Court rules no collusion between Trump, Russia and Wikileaks

[Matt Grantham]

Maybe you can enlighten yourself a little by reading this article:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dnc-hacked-itself-conspiracy-theory-collapses-key-backer-claim-exposed-as-uk-troll.shtml

-- MWT   

 I am trying to look for the meat of this articles rebuttal of the VIPS. This seems to be about it


 The Nation was forced to review the report, adding a meandering preamble to address criticism. In the year since, reports have forged a new infosec community consensus that yes, Guccifer 2.0 was GRU, and had been amusingly caught because Russian intelligence forgot to activate its VPN before logging into the bogus persona's WordPress site on one occasion (one of several opsec errors made by Russian intel).



 I don't see much meat there quite frankly If you want to point to something else in the article I will listen. Not sure who the infosec community is. We do know that the supposed consensus on the Russian hack was not a consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence agencies as Clapper made quite clear. At a minimum lets have an open forum of VIPS, and Kapersky and others who doubt the alphabet agencies and their hired helpers.

[Matt Grantham]

 In my opinion to refute VIPS in a straightforward manner one would need to do one of two things. Show that download speeds have no relation to the question of the distance of the hack. Or that VIPS measurement of the download speeds were incorrect or unreliable. I am not seeing that in your article.

[Thomas Graves]

We do know that the supposed consensus on the Russian hack was not a consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence agencies as Clapper made quite clear.

At a minimum lets have an open forum of VIPS, and Kapersky and others who doubt the alphabet agencies and their hired helpers.

Which of the 17 intelligence agencies dissented from the majority's conclusion?

Isn't Kapersky Lab owned by a Russian and headquartered in Moscow?

[Matt Grantham]

Which of the 17 intelligence agencies dissented from the majority's conclusion?

 It is not a matter of them dissenting but rather that they never assented.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rather-large-new-york-times-correction

[Thomas Graves]

In my opinion to refute VIPS in a straightforward manner one would need to do one of two things. Show that download speeds have no relation to the question of the distance of the hack. Or that VIPS measurement of the download speeds were incorrect or unreliable. I am not seeing that in your article.

Two honest personal questions:

1) A you a "computer person"?

2) Have you done any research on the technical aspect of the issue?

[Thomas Graves]

It is not a matter of their dissenting, but rather that they never assented.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rather-large-new-york-times-correction

The Washington Examiner, huh?

"Right Bias and Mixed Factual Reporting," according to mediabiasfactcheck. com

https://mediabiasfactcheck-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15656685090414&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2Fwashington-examiner%2F

If you're attracted to "news sources" like Washington Examiner, I'm guessing you believe we live in a "Deep State".

Am I correct?

[Thomas Graves]

"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

-- MWT   

[Matt Grantham]

"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

-- MWT   

 Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias

 Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue