3 ms·
Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged
by thatlongthrow1 6y ago
Yes the info was false.
>A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that has worked for CNAIPIC in the past and that apparently some of the stolen data were on a machine they took to repair in Rome.” There was an immediate suspicion that it was “a giant op by the police to [discredit] anonymous and to tarnish our reputation and credibility.”
- monocasa 6y agoA) The CNAIPIC leaks weren't by wikileaks B) Why do we trust the CNAIPIC to tell the truth that they weren't their docs?
- himinlomax 6y agoSo I did a brief Google search and it seems that, just like monocasa mentioned, this was not published by Wikileaks. Are you going to change your stance or are you going to stand by your incorrect, if not slanderous, claim?
- jessaustin 6y agoThis is why they invent new greenbean accounts; they can lie without "consequences".
- xtracto 6y agoYou are very invested to discredit Wikileaks uh? I hate when throwaway accounts do these kind of things, it reeks as propaganda machine.