← Back to context Comment by ethbr1 3 months 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 3 months ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 3 months ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 3 months 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 3 months ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 3 months ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 3 months 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 3 months ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 3 months 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 3 months 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 →