The Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election
Jeffrey Carr
2259

Jeffrey — are you familiar with the metadata analysis of the first three files published by Guccifer 2.0 showing that the documents were purposely tainted with “Russian fingerprints”? (Here is a good summary of the analysis: http://g-2.space/intent/, and here’s the original post on Medium by the person who discovered it: https://medium.com/@nyetnyetnyet/russia-and-wikileaks-the-case-of-the-gilded-guccifer-f2288521cdee)

I was wondering what you thought of it. I understand that metadata can be specifically edited in order to mislead. However, the allegedly “accidental” Russian fingerprints are currently still cited by the media as evidence for Russian hacking without any acknowledgement that the metadata actually seems to indicate that someone first created a Russian stylesheet template in Word and then copied pasted the contents of the original DNC files into it, thus tainting the documents on purpose.

Like what you read? Give Christine Granville a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.