On August 9, 2017, The Nation published an article by Patrick Lawrence arguing, “There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.” The article was immediately controversial, so on September 1, 2017, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel appended a note outlining the objections to Lawrence’s piece, complete with links. This editor’s note was written in the spirit of open inquiry, suggesting that Lawrence’s article was worth debating and might be true.
That was perhaps an appropriate stance in the weeks after the article was published. But New Yorker staff writer Raffi Khatchadourian has revisited the Lawrence piece in a Twitter thread, noting that subsequent reporting has cast credibility on original sources used by Lawrence. Crucially, two experts cited by Lawrence have backtracked.
Khatchadourian’s thread is worth reading.
I have deep admiration for @thenation. I got my start in magazine writing at that publication. So, last year, when it published about the DNC hack being an "inside job" I tried to hold my tongue, even though it was a fiasco on many levels. https://t.co/wRYDv3Q5Zo (thread)
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
Then, last August, I read that after much criticism @thenation decided to review that article, and I was much relieved: https://t.co/R7nSmM1NKa
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
But only briefly. Because I was then hugely dismayed to see that the result of that review was an editor's note, appended to the article with dueling memos debating arguments that were spurious to begin with "to encourage further inquiry."
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
In other words, even though it was evident that the article was filled with gobbledygook "forensics," @thenation decided to keep the article up, implying that it might in fact be right, and as a result the story continued to be cited. It is still shared to this day. pic.twitter.com/iCRh3jQKw3
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
The article was always problematic. But In recent weeks, it took two devastating blows. The first blow: the Mueller indictment describing precisely how the GRU had hacked the DNC.
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
And the other blow, issued today, from @dcampbell_iptv in his deep reporting about the British troll who helped shovel the spurious "forensics" into the public domain. https://t.co/wcaXg8gUIf
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
One big alarm bell: the "forensics" in the @thenation article, it appears, was based on a specific cache of GRU-released documents released in September 2016 that contained fabrications designed to confuse. pic.twitter.com/pQmqEpVAT1
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
As @dcampbell_iptv reports, Bill Binney, the retired NSA official whose authority was invoked in the @thenation article, now, upon reviewing the data, believes that the premise of the piece's argument is based on "no evidence." pic.twitter.com/k0XLNDK1rk
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
Moreover, according to Binney, a second "qualified expert" cited in the story, Ray McGovern -- who once told me that he has no technical expertise in computer forensics -- also no longer defends the flawed reasoning. pic.twitter.com/IeBTT57aQc
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018
At this point, I can now think of no reason why the @thenation should not fully retract that flawed piece.
— Raffi Khatchadourian (@raffiwriter) July 31, 2018