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. bit.ly/2ftuwns (thread)
Then, last August, I read that after much criticism @thenation decided to review that article, and I was much relieved: wapo.st/2O0lI4e
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."
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. 
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.
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. bit.ly/2LQJORD
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.
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."
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.
At this point, I can now think of no reason why the @thenation should not fully retract that flawed piece.
This is not about legitimate skepticism and inquiry. That should always be welcome. It is about a piece of calculated disinformation based on manipulated data, which has been laundered in @thenation and is harming truthful discourse and debate about a crucial issue.
