monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Yeah, I've seen some highly regarded and reputable former government experts say that the available evidence proves that the emails could NOT have been hacked via internet due to the short down load time it took and that it had to have been an inside job.

layman wrote:

Yeah, I've seen some highly regarded and reputable former government experts say that the available evidence proves that the emails could NOT have been hacked via internet due to the short down load time it took and that it had to have been an inside job.

A (= 1, one) blogger named "The Forensicator".

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations. To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom.

Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

That is why The Nation published Patrick Lawrence’s article “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.” The article largely reported on a recently published memo prepared by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which argued, based on their own investigation, that the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.

VIPS, formed in 2003 by a group of former US intelligence officers with decades of experience working within the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and other agencies, previously produced some of the most credible—and critical—analyses of the Bush administration’s mishandling of intelligence data in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

This is a devastating critique of the journalistic wing of the Resistance and CNN in particular.

The theory behind the report is that it would have been impossible for information from the DNC to have been hacked due to upload and download speeds.

The claims are based on metadata from the files, which were leaked by their purported hacker, Guccifer 2.0, during the 2016 election season.

A blogger named “The Forensicator” analyzed the "last modified" times in one set of documents released by Guccifer 2.0. Based on the size of the documents and the times they were downloaded, Forensicator calculated that a hacker was able to copy the files at a speed of more than 20 megabytes per second.

“This theory assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer,” said Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk.

But, said Barger and other experts, that overlooks the possibility the files were copied multiple times before being released, something that may be more probable than not in a bureaucracy like Russian intelligence.

A hacker might have downloaded it to one computer, then shared it by USB to an air gapped [off the internet] network for translation, then copied by a different person for analysis, then brought a new USB to an entirely different air gapped computer to determine a strategy all before it was packaged for Guccifer 2.0 to leak,” said Barger.

The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow, though they have not released their evidence to the public.

Nothing will convince you anyway, so why bother? Eat some more ****.

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. 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:

Must read: It wasn't a hack. It was a DNC insider with a memory stick. Or how a "conspiracy theory" became reality. https://t.co/heyzYzLZSZ
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) August 10, 2017

The media conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the DNC is utterly debunked https://t.co/2zpYyRIGK9
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 10, 2017

Another Democratic Russian narrative bites the dust. https://t.co/IgfpzguPNT
— Nick Short 🇺🇸 (@PoliticalShort) August 10, 2017

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.

Nothing will convince you anyway, so why bother?

Nothing will convince you anyway, so why bother?

Ben Wallace-Wells‏Verified account
@benwallacewells
"We're in the great fourth turning here" - Bannon, to a somewhat perplexed sounding crowd.
5:28 PM - 11 Dec 2017

Matt O'Brien‏Verified account
@ObsoleteDogma
More Matt O'Brien Retweeted Ben Wallace-Wells
Real populism is sounding like an outtake from Ghostbusters