In any case, I hope Macron has a ready explanation and forensics to show which of the docs he faked and how he faked them.
Incidentally, something very similar happened w/US attempts to discredit WL, bc Dem sources elevated a fake of a doc WL subsequently dumped.
-
-
And (2) was their bias showing. It was not about whether they were ahead of Macron/ANSSI -they were trying to validate while not doing so.
-
Which is why this could be counterproductive. Bc WL's bias (I think you overestimate its justification) proved correct.
-
They either had them before and distanced themselves, or didn't, and didn't have a platform from which to speculate about who was 'ahead'.
-
So if they had them before then they failed to serve GRU's (presumed) purpose and that makes them look good.
-
In any case, if fake email thing was meant to discredit WL, it failed, in part bc Macron blabbed abt it first, & was too quick in statement
-
Not directly aimed at WL, but at hackers who have other choices of other distrib channels. You must know that 2nd WL tweet was political.
-
They should've just stayed away - why say anything if not their leak and didn't know any more than anyone else (and less than the players)?
-
Bc Assange is a narcissist and the press feeds it? But again, thus far they don't look "bad" (operationally) out of what they did.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Its my bias but I watched it happening last night and thought (1) was cover, and was not at all surprised when (2) followed on soon after..
-
It may have been cover. & yet, according to Macron, it was also 100% correct. Claims Macron "fooled" WL are 100% BS, at least thus far.
-
Oh I agree with that, I don't think WL were fooled. They kept it arms length for a reason. And then weighed in to lend their 'authority'
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.