This could be the reason the DNC would not allow the FBI access to examine its computer servers. Wonder if Wasserman Schultz’s Pakistani IT consultant Imran Awan was involved.
Who were the experts?
Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions…
The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. thenation
A new report states categorically that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was not hacked by Russians–or anyone else–as frequently alleged by the mainstream media, liberal intelligentsia and anti-Trump politicians.
The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence wrote a lengthy review of the findings made by various computer experts formerly with the NSA. Published this week, the left-wing magazine’s report notes two bases for their conclusion: (1) hard science shows that a remote hack of the DNC servers resulting in the breach that actually occurred would have been technologically impossible; (2) forensic review of the initial Guccifer 2.0 documents proves that they are poorly-disguised cut-and-paste jobs–forgeries–intended to finger Russia.
Lawrence, by way of the experts’ findings, concludes that the so-called “hack” was actually an inside job by someone with internal access to the DNC’s computer network. In other words, the DNC has (or had) a leak.[…]
“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.”
What is the top possible speed? Somewhere around 16 megabytes per second. According to Skip Folden, a former IBM program manager and independent analyst, 22.7 megabytes per second is beyond unlikely under the circumstances–unless you’re downloading the files directly using a storage device like a USB drive. He said:
“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer. Transfer rates of 23 MB/s are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance. Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”
As to the report’s second contention–that the Guccifer 2.0 documents were tainted to cast curious eyes toward Russia–Folden notes that a simple peeling away of the documents’ top layer of metadata shows the sloppy and intentional misattribution. Law Newz