<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Dylan Distasio </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:interzone@gmail.com" target="_blank">interzone@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>we certainly do NOT know that Assange got his info from Russia. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The NSA the FBI the CIA and all other intelligence agencies in the USA say it was Russia, Trump says a mysterious 400 pound man sitting on a bed is the one who stole the E-mails. So who should we believe? Well let's see, in his first 10 months in office Trump told 6 times as many lies as Obama did in 8 years. Trump told<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> 2,140 lies in his first year, that’s 5.9 lies a day or or one lie every 3 waking hours. And these are just the lies told in public, the number of lies he told in private is probably 10 times that number:</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunday/trump-lies-obama-who-is-worse.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/<wbr>interactive/2017/12/14/<wbr>opinion/sunday/trump-lies-<wbr>obama-who-is-worse.html</a><br></span></div>
</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div> former NSA official believes there is evidence of an inside job at the DNC which was published in a liberal publication, The Nation. I would strongly suggest reading the entire article before blaming the DNC hack on a Russian bugaboo. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>And just a week after that article was published <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">in </div>The Nation <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">the magazine </div>started <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">having</div> second <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">thoughts</div> about the accuracy of <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">what it said</div> and <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">so ordered</div> a "post-publication editorial review". This is what they concluded:</div><div><br></div>“As part of the editing process we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">After the fact they did hired just such a independent technical expert and he said if the publication didn't want to be embarrassed again with another bad article they </div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div>must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses. Walking nontechnical readers down any narrative path that cannot be directly supported by evidence must be avoided. At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved.<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/09/01/the-nation-issues-editors-note-on-story-questioning-whether-the-dnc-was-hacked/?utm_term=.db1e62ea8153" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.<wbr>com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/<wbr>09/01/the-nation-issues-<wbr>editors-note-on-story-<wbr>questioning-whether-the-dnc-<wbr>was-hacked/?utm_term=.<wbr>db1e62ea8153</a><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The data was transferred too quickly for it to have been remotely. This is a matter of public record:<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>That's pretty fast, faster than what most home users would be willing to pay for but not out of reach of large national organizations<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>like the DNC or Russian intelligence services. Xfinity<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>offers a<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>100 Mbps<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>connection for<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> $90 per month<br>and<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> a 2-Gbps connection for $225 per month<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>. I think Hillary Clinton<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>could afford that when she was running for president of the richest country in the world. I think Vladimir Putin<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>could afford it too.<br>. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,”</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Why are we talking about<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>transoceanic data transfer<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">? If the Russian intelligence agencies had any brains, and they do, they'd want to get in and out as quickly as possible to avoid detection, so they'd download it to some local server and encrypt it, then they could transfer it to Trump's buddy </div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Vladimir<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> in the </div>Kremlin</font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> at their leisure, an old fashioned </font></div>dial up modem<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> would be good enough for that. </div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div></div></div></div>