← Back to context Comment by ethbr1 12 days 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 12 days ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 12 days ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 12 days 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 12 days ago NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these. ethbr1 12 days ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 12 days 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 12 days ago What satisfiable criteria would you like in a source? bjourne 12 days 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 12 days 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 →