Reid (& Nichols) could always unblock the Internet Archive and share the evidence of the hack.

Also, @wvualphasoldier deleted his tweets then protected his account, so that's the reason the above embed no longer formats correctly. (2018-04-26 update: @wvualphasoldier has now unprotected his account, but his earlier tweets about Joy Reid are still deleted.) Yet, Yet Another 2018-04-25 update:Thanks to Prof. Weigle and Mat Kelly for providing examples of some of the URLs that are slipping through the robots.txt exclusion.Here's one: https://web.archive.org/web/20060805055643/https://blog.reidreport.com and another: https://web.archive.org/web/20050728132003/https://blog.reidreport.com:443/ Which has the following information that I thought I saw in the original @Jamie_Maz tweets but now I can't find it, so perhaps I'm misremembering. It certainly fits the overall theme. Edit: it's in this post:: I saw this last night but I'm adding it now. In Erik Wemple 's article " Is MSNBC’s Joy Reid the victim of malicious ‘screenshot manipulation’? ", he links to a PDFs to Google and the Internet Archive from Reid's lawyers. The letters do not have the attachments, but from the text of the letters I was able to infer some of the references they discuss, such as "...making sexual innuendos about Senator Orrin Hatch..." and "Things people say when they're on the Fox News Channel". Those two quotes can be found at both:Picking this apart further, the post "Things people say when they're on the Fox News Channel" is one of about 12 posts Reid made on January 10, 2006. The above mementos at LC and IA were archived on January 11, 2006 (specifically, 2006-01-11T22:17:38Z). Assuming the timestamp of "11:28" is EST (Reid was in Florida at the time), the difference between EST and GMT is 5 hours. The interval between the posting time and the archiving time is pretty small, less than 30 hours:

2006-01-11T22:17:38Z archive time

2006-01-11T22:17:38Z archive time

2006-01-11T22:17:38Z archive time

2006-01-10T16:28:00Z posting time (I've assumed "00" for seconds)-----------------------------29 hours 49 minutes 38 seconds, or 1 day, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 38 seconds.Call it 30 hours. It's possible that the blog's timezone was GMT, so the interval would become 35 hours. It's also possible the timezone was PST (Blogger was a Google service in 2006, so there's a good chance the machines were in CA), then the window shrinks to 27 hours. But EST and 30 hours is a pretty good guess.Blogger does allow you to change creation dates on blog posts, so it is possible to go into a blog "today" and author a post that was "created" in 2006. But the Internet Archive saw what it saw on 2006-01-11T22:17:38Z, so if the blog was hacked and posts were backdated to appear as 2006-01-10, then a hacker would have to have logged into the site and posted content without Reid or her readers noticing. The archived page shows six posts on January 11, 2006, 12 posts on January 10, and 11 posts on January 09. Even if we accept the premise that some of those posts are fraudulent, it is clear that Reid was a prolific blogger and regularly interacted with the blog (history note: blogging was very popular before Twitter & Facebook all but replaced it some years later). I don't know what kind of readership Reid's blog had in 2006, but at the very least she was interacting with it many times per day, andReid's lawyers also mention the post "Best Love Life EVER: Celebrity Wife-Swap Edition", which is also available at the above linked archived pages. It purports to be published on January 11, 2006 at 9:23am, the first post (of six) of the day. Repeating the same analysis as above:2006-01-11T14:23:00Z posting time (I've assumed "00" for seconds)-----------------------------7 hours 54 minutes 38 secondsThis establishes a boundary of 8 hours between when the allegedly fraudulent post was purportedly made and when the page was archived. The last post of the day was 4:51pm ("The hypothetical situation room"). Repeating the above analysis again:2006-01-11T21:51:00Z last posting time (I've assumed "00" for seconds)-----------------------------0 hours 26 minutes 38 secondsIn other words, the window for the last time that Reid interacted with the blog and when the blog was archived is less than 30 minutes. It's entirely possible that Reid pressed "publish" and did not look back at the blog, and just moved on to the next task. It's also possible that an adversary logged into the blog, posted the content before the 2006-01-11T22:17:38Z archival time, and changed the creation date to be earlier in the morning, before the presumably legitimate content was published. But also keep in mind that such an adversary would not know in advance the time that the Internet Archive would visit the page (IA's " save page now " did not exist in 2006).In summary, while we can't rule out an external adversary logging in and inserting fraudulent content right before archiving time, it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for the content to appear before the page was archived and not be noticed by Reid (or brought to her attention by her readers).(also, apologies if I've made datetime arithmetic or TZ conversion errors; corrections welcome)2018-04-27 update: I've deduced why the number of comments for the top-level pages (at least the few that I've looked at) do not match some people's expectations. In short, the html page and the corresponding javascript page that holds the index for which posts have what number of comments are out of sync. In one example I looked at, the html page is crawled on 2006-01-11 and the js index is crawled on 2006-02-07. When the js runs and can't find its post id in the js index, it assumes zero comments and prints the string "comments?".I'm including a twitter thread here in lieu of a proper write-up.