A hoax, whether it is a computer hoax or a conspriacy hoax as this one, can be recognised by a certain "signature features" of the genre: authentication of the message, creating a sense of close and imminent danger, and stipulating a seemingly defensive action that in reality hurts the reader in some way.
In the computer virus hoax genere, such signature feautures are reference to some respectable software source (authentication), threats of irrecoverable hard disk damage, no existing cure (close and imminent danger), and request to forward the message to others or delete certain files (ostensibly defensive action that spreads the hoax or cripples the OS).
In the conspiracy hoax genre, the signature features are: recently discovered secret evidence authenticated by some authority figure, hindsight rationalization played in reverse, which both cretate a sense of danger and prompt an action that harms the reader who buys the story. This works as follows: first the hoax author invents sinister intentions for known outcomes, and then he/she claims that these intentions were actually harbored by some influential figure in the past, as indepenently suggested by the newly "discovered" "evidence" cited in the story, and finally citing the known outcomes as the "proof" that conspiracy existed. If the reader buys the hoax, he or she is likely to take a defensive action by 'exposing' the conspiracy by dissemination of the story - whose net effect is contrary to that intended by the duped reader - instead of protecting he/she further destabilizes.
Makes me wonder if the author was a Repug hack, or simply a hacker spreading viruses and rumors just for the heck of it.
wojtek