Pundits And Politicians Are Tacitly Admitting That They Lied About Russia
Caitlin Johnstone

You are citing a single article, largely editorial in nature, which in turn cites a single memo from an unofficial, non-governmental group of former intelligence analysts, who are in turn basing their report on forensic analyis conducted by a single source, anonymous to all parties above, who bases his entire claim on file transfer speeds in the metadata of files that only he has seen directly—not VIPS or The Nation, by their own complicated and long-winded admission. Yet you hold this as incontrovertible truth that must be acknowledged, despite this single point of evidence being unequivocally refuted by the actual current U.S. Intelligence community investigating Russian involvement and the DNC itself.

The entire weight of credulity in The Nation’s reporting is argumentum ad verecundiam—it’s almost comical the number of words Patrick Lawrence dedicates to describing the lengthy credentials of both the VIPS members and Skip Holden, as if it somehow made the shadowy reliance on “the Forensicator” less flimsy. You, in turn, essentially cite The Nation’s reputation as argument enough to defend this flimsiness.

You claim to be a “Rogue Journalist,” but journalism involves reporting all sides of a story. Nowhere do you even bother to mention or analyze the argument that metadata analysis of file transfer speeds—the Forensicator’s entire smoking gun—wouldn’t even necessarily be relevant if files were copied multiple times prior or after the transfer from the DNC servers over the internet. Joe Uchill at The Hill found two cybersecurity experts professing this theory two weeks ago, but you don’t even bother to cite this in order to dismiss it.

I’m not arguing that there is undeniable proof that the Russian government hacked the DNC, but this is absolutely not undeniable proof to the contrary. The reason you haven’t seen major news gathering organizations walk back on Russia isn’t because they’re brushing it under the rug—it’s because this level of reporting wouldn’t pass five minutes of scrutiny in an editorial review meeting.