The never-ending Russia saga has captured the imagination of Democrats and the mainstream media.
While there continues to be zero concrete evidence that anything nefarious took place – or that a single vote was changed due to alleged interference – the drum is beaten on a daily basis.
During this non-stop Russia mania, we’ve seen all sorts of ‘bombshell’ reports released by the press that are portrayed as some sort of smoking gun. As a general rule of thumb, the ‘reports’ come from unnamed and unverifiable sources.
Upon release, these stories are spun as if they’re completely earth shattering. After the initial hysteria winds down, additional attention is finally paid to the actual substance of the report in question.
The overwhelming majority of them turn out to be completely devoid of anything resembling substance or facts. Holes are quickly blown through the report, but corrections and retractions are incredibly hard to come by.
This cycle repeats itself on an infinite loop, and little attention is paid to stories that actually move the needle for American voters.
Since the press is so obsessed with the Russia story, you would think that a report that’s chock full of juicy details would see a ton of play.
You would be right on that – as long as said story doesn’t shed a negative light on Democrats. Patrick Lawrence of The Nation has put together an exhaustive report on the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee last year.
While The Nation is an inherently liberal publication, Lawrence was able to push that aside and do some actual reporting. What he uncovered is nothing less than shocking.
The Independent Journal Review passes along the details on that.
The conclusion of the report: This was not a hack — a hack was impossible based on the evidence. This was instead an inside job by someone who directly downloaded information from the DNC servers onto a hard device and transported it, intending it to be released.
That’s an unbelievable assessment, but Lawrence comes armed with facts to bolster his findings.
In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”
Hmmm. If a reporter could so easily come to that conclusion, but then we can be sure this will come out in the wash as part of the scores of investigations into Russian interference, right? It certainly doesn’t appear that way.
The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.
If you’re asking yourself how it’s even possible that the computers in question haven’t been examined, you’re not alone.
That’s a completely unfathomable revelation, and it places the witch hunt in a whole new perspective.
All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”
Where is the mainstream press on this story? Doesn’t Lawrence deserve a forum to discuss what he has uncovered?
Shouldn’t members of the press be inspired to dig even deeper to see what they might uncover too?
The unfortunate answer is that they’re not, and that tells you all you need to know about the state of journalism today.
If this report was somehow tied to alleged wrongdoing on the part of Trump or someone even loosely affiliated with him, this story would be receiving round the clock coverage that would make your head spin.
The Russia scandal simply has to be exposed for what it is at some point, right?
We’ll keep our fingers crossed on that, but it’s seeming less and less likely every day.
Source: Independent Journal Review