Comment by ethbr1 1 year ago https://archive.ph/20241007181947/https://www.wsj.com/politi...https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/30/us/politics/china-hack-tr... 5 comments ethbr1 Reply jampekka 1 year ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 1 year ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 1 year ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
jampekka 1 year ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 1 year ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 1 year ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
ethbr1 1 year ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 1 year ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
bjourne 1 year ago Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack. 2 replies →
NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these.
What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source?
Read the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack.
2 replies →