86 thoughts on “Who Done It?

  1. A few questions about your argument against identifying Guccifer 2.0 as the attacker and being Russian.

    1. Why would a non Russian attacker use a Russian VPN?
    2. Can we attribute his use of the AOL email to human error
    3. How do you explain his insider knowledge about the attack

    Like

    • Hi Michael,

      1. Because no military offensive cyber team wouldn’t conduct an exploit in such an overt way. Great Vizzini’s line of reasoning of ‘you know, that I know, that you know, that I know…, doesn’t apply here. It’s very unlikely that any respectable Intelligence agency would launch a high visibility traceable attacks from their main HQ over a local carrier service.

      2. You can try, but this is such an amateurish mistake that it would be difficult to reconcile with a common concept of operation of not using traceable email services and reusing the same accounts for multiple activities.

      3. I don’t. Everything that Guccier 2.0 said about the exploit suggests that he is not the attacker, (1) he doesn’t have any verifiable information about the attack beyond some generic statements about using a zero-day and planting trojans. (2) all of these comments about being a “Woman lover”, and liking “Gucci”, sound like something a wannabe with a sizable bragging problem would say.

      Like

    • Hi Leo,

      Thanks for the feedback. Here is a poetic response and an image of a highly classified device that relates to the Russian collusion:

      There once was an inside leak in the DNC
      The deceitful emails were delightful to see
      Matt Tait from GCHQ advised the DOJ
      Indict some Russians! By golly they’ll pay
      The FBI without evidence said sure, we agree!

      Like

  2. 1. Is it possible the files were downloaded at a slower speed over the net? Then transferred to a thumbdrive prior to getting to Wikileaks? After all, probably intermediaries would be used before things got to Wikileaks and it might be that a physical transfer was done to Wikileaks.

    2. I agree that some of the mistakes seem unlikely for a government organization, but is it possible instead these were sort of Russian 4chan, LULZSEC jokers?

    3. I’ve always found it strange that what was shared by Guccifer was the Trump Oppo research (hurting Trump) versus something embarrassing to Clinton or at least revealing key internal details (strategy, polling, etc.) This is a small point arguing against the Russia Guccifer theory.

    4. I doubt Russian intelligence employees would do the Guccifer interview at all, let alone so poorly. That said, it could have been some (2) type joker. Another strong possibility is it is some person unrelated to any of the events that went down (even the initial Guccifer messages). Just third party jumping in and LARPing.

    Like

    • Hi Anonymous, thanks for your feedback. See comments in-line

      1. Is it possible the files were downloaded at a slower speed over the net? Then transferred to a thumbdrive prior to getting to Wikileaks? After all, probably intermediaries would be used before things got to Wikileaks and it might be that a physical transfer was done to Wikileaks.

      (YA:1) Yes, it is possible that these files were downloaded at slower speed (or a the right speed locally), but this would invalidate the claim that this was a real-time over the Internet exploit from somewhere in Romania. It’s a simple math problem. Given a connection speed, it should take certain amount of time to download a certain file size. What we know about the connection speeds in Romania and the US at the time of the alleged exploit contradicts the transfer rate claims.

      2. I agree that some of the mistakes seem unlikely for a government organization, but is it possible instead these were sort of Russian 4chan, LULZSEC jokers?

      (YA:1) Again, the issue is not so much the mistakes, but the general demeanor and the over all claims. We don’t have any low-level technical details about the exploit. For example, what is the relationship between the attack on the NGP Van system and the individual workstations that contained the emails. These are two different systems on different networks. Why did the attacker needed to waste time and effort with complex zero day exploits the NGP Van system, when the soft and easy targets would have been the DNC users? Why not just spear phish them? What we do have is a lot of high-level political rhetoric from MSM and epic and heroic style narrative from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike just told us how they fought the hacker dragon in a battle that lasted two weeks. There is nothing more specirfic. Also, why do you need two weeks to get a parasite off your system? Would you wait two weeks watching a giant tick in your crutch sucking your blood and getting fatter by the day before removing it? If this wasn’t an intelligence operation (which clearly it wasn’t) and it was motivated by hacktivisem by the likes of LulzSec, then we would have a lot more derogatory information about the DNC target (as you pointed out) and more pride of ownership.

      3. I’ve always found it strange that what was shared by Guccifer was the Trump Oppo research (hurting Trump) versus something embarrassing to Clinton or at least revealing key internal details (strategy, polling, etc.) This is a small point arguing against the Russia Guccifer theory.

      (YA:1) Yup, that is a good point and it goes to the heart of the question, what was the overall objective of this expensive and risky operation?

      4. I doubt Russian intelligence employees would do the Guccifer interview at all, let alone so poorly. That said, it could have been some (2) type joker. Another strong possibility is it is some person unrelated to any of the events that went down (even the initial Guccifer messages). Just third party jumping in and LARPing.

      (YA:1) I agree, if my life depended on finding/validating Guccifer 2.0, I would go hot and heavy after Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard. Everything about the interview tells me that it was staged and rehearsed. The Q&A doesn’t flow logically, it has too many dramatic gotcha moments, and its way too scoopish. Bicchierai covers cybersecurity, tech policy, privacy and surveillance, hackers, drones, and the intersection of technology and civil liberties. This is just the ideal profile, the motive, and opportunity for a reporter who is trying to make a name for himself to create and stage such an interview. The fact that the Guccifer 2.0 meme was picked-up by MSM so quickly suggests that senior management in Vice Motherboards was coordinating this and worked with other outlets to spread the word.

      Like

    • ’ve always found it strange that what was shared by Guccifer was the Trump Oppo research (hurting Trump) versus something embarrassing to Clinton or at least revealing key internal details (strategy, polling, etc.) This is a small point arguing against the Russia Guccifer theory.

      According to the Steele Dossier, Putin had all kinds of dirt on Hillary Clinton, but did not use it in order to get Trump elected when all the polls were saying he would lose big. Only Trump dirt was leaked through Steele, who also wrote about Trump’s people allegedly asking the Russians to release that very same dirt about Clinton.

      There may be dirt on Clinton in the Kremlin:

      https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/06/25/heres_one_unverified_leak_the_feds_wont_make_about_loretta_lynch_.html

      Like

      • The DNC hack is connected to the Steele Dossier on multiple levels. Up to and including the strong possibility of being the work of the same political and PR teams. For example, the dossier’s beginning composition date overlaps with the DNC leak. One of the key points that the Dossier makes is that the Russians are hacking US based systems and individuals, and As you noted that the Russians have dirt on HRC, Steele also claims that some of his sources have first hand knowledge of these attacks. So, both of these events and documents seem to retain an eerie sens of affinity and harmony.

        You may want to check out The Mechanics of Deception. I did a deeper dive there into who worked on the dossier. It may help you with the bigger picture.

        Like

      • I have found evidence that Brennan likes to use FAKE INTEL REPORTS to cover-up for any illegal activities, as in hiding the source of intel gained through TORTURE. Brennan as deeply involved in the torture activities later investigated by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2013-2014.

        By early 2014, Brennan worried about SSCI investigation, so he had the committee’s members hacked. He denied the charge of hacking, but was caught. Media speculated as to odds he would be fired. This was in April-June period in 2014. In May, Brennan came up with intel that Russia planned to interfere in elections in Western Europe and US. He changed the subject.

        I suspect that the election interference report was another instance of Brennan faking intelligence to get our of a jam or cover-up illegal activity. That might have been all it was for, but, by 2015, copy-and-paste was used to create the 2016 Russian interference “insurance policy,” which was how Brennan always used fake intel–INSURANCE.

        Like

      • Thanks for your comment.

        I haven’t seen evidence (fake or otherwise ) that was used to develop the Russian interference report. The January 6, 2017 IC assessment is devoid of any ‘proof’ or ‘factual’ language, it uses the soft term “confidence”. Its even worse, it relies on MSM reports (specifically WaPo and Vice Motherboard) to determine the identity of Guccifer 2.0 as Russian Intel.

        What evidence do you have that show that Brennan used fake intel in the IC report?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I wasn’t referring to the IC Report, but a 2014 report that he gave to Obama in May 2014 predicting Russian interference in elections in Western Europe and the US. In May 2014, Brennan was in trouble for hacking the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) which was investigating CIA torture. Brennan frequently used false intelligence reports to cover his use of torture results so he could claim he got the intel from a legitimate source and not from torturing someone.

        When the SSCI was closing in on torture in early 2014, Brennan hacked them. When he got in trouble for hacking, he came up with the elections report. False intelligence fits his pattern of behavior.

        https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/government-war-against-reporter-james-risen/

        https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/11/15/the_brennan_dossier_all_about_a_prime_mover_of_russiagate_121098.html

        Like

      • …other evidence they were trying to discredit Podesta emails is events of Oct 7, 2016.

        (1) At around 3:30pm, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issues a 400 word statement in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security on “Election Security.” Most of it concerns the possibility that Russians might change actual vote totals and assures us that it’s unlikely. But the first 117 words are about hacking campaign related documents:

        “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

        (2) Around a half hour later, the Washington Post alerted the world about the infamous Access Hollywood tape featuring Donald Trump.

        (3) And around a half an hour after that, WikiLeaks released John Podesta’s emails, containing devastating information about Hillary Clinton.

        Some have claimed the fact that the Podesta emails were released after the “Access Hollywood” tape is evidence that Assange was trying to cover for Trump by diverting attention away from the tape. It’s, of course, possible that the three events occurring within an hour of each other is coincidental, but if it isn’t, this explanation is flawed.

        First, it doesn’t account for the first event. If you think Assange was trying to drown out news about the AH tape then you have to still say it was a coincidence that the AH tape came out the same day Clapper’s report did. On the other hand, if you think that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper got wind of the fact that Assange would be releasing something damaging to Clintonand that both Clapper’s report and the AH tape were released in advance to respectively discredit and drown out the devastating information about HRC contained in Podesta’s emails, you aren’t left with any coincidences. In fact, I think there were rumors Assange was close to releasing something the day before, so it’s not at all implausible that Clapper made sure to try and find out when.

        So, if you think the coincidences are too much to be believed, Occam’s Razor suggests that the first 2 events happened to counteract the third. But that hypothesis would seem to mean that Assange was being framed to discredit WikiLeaks releases and not as an end in itself.

        Like

      • Most of the time the law of parsimony doesn’t apply to Intelligence work because each phenomenon can have a large number of possible and complex alternative explanations to the ‘simplest’ one. So you have to evaluate all of the data points carefully enrich them and fuse them before you can come up with a working hypothesis.

        I do agree that the sequence that you describe in terms of order of operations and ‘net’ benefit of the consequences suggests some form of staging and orchestration.

        Just from the timeline point of view, having Access Hollywood, the DNC Hack, Crowdstrike, WaPo’s Ellen Nakashima report, G2, and Clapper so close to each other, without either one of them being aware of the others is suspicious to say the least. This act reminds me of the plot line in the P. G. Wodehouse’s novel “Jeeves Takes Charge”. In it, Jeeves’s makes the following observation to Bertie Wooster:

        “Any undertaking that requires the presence of four people [people and events in our case] all in one place, all at the same time, while two of them are unaware of the fact, is fraught with the possibility of mishap sir.” (19:27)

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve done some more digging. The alleged Russian hacking into the 2014 elections in Ukraine contain EVERYTHING that was alleged to have happened in 2016’s US election. Stolen emails released to the public, alleged attempts to alter vote totals by hacking, you name it. This was used as the template for 2016 in the US, using copy-and-paste type fiction writing.

        If you go to the Conservapedia site and check what happened during Obamagate in 2014 this stuff comes up. Just follow the links to the footnotes and click on them.

        The only reason I started checking on 2014 is because Nunes said that is where they found out about Russian plans to interfere in elections. They just used the Ukrainian story and took from it the elements they used to create “election interference” in 2016.

        Ukrainian story means IC has less excuse for not being more pro-active if 2016 Russian interference was real. They knew from Ukraine what Russians allegedly did–steal emails and publish them, try to hack voting records, etc. all the stuff IC accused them of doing in 2016. Were they ready?

        “We had no playbook for this.”–John Brennan spysplaining why IC wasn’t ready.

        They didn’t do anything because none of it was real.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m not a computer expert. Wouldn’t the file time stamps show the intermediate download times, not the initial download? It could still be a slow, over the net download. Just that the intermediate transfers will have changed the time stamps. This would not then conflict with the report that the exploit was over the net (for the initial download).

    Like

    • Hi Anonymous,

      A file would retain its OS properties only if it was moved around the native file system environment like on a FAT, NTFS, etc. If you perform remote file copy operation using a streaming protocol like HTTP, the file will be stamped with a new ‘Created’, ‘Modified’, and ‘Accessed’ properties as soon as the local write is completed.

      You can try this by clicking on this link to download a file. After you download it, look at its properties. Do it several times and you will notice that each download gets new date and time properties.

      Like

  4. I admit to not being a computer expert (at all), but I still don’t see how your reply answers my question. Fine: the initial download gets a new timestamp. (Never contested that.) THEN when the file is put onto a thumbdrive it gets a new timestamp. No?

    I mean if the argument is that (e.g.) Seth Rich downloading onto a thumbdrive happens faster and this is shown in timestamps, wouldn’t this still be the case, if Gucci (e.g.) made a thumbdrive off of the his intermediate machine?

    Wouldn’t the timestamp only show the last download, not previous ones? Thus a slow download over the net would be irrelevant if later the files had been trasnferred to thumbdrive or disc or the like.

    Like

    • Yes, you are right, every time you download the file the metadata would be updated, This is one reason why I don’t put to much weight on the ‘Created’, ‘Modified’, and ‘Accessed’ properties. We just don’t know how many times the file was downloaded and copied and what generation of the file was eventually published. Another reason is that it’s really easy to ‘touch’ these properties with a utility like AtrributeMagic.

      I don’t know who downloaded these file or if they were even initially download to a USB drive. Maybe they were just uploaded directly to a cloud storage. The question of who removed the data from system is important, but even more so is how?

      The only way to answer this question is to analyze all of the event logs that CrowdStrike collected over the two week period. These log files will show where the connection came from, what type of a connection it was (upload-used to push the exploits or download-to pull data), what protocols were used, what files were accessed, what software was installed, what user(s) were involved, etc. The problem is that everyone is fixating on the file transfer trivia instead of looking into CrowdStrike’s SIEM dump of the DNC and HRC projects. This is cyber forensics habeas corpus 101

      Like

  5. Jacob, here’s a small error in this article you ought to fix. You say ‘flaunt’ when you mean ‘fluent’. Here’s the incorrect phrase: “without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian”

    Like

  6. I am very late to the table on this one, but if you see this perhaps you can answer a question. In your image 4, on the left it shows the Word doc properties of the document created at 1:38 PM on 15 Jun 2016.

    The Company name is given as GSA. That sure looks to me like the General Services Administration (US gov agency), which shows as the Company for MS Office documents created via GSA-contracted copies of the software.

    The DNC server wasn’t supposed to be using a GSA-contracted MS Office suite. A number of Democratic politicians and aides (e.g,, many members of the US House of Representatives) had DNC email accounts, but the DNC is a private entity and should not have hosted GSA-contracted software.

    Are you aware of another “GSA” that could have been the Company in the properties block?

    It’s possible the DNC was improperly using a GSA-contracted MS Office copy. That would be the simplest explanation.

    But since the FBI never saw the original server, and we don’t have verification that the files were in fact created on it, it does make me wonder if the Word and PDF files were not created on the DNC server at all.

    Like

    • Thanks for your feedback theoptimisticconservative.

      Regarding the GSA Company property (which is on Image 5). The supposed author of this document is Warren Flood. This could have been Vice President Joe Biden’s information technology director at the White House (which does use GSA registered software). But interestingly, if you cross-reference this document to the same document in the verified Wikileaks dump, the original author is Lauren Dillon. Lauren Dillon was the DNC Research Director in charge of GOP/Trump research.

      The likely explanation for all of this fancy footwork in manipulating the document’s property fields is the following sequence of events:

      1. A user on a computer registered to Warren Flood (GSA) opens the DNC document (authored by Lauren Dillon), copies it, and pastes it to a new document.
      2. A user on a computer registered to Warren Flood (GSA) sets the theme language to Russian.
      3. A user on a computer registered to Warren Flood (GSA) modifies the document’s Author field to Феликс Эдмундович.
      4. A user uploades the modified document to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website and publishes it to various media outlets.

      Based on the document’s metadata there is little doubt that either Warren Flood, or someone using his GSA licensed MS Word created the Russian fingerprint. Also, it’s important to note that several other document also show this type of manipulation, but they were created by users named “Blake” and “jbs836”.

      In terms of the big picture, it is possible that whoever added the Russian fingerprint did this as part of laying the ground work for future unmaskings. We know that in June 2016 the Obama administration (via people like Susan Rich and Samantha Power) started unmasking Trump campaign officials on the pretext of a ‘Russian interference’. This June 2016 activity overlaps with dates of the Guccifer 2.0 saga. So, it is possible that Guccifer 2.0 and MSM outlets like NYT who promoted him ware part of a larger campaign to affirm Russian involvement with the DNC hacks. If this is indeed the case, than it means that the DNC email leak could implicate Obama administration officials who were manipulating these documents on a government clock and GSA registered computers.

      Like

      • Thank you, Mr. Apelbaum. Your proposition that Obama administration officials were perhaps manipulating these documents is by no means far-fetched. I have no idea if the actual person using the Warren Flood user account in this case was Warren Flood, but Flood himself would have been in the Executive Office of the Vice President and a member of the National Security Council staff, where a number of Sypgate-related persons worked at the time.

        My hope was to exclude the possibility that “GSA” referred to another entity (i.e., might be a commercial company name), but I couldn’t find one that appeared remotely likely, and it appears you haven’t run into anything that would shed light on hat. Thanks, again. (J.E. Dyer, “Optimistic Conservative”)

        Like

  7. Hello, Forensicator looked into the Warren Flood name appearing in the metadata of those documents and concluded that it was NOT because they were created on a computer Flood worked on. A document that was created in 2008 on such a computer was used as a template to create the documents whose metadata his name appears in. The process and the likely reasons are covered by Forensicator here: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/did-guccifer-2-plant-his-russian-fingerprints/

    If you think Forensicator made a mistake, obviously it should be corrected. But, if not, bringing Warren Flood’s name into it when there’s no evidence he had anything to do with it is obviously a bad idea. Just letting you know so you can figure out which is correct.
    Michael Thau
    aclearerpicture.net

    Like

      • Thanks for the quick reply. I’m aware of all that. But if Forensicator is right and Flood’s name only appeared in the document because G2 grabbed a doc from Podesta’s emails from 2008 and used it as a template, than there’s no more reason to mention him than other person who worked for the DNC with (completely unsurprising) connections to other Democratic party outlets.

        Unless there’s some problem with Forensicator’s work, then bringing up Warren Flood is both unfair to him and detrimental to making the case that G2 was connected with the Democrats in some way.

        Bill Binney’s completely fallacious transfer speed argument that WL DNC emails weren’t hacked has already caused huge problems because it sounds neat and allows people to feel intelligent by quoting a technical result which they think they understand but don’t. Everywhere you look you’ll find Binney’s argument — Binney says it’s what he told Pompeo after Trump asked him to meet with Binney. So, assuming Pompeo was willing to be convinced, the one opportunity to get this in front of the President was ruined since Pompeo, after looking into it, would be sure to discover that the transfer speed argument is worthless. And if Pompeo wasn’t willing to be convinced, he was given ammunition.

        Roger Stone’s lawyers also used the transfer speed argument in his one of their motions so its now enshrined in case law. The reason I bring it up is because this Warren Flood business has the potential to be the same kind of thing — an argument that, though fallacious, will appeal to ordinary people without the ability or will to look into things that discredits the real evidence G2 was a creation of CrowdStrike when someone with authority and an open-mind looks into it or is used to discredit it by people with closed minds.

        Unless there’s something wrong with Forensicator’s work, apart from being unfair to Flood, nothing good is going to come of bringing Warren Flood into it.

        Like

      • In intelligence analysis there is a concept of sustained integrity. Truth is always rich in detail and organic. Regardless of what sequence you follow, the plot line will always perfectly converges for each individual/object/scene involved. Most truthful stories have complex charters, detailed timelines, rich interactions, and diverse network linkages.

        Synthetically made plots tend to skimp on detail, be poorly linked, have abrupt timelines/dead ends, and be full of anomalies. Everything about the Crowdstrike DNC and Ukraine artillery hack claims as well as the Guccifer 2.0 plot is completely synthetic. It’s based on assertions and crypto facts that have not be confirmed by anyone beside CS. The whole G2 story exhibits such poor tradecraft that it can’t be possibly attributed to any intelligence organization. Whoever executed it spent very little time on research, testing, and the review of the end product prior to its release. None of the details we know about this operation follow any known cyber-attack CONOPS, which strongly suggests that this is the not so handiwork of a handful of law grade commercial US hacks. The MSM rapid mobilization and anomalies like getting preview materials prior to the June 14th release, or Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai’s interview scoop also has coordination written all over it.

        So, questions like the theoretical data transfer rates are interesting, but tangential to the question of the five W (who, what, when, where, how) and how did something as elementary as this almost got a sitting president impeached. In my post, tried to look at bigger picture (you may want to check out The Mechanics of Deception). So, in this context, Warren, the DNC, Crowdstrike, CIVIS, Biden, all exhibit certain linkages and relationships that appear to be relevant. As far as the tactical problem of trying to pin the tail on the CS donkey, I think that the problem is much simpler and that we are over intellectualizing it. But we can take this conversation offline.

        Like

      • I don’t disagree with any of that. Especially think you are 100% right that “theoretical stuff is tangential and problem is much simpler. I’ve been trying to “pin the tail on the donkey” without going into a lot of unnecessary technical stuff for a couple of years now in articles at “American Greatness.” (See, e.g.., https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/22/the-monstrous-lie-behind-crowdstrike/

        My point about transfer speed stuff wasn’t meant to suggest it’s necessary. Just saying that, when normal people without any technical knowledge become attached to some belief, they like to be able to imagine they are privy to some very technical result that decisively proves it.

        That’s why the fallacious transfer speed argument that WL’s DNC releases couldn’t have been hacked has proven so popular. Literally every time I write about fake DNC hack, I get at least a half dozen comments by people informing me of the transfer speed argument all of whom, to a greater or lesser degree, ignored the good evidence I gave them because they’ve put their confidence in the fallacious transfer speed argument. It gives people without any technical knowledge who want to believe Russian DNC hack was faked a simple sentence they can utter which allows them to imagine they are privy to some super-technical fact and to not bother thinking about the topic anymore. That’s why it’s dangerous.

        Only brought it up because I think Warren Flood attribution has similar potential. In addition, it appeals to people’s desire to connect fake hack directly to Dem party, so in a way it’s got more potential.

        Just don’t see how there’s a case for bringing Flood into it unless Forensicator is wrong about what RTF tags and RSIDs show. Since Adam Carter vouches for it, I’ve been assuming Forensicator’s conclusions are valid. But I’m not technically proficient enough to dispute either of them and it’s possible they’ve made a mistake. But, if not, seems unfair and unwise to bring Flood into it.

        Anyway, as I say, couldn’t be more with you on thinking all this technical stuff is just a distraction to pinning the tail on the donkey. Unfortunately, it’s especially distracting to people without any technical knowledge who want to believe DNC hack is fake. My only concern is to telling a story that gives people an idea of what really happened that doesn’t misrepresent anything or leave any crucial facts out.

        Also, happy to take conversation away from here. I’m assuming you have my email as a result of me commenting here.

        Like

    • Yup, but he walked a way smiling and with a sizable chunk of equity.

      What I find extraordinary about Crowdstrike is that their meteoric rise was almost entirely based on this DNC Russian hack fairytale. This by itself, deserves a new category of Oscar like awards. How many US publicly traded companies can claim that they started as a PR stunt?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Yaacov,

    I have researched the DNC data loss (I refuse to call it anything else) for the past two years and just now got news that the Opposition Research document, that was identified by WaPo as the only two files stolen, came from the PODESTA EMAILS (?). I’m mystified about how that can be, or how, if it was, it escaped the early reporting that I relied upon to gauge what was claimed early on vs. what was claimed later, such as “only two files were stolen,” which Guccifer 2.0 (G2) ridiculed in his opening blog post.

    I have vociferously objected to other reporting claiming the opposition research came from the Podesta emails. Could it not have come from a CC to Luis Miranda at the time the documents were sent to Podesta? If not, let me know what the evidence is that they come from the Podesta emails. Then I have to find out just why this has not been widely reported in the media. If I turn out to be wrong, and it was from the Podesta emails, then I have to track it all down.

    I have found an interesting potential tie-in between the start of the notion of Russia interference in the 2016 election and the time John Brennan got nailed for hacking the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2014. John Boy started his hacking operation during the CIA torture investigation, and got in trouble about April 2014. In May 2014, Obama got a report from US Intelligence Services that a “Russian source” told them of a Russian plan to interfere in elections all over the West, including the US. Just when Johnny gets cornered for HACKING, he gets to change the subject to Russians hacking to interfere in how our elected politicians hang on to their lucrative jobs. I had a hunch, and checked the dates. The incidents overlap. A Russian got spirited away to the US in 2017 and tucked away in Virginia. His name was Smolenkov. He was A source of CIA for Russian interference in the election. Could be the 2014 guy, or he is supposed to represent a source that never provided anything.

    What do you think it was really all about? I think it was Assange. They wanted to frame him as a Russian asset. Getting the emails helped reinforce that idea. I’m not sure they gave a damn who got elected. What do you think?

    Thanks a lot,

    Guy Jordan

    Like

    • Thanks for your feedback Guy.

      Please read the post carefully and follow the links for the two documents used to create “1.doc”. Both will take you to the Podesta Wikileaks dump. The primary source for the statement that only two documents were stolen from the DNC by the APT28 and APT29 is Ellen Nakashima, the WaPo reporter who broke the story on June 14, 2016 (you can read the details in the image below). Her sources were the prime movers in the DNC and Crowdstrike. The article below is the baseline for the Russian DNC hack narrative and most of the MSM derived their details from it.

      Based on the Mueller report we know that the two file count is false, as the DNC lost many more files. So this is one of many problems with the whole Russian hacking narrative, the claims are simply unreconcilable.

      Like

      • Thanks for the fast response. I always knew that the June 14, 2016 WAPO article about the data loss was false, but I enjoyed using it in discussions on-line with Russiagate believers to gauge their responses. Most don’t know much outside of what they see on TV.

        The early coverage was lacking because of the way Crowdstrike and the DNC described the details of the incident, which made it look more like a fraternity prank than an “act of war,” and the ORLANDO PULSE ALLEGED SHOOTING took place that very weekend before the story broke on June 14. Since Omar Mateen’s daddy is acquainted with US intelligence, the FBI (informant) and State Department (he wants to be President of Afghanistan and in contact with State as a result) this co-incidence of events is curious.

        How did Crowdstrike and the DNC get away with the original article and not get questioned for lying to WAPO? They would have HAD to have lied during that Nakashima interview, but had no prayer of getting away with it once the truth came out about the extent of the data loss. When I first started seriously researching it, I had to wonder “What happened between the interview and Crowdstrike’s altered description of the hack to a major data loss–after claiming only 2 files lost?” I could only come up with Guccifer 2.0 appearance. That was what had to change their story from 2 files to the devastating hack that Crowdstrike just sat there and watched happen because, as Donna Brazile claimed in HACKS, “the DNC” ordered Crowedstrike to stand down until after the primaries were over.

        Going from 2 files stolen to massive data loss was a huge pivot. Who would deliberately put themselves in that position in full view of the public? It makes Crowdstrike look like either incompetents or frauds. The media had to have issued orders to all reporters to ignore Crowdstrike making that pivot. In military terms, they had their flanks hanging in the air. No one in the media exploited it, and it is still ignored even by some independent investigative reporters working Twitter.

        So, whoever ran Guccifer already had the Podesta emails two months or so prior to the DNC data loss? I’ll take a look at Forensicator about that before I ask any further questions about it, or express any opinion about that.

        What we know is there is no real OFFICIAL VERSION of this data loss that reconciles with anything that is in reality or approaches commonsense, but I’m used to that after watching everything from the JFK assassination to this thing.

        Thanks for your help, and I’ll be in touch.

        Like

      • I’m commenting on this separately since it involves different research I’m working on now, but I think is related. It has to do with the proximity of two events in 2014:

        1. John Brennan getting caught hacking the SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE and also getting caught lying about it.

        2. John Brennan, contemporaneous to the scandal of hacking the SSCI, made his first report to Obama about a Russian informing CIA that the Kremlin has plans to interfere with elections in Western Europe an the US. I think I found the Russian, too, some guy named Smolenkov, whom Brennan had taken to US in 2017, supposedly for protection.

        https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/11/15/the_brennan_dossier_all_about_a_prime_mover_of_russiagate_121098.html

        My present position is that Number 2 was a made-up story–in its entirety–to change the subject from Number 1 to Number 2, and maybe that was all it was until the maniacs in the CIA decided to resurrect the story to:

        1. Cover what they were doing in 2016 so the Russians could be scapegoated.

        2. Pass the emails to Wikileaks so that Assange could be framed as a Russian asset and eventually removed from the Ecuadorean embassy and arrested, followed by extradition to US. Until Assange could be labeled as an espionage agent, he would be a journalist and protected by past Supreme Court rulings from prosecution for publishing stolen documents.

        Smolenkov is just being used as the faux source of the “Russian interference” story. The CIA can wheel him out in a pinch if they need an instant Russian source for the story. Russian interference in elections is comparable to the WMD hoax in the Iraq War. I look for a reasonable example of COVERT Russian interference in the election and can’t find any, like looking for WMD in Iraq.

        I think the true target of all this was Assange, not Trump. I think the Establishment could care less that Trump is in the White House. They only act like they care about it. If they wanted Hillary as President, the old bat would be in the WH now. It wasn’t about the election. It was about Julian Assange.

        Like

      • Good points. Both Mateens (Seddique and Omar) were intelligence and LEA assets. That is how Omar managed to get off the US Terror Watch list at least twice. The bigger problem with the whole Mateen story is that it exposes a pattern of poor CI agency practices. It also shows that very senior individuals like Bryan Paarmann (the Mateen handler) and James Comey were dishonest when discussing the Pulse night club shooting.

        You can find little more details about the CI issues I’m referring to and the Comey problem in Toxic Masculinity My Foot!

        Like

    • Here’s a link to a Podesta email publshed by WikiLeaks. Haven’t looked at it in ages but pretty sure the Trump oppostition research file attached to it is the one G2 rleased. Also pretty sure that the file isn’t in any of the DNC emails.

      Also, it’s not just the Trump op file. The irst five files Guccier 2.0 released all later turned up in Podesta’s emails. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26562. I think it’s all explained here https://archive.fo/2dMfC#selection-597.55-597.60

      Finally, it’s not even just the first five files. Forensicator did a graph showing where most of G2’s stuff later turned up. IIRC, he did a few more rleleases that contained stuff that would later turn up in Podesta’s emails up until around July 1. I can’t remember the exact date, but sometime around July 1 he stopped releasing stuff from Podesta’s emails and started releasing stuff that would turn up in WikiLeaks’ DNC releases. Will try to track down the graph at some point but it was in an article at Disobedient Media and the site went down for some reason so everything there is gone. So might need to make inquiries to get a copy.

      Like

    • I found an archived version of the article with Forensicator’s graph of where G2’s releases came from: https://web.archive.org/web/20180925054636/https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/09/forensicators-analysis-supports-assanges-statements-on-the-dnc-podesta-emails/

      Don’t seem to be able to attach images, but if you go to the link and scroll down you will find it.

      According to Forensicator’s graph, apart from the five files that would turn up in WL’s Podesta emails that G2 released when he debuted on June 15, he also released what looks like around 10 files from Podesta’s emails on on June 18.

      Then on June 30, G2 released what looks like a single file from Podesta’s emails though the bar on the graph might represent two files. However, he also released what looks like around 10 files that would turn up in WL’s DNC emails on June 30.

      Then, on July 6, he released what looks like around nine files that would later turn up in WL’s DNC emails. After that, none of G2’s releases on the graph contained any files from WL’s Podesta or DNC releases. However, the graph doesn’t include G2’s September 13 release, (which, I’m pretty sure is the one on which Forensicator did his famous transfer speed analysis.) So it might be missing other stuff as well.

      In any event, G2 somehow got ahold of a lot of files from WL’s Podesta’s emails and from WL DNC emails as well. For some reason, in early July he decided to start tainting the DNC emails instead of Podesta’s. My hypothesis is that CS discovered the DNC leaker at that point and had accidentally chosen the DNC for their fake hack in the June 24 Wapo story because they couldn’t say Podesta’s emails were phished and wanted to keep target of fake hack as far away from HRC as possible given that here unsecured server was still a very serious issue. That’s why G2 starts releasing stuff from Podesta’s emails, which the Clinton campaign new were stolen.

      But sometime in late June they discover the DNC really was hacked and then start releasing DNC emails. Interestingly, they release their final bunch of DNC emails just four days before July 10. Could be a coincidence though. I’m agnostic about all of that.

      Like

      • Hi michaelthau,

        All of your comments are plausible, but it’s difficult to reconstruct the publication logic. The strategy could have been ‘do the best with the bad hand dealt to you and inflict the maximum damage you can on Trump’, or ‘let’s throw the Podesta virgin into the volcano and hope that its stops rumbling’, or some other unknown angle, unfortunately, it’s all speculative.

        The bottom line is that whoever released these early documents didn’t get them from the Wikileaks batch that only came out in October. And if we assume that Guccifer 2.0 is fictitious figure, then this whole operation had to be an internal DNC/HRC damage control move.

        In Intelligence analysis these types of problems are considered trivial. That’s because you have all of the suspects under your jurisdiction, detailed timelines, written statements, motives, surveillance, and plenty of evidence. This is not a difficult problem to solve, but just like with a horse, you can bring it to the trough, but can’t force him to drink.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Agree. There’s an overall picture that makes very good sense to me and seems organic. But agree it’s totally speculative and I wouldn’t be shocked at all if it was wrong in crucial respects. You’re right that important concrete issue is where the hell did G2 get files from Podesta’s emails and speculation probably detracts from that.

        Like

  9. Also think second somewhat concrete issues is: What could have motivatied Alperovitch and Henry on June 14, 2016 to loudly release the information that Russian intelligence agents had penetrated the DNC servers and, in particular, had stolen a file of Trump opposition research? Still speculative to some extent. But think it’s not speculative to assume that doing so had to be advantageous to the DNC in some way. And once that’s assumed, the number of ways it could have helped the DNC seems very limited.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s