I will comment on only one question raised here. It has to do w/ anonymity, a matter I looked into carefully and repeatedly during the reporting. As noted in what I wrote, anonymity in this field is respected as common practice.
Last night I had a note from Adam Carter in which he addressed this question of identity. (I didn't solicit his remarks on the topic.) He wrote in part:
"Please know that both Forensicator and myself only choose to remain behind pseudonyms for security. (Understanding Guccifer 2.0's purpose makes it clear to us that whoever it is, they are connected to influential and wealthy politicians that are not likely to be happy about this being exposed and the prospect of it being who we think it is does not make us feel any safer.)"
Adam Carter went on to note he and colleagues are aware of the inconvenience their decisions to remain anonymous imposes.
I see nothing peculiar in this judgment. I ought to add that some of my intelligence sources warned me as we finished our work together to be careful driving, esp at night and esp on the country roads I traverse to get home. This is not funny business, I was firmly advised. I'm not in a position to judge these kinds of things directly, but they are, and so I take their word for it.
That's that.
As to all or most of the other remarks in this thread, nothing in any of them alters in the slightest detail anything readers will find in the piece. We're bolted to the floor on this one.
Cheers to all.
Patrick Lawrence.