community, but a succession of claims from "anonymous sources"?

If this is the best the anti-Putin side can do, it is clear that serious analysis such as that of the VIPS will eventually prevail, and a lot of those shouting "The Russians are Coming" will have a lot of egg to wipe off their faces.
-10 # RMF 2017-08-12 11:19
Maniac -- apparently your moniker fits -- anyway, here is some info, far from complete, but a good starting point for anyone wishing to assemble facts and connect dots (although I'm pretty sure you would not fall within that group.)

June 3, 2016 -- First e-mail contact between Goldstone and Jr about meeting Russian lawyer with damaging info on Hillary Clinton.

June 7, 2016 -- Trump boasts of the pending release of damaging info on Hillary Clinton, to be provided in a Trump speech on June 13.

June 8, 2016 -- First tweet posted to DC Leaks twitter account.

June 9, 2016 -- Kushenr, Jr, and Manafort meet with Russian lawyer and others to consult on provision of damaging info about Hillary Clinton.

June 12, 2016 -- Assange announces Wikileaks has e-mails damaging to Hillary Clinton with publication forthcoming.

Notice the timeline; how all the dots connect and line up -- no, I guess you would not, as that would likely be beyond your comprehension.
-2 # Texas Aggie 2017-08-12 17:08
The evidence that the Russians did in fact hack into the computers of almost half the state voter registration offices.
+10 # lfeuille 2017-08-13 13:12
No evidence. Only assertions.
+24 # ktony 2017-08-12 09:51
Feldman makes a lot of assumptions and claims, including that the intelligence agencies'"asses sment" is to be trusted. He smears people who are equipped to know better "a few retired intel-community members," and uses sneering ad hominem attacks, whilst swallowing the government story hook, line, and sinker.
-3 # markovchhaney 2017-08-12 10:05
Useless anilingus from a predictable pseudoliberal source.
+13 # harleysch 2017-08-12 10:29
DNC "rebuttal" of VIPS report is even weaker than Feldman's -- see
+5 # bardphile 2017-08-12 10:39
Patience, patience. It doesn't have to be either / or. Let the "Russia" investigation(s ) proceed to a conclusion, even if it takes a couple of years. The public has a right to know the extent to which the Trump camp collaborated, whether that extent is zero, a clear yes, or as is likely, somewhere in the ambiguous middle.
+3 # Trixie 2017-08-14 23:20
Quoting bardphile:
Patience, patience. It doesn't have to be either / or. Let the "Russia" investigation(s) proceed to a conclusion, even if it takes a couple of years. The public has a right to know the extent to which the Trump camp collaborated, whether that extent is zero, a clear yes, or as is likely, somewhere in the ambiguous middle.

The Trump and Kushner families and companies have been mob connected for decades. They have consistently acted illegally and unethically. One of Kushner's business partners has just been arrested in Israel.

The Mueller team is investigating money laundering. Look at the professional backgrounds of all the attorneys he's hiring.
+13 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-08-12 10:50
I'd say this article is the crank article. So the whole theory that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked and not hacked is refuted because an article is poorly written? Is that our standard of evidence now? You don't have to look at one article. There are quite a few. And look at any of the articles or interviews by Craig Murray, a former British ambassador who is a colleague of Julian Assange and was part of the arrangements for the leak of the Podesta emails.

The FBI does have a report on the contents of Seth Rich's computer. We could settle this issue once and for all if the FBI would just release its report. The report is leaking out and soon it will be out. The reason for this is that the lies coming from the FBI are so egregious and doing such damage to the US in maintaining the fake Russiagate story, that some well meaning FBI people are leaking just to get the nation over this.

Finally this article is just dishonest in misrepresenting the argument made by the analysis of the metadata from the DNC computer. He tells only one part of it.

Why does the New Yorker wish to continue this destrucive farce? What's in it for them?
+17 # ojkelly 2017-08-12 10:58

There is a link to Forensicator in this. Mr Binney has pointed out that the NSC could definitely track a hack of this nature, if there were a hack. At least some media outlet picked up on this , even if unintelligible to young master Feldman. Maybe someone with better mainstream credential's then kimdotcom will agree.
I must say Brennan lost me when that arch fiend of secret Russian intelligence Guccifer 2 decided to text with the kid from Vice. I mean please...
The Sy Hersh tape is great
+15 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 11:24
Don't remember who said it, but Feldman beautifully illustrates the truism: It's difficult to get people to understand something when they're getting paid not to.
+12 # yolo 2017-08-12 11:45
" would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality."

Opinion is not fact. If our intelligence agencies have the facts then show us and let us decide. Until that time this whole made up Russiangate is fake news, along with most of what our media reports on.
-7 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:22
Donald Trump couldn't have said it better. In fact, he has said it, and keeps repeating it--which to my mind is strong evidence that the truth lies elsewhere.
+15 # ReconFire 2017-08-12 11:49
I think I'll keep my faith in Robert Perry at Consortiumnews, along with that list of retired intel. agents,includin g William Binney, a NSA tech. advisor.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity (VIPS), has a disclaimer:
"We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues".

I'll trust that over Clapper any day.
+15 # LionMousePudding 2017-08-12 11:56
You know, no other endeavor needs huge amounts of evidence to prove that a leak comes from inside. It's just damn obvious. Claiming that the Russians did it, on the other hand, needs a hell of a lot of evidence which as far as I can see does not exist.

Occam's razor, people.

Weren't we told that all the intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMD?
+13 # madams12 2017-08-12 12:01
Smearing "The Nation" article..there seems to be no end of delusion concerning attacks against "Russian hackers"...for what push towards ANOTHER war? There has been NO EVIDENCE presented by those NSA/CIA all knowing all seeing information/dat a sweepers! Long trusted/respect ed journalists (like Robert Parry, for example) have been presenting this fact based argument ever since last summer when HRC first pointed a finger at this claim. DNC has FAILED the people and the country. They are as greedy and dishonest as GOP has been over all. One has to READ and THINK for oneself and then evaluate such postings as above. Feldman is just another shill for DNC/neocons imo.
+14 # dquandle 2017-08-12 12:16
There was perfectly comprehensible evidence that this has been an inside job, put up by a group of former members of the intelligence community, who are experts in the fields in question, and countering the clams of the Hillary warmongers.

It is far more coherent and persuasive than any of the garbage put forward by Hillary's neocons. These agents did forensics and analysis which the oft quoted and wildly exaggerated "17 intelligence agencies" did not do. They claim that only 3 agencies were involved in any semblance of an "investigation" , FBI, CIA, and NSA, not the 17 repeatedly touted, and that these three provided no evidence. On the other hand, the veteran agents have the expertise, the interest, and have provided the evidence, and are quite clear and coherent as to what it is.
They claim "It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported Contrary claims should be viewed as continuing attempts by the Hillary/DNC war machine to create a casus belli and stir up fear, hatred, and anger, which she and they have been doing for her entire vile campaign, which led to the appalling results under which we now suffer.The DNC did sabotage and subvert the "Democratic" primary, to counter the candidate who could have defeated Trump.
-8 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:34
The "Hillary warmongers." Oh, yeah, as opposed to the supporters of the saintly, peace-loving Donald Trump. You know, the guy who's now threatening (echoing his fellow nutjob Kim Jong-un)to launch a nuclear Korean War II.
+3 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 00:08
They are not mutually exclusive, eric. Another example of your dishonest arguments. They were BOTH terrible.
+20 # Billsy 2017-08-12 12:27
I couldn't care less who was responsible for the hack. Had the DNC not gamed the primary for an establishment favored candidate and the chosen candidate not accepted $800,000 from Goldman Sachs, a gross conflict of interest, we wouldn't be playing this tired game of scapegoating. Priority one is getting more people to show up and vote. You do that by backing SINCERE candidates with histories of integrity and backing progressive policies and not by defending corruption on the part of wealthy special interests.
+14 # Aaron1Tovish 2017-08-12 14:39
I have read the original analysis by Vetaren Intelligence Professionals for Security. I was clear as a bell. If Feldman found Lawrence's account of it confusing he could have put in a little bit of effort to go to the original source, rather than wasting his and our time trashing Lawrence.
+1 # Aaron1Tovish 2017-08-15 04:04
There is a direct link to the VPIS's memo to President Bush:
Read it.
Correction: the 'S' stands for Sanity not Security
+13 # MDSolomon 2017-08-12 15:03
It's always interesting to see who turns up as the latest prostitute for the Anglo-Euro-Amer ican banking cartel and its corporations.

Weeks after the corporate press came clean on the fact that only three intelligence agencies signed on to the then director of national intelligence's report, Feldman says "the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies."

So, let's state emphatically once again, no intelligence agency has offered any proof. None. Nada. Zero.

Read my analysis of the report Mr. Feldman, before your next round of agit-prop, limited hangout, lies, and logical fallacies.
-3 # Saberoff 2017-08-12 15:19
The Democrats continue to force me to defend Donald Trump.
+4 # kcmwilson 2017-08-12 16:25
The truth is deeper then either perspectives here...any hacker with the skill to penetrate systems as easily as this hack was done would certainly be able to plant false trails for the investigators to follow or discover. ...k
+1 # Trixie 2017-08-14 23:48
Quoting kcmwilson:
The truth is deeper then either perspectives here...any hacker with the skill to penetrate systems as easily as this hack was done would certainly be able to plant false trails for the investigators to follow or discover. ...k

Exactly, the NSA and CIA have a multitude of programs to subvert attribution, like Dumbo. Here are just a few:
+11 # librarian1984 2017-08-12 18:21
Here's a link to the Nation article by Patrick Lawrence:

It's not at all difficult to understand. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which includes Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, was finally able to examine the Podesta email metadata and, using timing, transfer rates and other forensic analysis, were able to prove, they say with 90+% confidence, that the hack was actually an inside leak. It may or may not have been Seth Rich but it was an inside job, just as Julian Assange has said all along.

There is evidence that the origin data was cut and spliced to make it look like it came from Russia or Rumania but it was actually from the eastern US.

Gee, this information has been out several weeks but I STILL haven't seen it on CNN or MSDNC -- even though this false accusation started the decline in relations to this point, where tensions are the highest since the Bay of Pigs.

Surprise, surprise.

And for those liberals who still believe James Clapper and John Brennan over VIPS, you are no longer allowed to criticize conservatives who don't believe in global warming or evolution.
+9 # PABLO DIABLO 2017-08-12 20:10
Feldman claims Lawrence produces no evidence to back up his claims, then goes on to ridicule the evidence Lawrence submits. DUH? Yet, after eight months of RUSSIAGATE hysteria, not the tinniest shred of evidence to back it up. If it was true, we would have seen the proof by now. The consensus of the media got us in deep shit in Iraq, yet these morons keep there jobs. The Hillary supporters need to accept the fact that she lost to an ill informed ego-manic windbag and get over it so the DNC stops making the same mistake and start running candidates that offer a plan rather than "I'm not Donald Trump, and I have a vagina". 90 Million registered voters chose to NOT vote in 2016. Besides the fact that Hillary has all the charisma of a cinder block, RUSSIAGATE is a convenient distraction from the contents of the leaked emails. Read 100 of them regarding Libya and decide for yourself whether Hillary is a despicable human being.
I will take consortium over RSN any and every day. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals are ALL retired CIA analysts. I'll trust them over this hack Feldman and RSN.
+7 # PerryAdler 2017-08-12 20:13
If you couldn't get the rights to the Nation article, you could have printed a more thoughtful evaluation of it than this piece of crap. And you wonder why people don't contribute. I'm on the verge of canceling the newsletter totally...
+6 # librarian1984 2017-08-13 13:30
Robert Parry is writing about this at

This is the 50th memo from the group of approx. thirty ex-intelligence officers. The memos take the form of open letters to the president. The first was in response to Colin Powell's UN presentation leading to the Iraq War.

At Consortium News you can also find a link to all fifty memos.
+11 # nice2bgreat 2017-08-13 07:27
"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. " -- Brian Feldman

Note to Brian Feldman, New York Magazine:

Things can be explained to you,

But things cannot be understood for you.
-9 # ericlipps 2017-08-13 13:36
Quoting nice2bgreat:
"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." -- Brian Feldman

Note to Brian Feldman, New York Magazine:

Things can be explained to you,

But things cannot be understood for you.

Not if they're incomprehensibl e babbling bullshit, anyway.
-7 # RMF 2017-08-13 12:31
Four important points the Trump apologists are missing:

1. Investigation of Trump/Russia collusion is being carried out by Mueller/DOJ and NOT by the intelligence agencies. Ultimately Mueller's conclusions will turn on what he discovers and NOT on intelligence agency conclusions, some now under dispute in the public domain.

2. Even if shown to be an inside job at DNC (re data theft) this does NOT mean that a mole inside DNC was acting independently of Putin/Russia. Indeed this is standard spycraft -- the insider could have been a Russian agent or simply an independent contractor in it for the money.

3. Hillary-Haters want to argue the ultimate conclusion and thus endlessly spin wheels about any resulting guilt or innocence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia -- a conclusion UNKNOWABLE at this point -- the relevant lynchpin is whether the KNOWN evidence represents adequate probable cause to support an investigation and convey subpoena power to Mueller/DOJ.

4. It's more than hacking DNC -- there are the meetings, the state elections, disinformation campaign etc.

So, if you Hillary-Haters want to make any logical sense at all -- instead of a premature shout that TRUMP IS INNOCENT you should instead address whether there is presence or absence of probable cause for a Mueller/DOJ investigation. Do that and then maybe those of us in possession of our faculties might be more inclined to take you seriously, rather than as senseless conspiracy theorists.
+3 # Salus Populi 2017-08-14 08:18
"2. Even if shown to be an inside job at DNC (re data theft) this does NOT mean that a mole inside DNC was acting independently of Putin/Russia. Indeed ... the insider could have been a Russian agent or simply an independent contractor in it for the money."

Washington'a Blog reports, based on a Wikileaks link to a telephone interview with the dean of the dwindling remnants of investigative journalism, Sy Hersh, that according to Hersh's sources [who have more than proven their reliability], that insider Seth Rich was the leaker -- that, in fact, the FBI, having gained access to his emails, determined that he had sent a large sample of emails to Wikileaks, and asked for money in exchange for more. [Wilileaks sometimes pays its sources -- and not in Rubles.] (Incidentally, Hersh does *not* subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Rich was killed for his leak.)

In the comments section of the WB article there is a discussion of what the new fallback position of the hacked-by-Russi a monothemes might come up with -- namely, that Rich was working for Putin -- that is, was a Russian agent.

Sure enough, here in RSN, written by one of the Hypnotized by Hillary Hard-cores is that very trope -- with, as an alternate scenario, that the copying was done by an "independent contractor." Of course, no one on the DNC staff or in Hillary's campaign itself, such as Seth Rich, could possibly be corrupt, even if the evidence is staring the commenter in the face.
+1 # RMF 2017-08-15 13:07
Salus Populi

OK -- what about my other three points?
+9 # lfeuille 2017-08-13 13:16
This guy claims to refute technical evidence without offering any technical explanation for why it is wrong. This is just more of the "Russia did it" crowds modus operendi. Assert without evidence, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
+4 # librarian1984 2017-08-14 00:53
"repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat"

Sometimes they change the font size.
+8 # Salus Populi 2017-08-13 13:25
Indeed. When the "hack" story, by government hacks, first surfaced, it
was "metadata" that they claimed allowed them to trace the origin of the "hack." And when Wikileaks released the Vault 7 files, a good deal of the information had to do with using "metadata" to track cyber-"fingerpr ints" and determine where the information came from.

William Binney, a retired NSA programmer who developed a lot of the techniques in use today during his 25 years in the service, at the time cast doubt on the prevailing and un-evidenced theory by noting that the NSA had long had the ability to trace the origins of cyber information through the "metadata," and noted that the fact that the DNC-hacker crowd did not provide any such information was likely indicative that they didn't have any.

Now all of a sudden, the New Yorker "journalist," rather than talking with intel or computer professionals, simply dismisses the whole topic of "metadata" as "gibberish." It is his attempt to debunk the alternate explanation that better fits this category.

He also either never read the article in the first place -- it appeared in Consortium News, was linked by Paul Craig Roberts, and made it to the Information Clearing House -- or chose, dishonestly, to omit crucial details. [1st of 3 parts]
+5 # Salus Populi 2017-08-13 13:35
[2d of 3 parts]
The article was prepared by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an anti-neo-con group that includes Ray McGovern, Binney, and other highly respected retired intelligence officers. The person who called himself the "forensicator" was hired to do the forensics; given the enormous amount of vitriol and bile, as well as smears and lies, that are directed at anyone who challenges the DNC's meme, a pseudonym is not an unreasonable precaution.

In any event, he has far more credibility than the group the "intelligence community" hired to supposedly take care of that task, namely CrowdStrike, associated with the Atlantic Council, a viper's nest of neo-con propaganda specialists; the former have been caught out with false information at least twice in the last year. The FBI said it did no
independent forensic analysis on its own.

The analysis showed not only that the data was stolen far too fast to have taken place over the internet, but much more seriously, that the "Russian fingerprints" were added later through a crude cut-and-paste job, meaning that the entire episode was a deliberate false flag created for the purpose of furthering the war party's project of isolating and demonizing Russia in service of creating a New Cold War so as to maintain a sufficient level of hysteria as to drown out the voices for peace, infrastructure, justice and health.
[Concluded below]
0 # RMF 2017-08-15 12:43
I really found it "impressive" that the VIPS group includes someone from USDA!

Although a few VIPS members appeared to be expert in the field, more generally the individual credentials failed to impress.
+5 # Salus Populi 2017-08-13 13:40
[3rd of 3 parts]
Shortly after the VIPS article came out, Seymour Hersh, the most respected investigative journalist of our lifetime, revealed that his source in the FBI had read him a report that the CIA was responsible for the initial "hack" claim. Hersh has excellent sources and has been proven correct over and over during
the last 50 years.

Finally, as one more indication of the author's dissimulation, he refers to the "near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies," by this careful wording passing blithely over the revelation several months ago, in testimony before Congress, that the "unanimous" opinion was actually that of a few hand-picked analysts chosen by the DNI, the FBI, and the CIA, whose conclusions did not even engender "high," but only "moderate," confidence from the fourth agency in the cabal, the NSA; the "conclusion" was not circulated among the other 13 agencies for comment or dissent,
nor was dissent included, as it would have to have been if the "assessment" had been issued as a National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] as is normally done. By leaving out "the" before "U.S. intelligence agencies," Feldman artfully implies that the whole intel community
agreed, while leaving himself the wiggle room that he just referred to an unspecified number of such agencies.
+3 # librarian1984 2017-08-13 13:52
This is how bankrupt neoliberals and their hacks are.

They'd rather play stupid than address the evidence. 'Oh, my pooh wittel bwain hurts! I can't understand all duh big wuhds! It's witten poohly and I jess don' get it! Wussia!! Wussia!! Wussia!!'

How are these people better than climate change deniers? They ignored the matchup data all throught the nomination too.

I'm sure Hillary's forthcoming memoir, What Happened, will be filled with insight and concise analysis .. not. It will be the same old list of lame excuses: misogyny, Sanders, Comey, Russia, deplorables, youth, blacks, progressives, the DNC, Obama, timing blah blah .. The buck stops everywhere BUT Hillary. What a shining example for little girls .. what inspirational leadership!

They should have a picture of her on the cover, dazed, with stars and tweety birds circling her head. Maybe she should call it 'Did Anybody Get the License of that Bus?'

Her selfish ambition gave us Trump, and her campaign's denial that she could not win the election, especially as it became clear voters wanted change. They can try to blame everyone else. I still see Mook and Palmieri et al on the news shows, pretending they're not abject losers who couldn't beat a clown even though they had the whole media on their side and spent twice as much.

THOUSANDS of seats they've lost us. And the presidency. Four special elections. Remember when we thought we could take the senate? What a joke.
+2 # Depressionborn 2017-08-14 21:17

about Russia DNC hacking for Trump's benefit:

If the download data is factual and as stated it precludes a hack, indicating a leak. Such would make many rather embarrassed. They might try to hide from reality or obfuscate the data.
0 # librarian1984 2017-08-15 09:01
"Might"? I think they already are.

STILL haven't seen it reported on CNN or MSDNC.
+1 # Depressionborn 2017-08-15 12:08
now this, and from the Post yet:
"The Washington Post reports that in 2016, a new member of the Trump foreign policy advisory committee sent emails to the Trump campaign urging that the candidate meet with top Russian leaders including Putin, but that the campaign repeatedly rejected this suggestion."

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.