Many of the details seemed far-fetched: Steele’s sources claimed that the digital attack involved agents “within the Democratic Party structure itself,” as well as Russian émigrés in the U.S. e-mails, Steele filed yet another memo, this time claiming that the Kremlin was “behind” the hacking, which was part of a Russian cyber war against Hillary Clinton’s campaign. On July 26, 2016, after WikiLeaks disseminated the D.N.C. While the piece continues to perpetrate the media narrative of Russian collusion by the Trump administration without really dealing with the known and documented Russian collusion of the Obama administration and Clinton State Department, it did provide this little caveat. Does that make assuming they're real a reasonable position? Not even close.According to a report from The New Yorker, following the Democrat National Committee’s emails release by Wikileaks in 2016, former UK spy Christopher Steele filed a memo with GPS Fusion stating that the “hack” that obtained the emails involved Russian agents “within the Democratic Party structure itself.” I can't prove that abominable snowmen don't exist. With no evidence to indicate he actually did, it is wholly unreasonable to assume it's true. Is it still possible that Seth Rich leaked emails to Wikileaks? Sure. To the point they need to issue a formal retraction and promise to never use that source again. The video was removed because "the claim" made by their source fell apart. Who tried to prove it wasn't true? No one. Who proved that the claim about Seth Rich wasn't true? No one. That doesn't prove anything they said about Seth Rich's brother was false, let alone what they and others said about Seth Rich himself. Fox simply decided it wasn't worth the litigation risk to have to prove to a judge or jury that what they said about Seth Rich's brother was true.
And that claim has not been debunked.įox News did not - AND COULD NOT - "admit" it wasn't true. We're talking about the claim that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks. Is it possible that an organization might have just happened to perform a bit for bit copy of a drive immediately after a hack happened without realizing/suspecting a hack? Sure, the odds are worse than hitting the powerball, while being struck by lightning, while being eaten by a shark, though.ĭebunked means disproven.
And if it doesn’t make sense it probably isn’t true.Ī copy of the drive from the point in time closest to the suspected hack is the best evidence reasonably possible. Īs has been pointed out, if there is a claim of hacking, why not just produce the 100% unsinkable proof of evidence? The simple fact that the original source for the claim was never produced, will never be produced and along with the other factors now becoming apparent, gives credence to a suspicion of fabrication. Nothing is “ ridiculous” unless it can be proved otherwise. The issue appears that so called justification by US Agencies is just another cog in the wheel of the American people to be bamboozled to turn and look the other way. Where, just where, in our US Justice system does a “ copy” or “ clone” of an original be accepted as evidence, when the original copy is never provided, or even attainable ? And in this case, a slam dunk ? However if you are unable to follow the bouncing ball of explanations regarding these processes, there is a very simple way to understand that the entire Russian Hacking claim blows up under scrutiny. Pedro Martinez appears to be the only person here tech savvy enough to understand the nuances of the properties of data collection, retrieval, and proper examination and likely conclusions.
0 kommentar(er)
