Tesimoney dnc server what did they have to hide
There is much more I could say and demonstrate but, for now, I just wanted to get a basic rebuttal published so that journalists can see there are some serious issues with the latest hit-piece ComputerWeekly have published and that it contains demonstrably false information and gets a lot of things wrong. The disinformation their author engaged in, the previous false allegations made and the fact that nobody at ComputerWeekly seems willing to accept evidence and be accountable is all documented in the following article: Unfortunately, for ComputerWeekly, this adds to a list of problems we have in relation to their past publication of bogus conspiracy theories and disinformation. They've published claims the author should have known to be false (disinformation), have managed to muddle up evidence from two different incidents, have re-used frames that turn reality upside down (and that we have already discredited with evidence in the past) and have egregiouly misled the public once again.Īccountability For Their Previous False Allegations & Disinformation It would seem Duncan Campbell, William Goodwin and Bryan Glick know they're in the wrong judging by the way they routinely hide from fair questions and stonewall when presented evidence discrediting their silly conspiracy fantasies.ĬomputerWeekly Push More Propaganda, Editors Implicated In DisinfomaionĬomputerWeekly has published false allegations about my communications with Couch and Butowsky's attorneys, about communications between myself and ComputerWeekly's William Goodwin, about my company's infrastructure, about the intentions of Forensicator and myself (and purpose of our efforts) and much more. The fact that editors Bryan Glick and William Goodwin commissioned another hit-piece from an author we had already legitimately discredited (and shown to have engaged in disinformation in the past) combined with the timing of this suggests the commissioning was motivated by malice. Since being presented with the new evidence, Goodwin has predictably returned to stonewalling once again. The article shows that rumors and speculation from their author was wrong, reveals that statements I had made were concealed (and that Computer Weekly engaged in a deception through omission by claiming I hadn't responded) and that Computer Weekly's investigations editor (William Goodwin) continues to struggle with handling facts and evidence honestly, keeping Computer Weekly's readers in the dark when it comes to reality. In August, I published an article discrediting Computer Weekly's latest hit-piece with new evidence. Several Twitter DMs and other communications from Guccifer 2.0 were pointed out to me recently that I had not documented and that were missing from the corpus.Īdditional communications are now documented and linked to here and here.Ĭomputer Weekly Editors Stonewall When Evidence Emerges
More Guccifer 2.0 Communications Documented & Corpus Updated
TESIMONEY DNC SERVER WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO HIDE UPDATE
These have now been added and I've also added links to sources for all entries in the corpus.Īdditional Guccifer 2.0 Communications DocumentedĪdditional communications from Wall Street Journal, Buzzfeed & Daily Caller are now documented and linked to here.Ĭorpus update is in progress, more on that to come soon. DM conversations Guccifer 2.0 had with Lee Stranahan and Aaron Nevins were missing from the corpus.