Posted on 05/26/2017 4:16:46 AM PDT by dontreadthis
Democrats manufactured the Russian interference story as a disinformation campaign all the way back in June 2016. And this post will prove this beyond reasonable doubt with evidence. Not just that, but there is great circumstantial evidence of illegal activity going all the way up to the Obama administration, and provides new motive for why Seth Rich was murdered. The evidence is presented in this post. Timeline
Understanding the order in which the events happened will be important to understand why it was the DNC and only the DNC could have manufactured the Russian campaign. Date Event Source June 14, 2016 The DNC releases a statement stating they have been hacked. Washington Post June 15, 2016 Crowdstrike (cybersecurity firm) releases reports suggesting the DNC was hacked by Russians Crowdstrike June 15, 2016 Guccifer 2.0 publishes first DNC email documents and claims he has sent them to Wikileaks.Guccifer insists he is not Russian. Guccifer 2.0 blog June 16, 2016 Vice publishes article titled "'Guccifer 2.0' Is Likely a Russian Government Attempt to Cover Up Its Own Hack." Other media outlets follow suit calling Guccifer a Russian government job Vice July 22, 2016 Wikileaks releases the DNC email documents Wikileaks July 27, 2016 Trump makes infamous "Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" joke that starts allegations of Russian collusion Politico In bullet point form:
DNC announces they've been hacked. The day after, a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claims to have taken credit for the hack and announces he will be giving his documents to Wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 vehemently denies being Russian, a façade he keeps up throughout his activity. Bolstered by Crowdstrike's report and the metadata in Guccifer 2.0's documents, media outlets immediately start screaming that Guccifer 2.0 must be Russian agents. Finally, Wikileaks releases the DNC documents a month after Guccifer 2.0 did. This post unmasks Guccifer 2.0's identity as none other than the DNC.
What did Guccifer 2.0 do?
Guccifer 2.0 hosted a Wordpress site where the DNC documents could be publicly downloaded. June 15th was the date of the first Guccifer 2.0 leak; further leaks would continue thereafter. I focus only on the first leak, as they contain the metadata which are essential to proving it was a DNC operation. What were in the leaked Guccifer documents?
Guccifer 2.0 leaked a total of 10 Office documents from the DNC in the first batch (many more would come, but none contain the same "mistakes" as the ones I shall detail).
All Microsoft Office documents have metadata entries which contain attributes about the document itself such as the user that created them, the user that modified them, and so on. This metadata is usually invisible to viewers but can be viewed with a raw text editor like Notepad, or on Mac OS, vim.
It would be unusual for a leaker to modify the metadata, but Guccifer 2.0 did, claiming that it was his "watermark."
In Office, the metadata includes the owner of the Office application who created the file and the owner of the Office application who modified the file. I present a list of the document names having metadata values for original author & modified author:
Document name Original author Modified author 1.doc Warren Flood Феликс Эдмундович 2.doc Warren Flood Феликс Эдмундович 3.doc Warren Flood Феликс Эдмундович 4.doc Blake 5.doc jbs836 Феликс Эдмундович
Феликс Эдмундович, or Felix Edmundovich in the English alphabet, was an early Soviet statesman who died in 1926. So what... Warren Flood, Blake, and jbs836 were the original authors?
Short answer: No. Non-technical answer: For one thing, we can cross-reference the actual authors from the Wikileaks dump. 1.doc is in the "verified" Wikileaks release as the attachment which can be downloaded from here which has the original author of "Lauren Dillon." So, wait, who is Warren Flood et al? Each of these documents had a creation date of June 15, and were modified by "Феликс Эдмундович" a few minutes later.
In Office 2007 format specification, there is a certain stylesheet template which dictates overall formatting for the document. In three of the documents by Warren Flood, we find the identical metadata. {\s108\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\contextualspace \rtlch\fcs1 \af1\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0\f1\fs20\lang1049\langfe1049\cgrid\langnp1049\langfenp1049\sbasedon0 \snext108 \slink107 \sqformat \spriority1 \styrsid11758497 No Spacing;} The above line appears across all three of Warren Flood's documents. styrsid11758497 is an unique identifier that is author-associative. The fact that it does not appear in the other documents indicates it's associated with Warren Flood and not Феликс Эдмундович.
Why is this important? Well, the \langfe1049 portion is a setting saying that Russian language should be used as the default language for the document.
Had Феликс Эдмундович been setting the "watermark," it would be the same across all documents. But instead, distinct watermarks were created for each document creator, suggesting inconsistent application or three different creators applying their own watermark. In other words, document creators set the document properties to use Russian language and created three distinct so-called 'watermarks' in doing so, not 'Феликс Эдмундович.'
Also, cross-reference to Wikileaks shows that Warren Flood did not author any of the documents. And given that the timestamps are all on June 15th, this is the sequence of events:
Warren Flood opens a DNC document, copies it, and pastes it as a new document to his computer. Warren Flood sets the theme language to Russian in some way (this process is different for all authors). Warren Flood modifies the document's author to Феликс Эдмундович. The modified document is then uploaded to the Guccifer website and publicly published a short time thereafter. Who is Warren Flood?
Warren Flood is a high-ranking technology official for Democratic operatives, having worked for Obama for America, DNC, and Joe Biden. It's a unique name.
His name does not appear in any of the Wikileaks emails, meaning that he appears to be a third party as far as the DNC email leaks are concerned.
Other than his (professional Internet) profile, he is a social media ghost, never having made any Tweets nor any evidence of real social media activity.
The pertinent point is that: the metadata forensic proof is irrefutable that Warren Flood, or someone who owned a copy of Word registered to Warren Flood, shoehorned in obvious "Russian" fingerprints all over the documents.
Guccifer 2.0 is none other than a botched DNC creation to create a false flag for Russia.
Impact of Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC creation
The "Russian influenced the US election" campaign all started from the DNC leak.
Allegations of Russian influence was built on a completely fabricated foundation of lies.
In hindsight, we now know that Obama administration unmasking of US campaign officials on the pretext of "Russian interference" started in June 2016, same date as when Guccifer 2.0 began. The implications that the unmasking all was predicated on a DNC psy-ops is staggering. Who cares why the DNC did it?
Because it proves that "Russian interference" started as a total DNC fabrication that persists to today. The whole Russian campaign started before Trump made his infamous joke about Russians getting Hillary’s emails.
Illegal unmasking of Trump campaign officials over Russian interference began June 2016. Was this predicated on Russian interference with the DNC hacks? If so, this means that the leaks not only implicate DNC and plague President Trump himself, but also implicates Obama administration officials and all the involved intelligence agencies.
Why did DNC leak their own documents?
It’s right in Guccifer 2.0’s blog. Pertinent quote: "The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon." TheDNC knew they were having their documents leaked to Wikileaks, and wanted to make sure a Russian hacker took credit for the leaks.
How did the DNC know Wikileaks was going to release the DNC emails?
Great question. It’s hard to imagine them knowing without assistance from intelligence agencies – and indeed unmasking of campaign officials started in June 2016.
This is, of course, highly illegal, and would mean that the Russian disinformation campaign wasn’t just a DNC operation, it was also created from collusion with the Obama administration using highly illegal means including violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Since Guccifer 2.0 was a botched operation, that might make the continued existence of the real leaker who might draw scrutiny that much more precarious… What about Crowdstrike report?
The metadata I described above can be independently verified by a non-technical person with access to any text editor like vim (which is available on Mac OS terminal command line). It does not require special forsenic analysis to identify. There are only two explanations: staggering incompetence, or DNC collusion.
I cannot say if Crowdstrike is competent, but I can say that their co-founder and CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, a think tank whose policies could be termed as anti-protectionist.
Who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks?
In short, all circumstantial evidence points to Seth Rich.
Seth Rich was killed on July 10, after the Guccifer drops and before the Wikileaks release. Wikileaks offered a 20,000 reward for information on Seth Rich’s death.
Craig Murray, a British national connected with Wikileaks, claims a disgusted Democrat insider was the leaker and he personally flew overseas to make the drop.
Was Seth Rich murdered by the DNC?
We are getting in speculative territory here. The circumstances of his death are suspicious – there had never been a homicide prior or after in his area. The assailants did not steal any of his valuables.
Conspiracy theorists assume Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC to "set an example."
Personally, I think that as long as Seth Rich existed, he could have spoken up as the leaker at any moment and drawn scrutiny to Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC operation. To our knowledge, the unmasking of Trump and related officials started in June 2016 using the DNC hacks as a pretext. Seth Rich’s continued existence could have lead to the fall of the White House and intelligence agencies.
Is that motive enough for a political hit? You tell me.
News sources say that the "documents contain DNC metadata" is disproven.
In addition to hosting them on the official Wordpress website, DNC documents were sent directly by Guccifer 2.0 to media outlets such as The Hill (despite Guccifer 2.0 himself claiming hatred of these very same media outlets accusing him of being Russian).
What Guccifer 2.0 sent was not always the same as what was on the official Guccifer 2.0 website. My speculation is that Guccifer 2.0 revised the documents to remove the metadata, and sent those corrected documents to media outlets. He could not do the same on his Wordpress site for without drawing intense scrutiny, so the botched documents remained.
Bottom line:it is unimpeachable that watermarked Russian metadata in Guccifer’s first document drop are associated with a DNC tech worker named Warren Flood who otherwise has nothing to do with the DNC emails.Any media outlet reporting otherwise are probably either working from their own "corrected" copy from Guccifer or spinning hard or both.
Motive, Means, Opportunity are all present.
Who ordered the hit is now more important then who pulled the trigger.
_______________________________________________
Who knows....maybe he was droned or sniped while running away after being beat up....
If the media doesn’t report it that way, it never happened. This is the way they operate. You can catch Clinton with a dead midget lesbian hooker in her bed and there could be pictures and all. But if WAPO or the Slimes doesn’t report it, it never happened.
Joe Nobody: "I've got my own IT guy. He'll take a look."
FBI: "Oh, OK. No problem."
Someone at the DNC got away of telling Comey's FBI to take a hike.
More proof that Comey treated anything Clinton with kid gloves.
I've been rooting around some old articles. The FBI sends mixed signals ...
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers - TheHill - January 10, 2017
Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday ... "We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
The subject of "server access" invites confusion, and all the parties involved have an interest in increasing the level of confusion. At any rate, a more accurate and generic description of FBI Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) appears in this article:
FBI, Dems bicker over investigation of hacked servers | TheHill | January 5, 2017
But a former FBI official told The Hill it's not unusual for the bureau to bypass a direct examination of a hacked server."In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure]," Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI's New York office, told The Hill.
"It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient."
Asking for direct access to a server wouldn't be necessary, Taddeo said, "unless there was a reason to think the victim was going to alter the evidence in some way."
"Images" is a jargon reference to an EXACT copy of a hard drive, or part of a hard drive, for example a "partition" on a hard drive. Think of it as an exact duplicate - not a backup of the files, but an exact bit-for-bit copy of the infected hard drive.
My questions are: Did the FBI request logs and images? Did the DNC deliver the logs and images?
All the evidence cited in the CrowdStrike report relates to material that would exist in logs and images.
Some hacking techniques leave scant or even ZERO tracks in the hard drive, and are transient in memory and network traffic. For those sorts of attack, access to the server -while it is running- is necessary to see the attack while it is underway. Also, some servers have crappy logging, so intrusions are not logged.
Maybe this is a case of Keystone Cops meet victim who has something to hide. Both sides prefer the investigation be botched, and to be able to blame it on the other.
Ping to some actual investigative journalism.
Beware stories that rely on "must be one or the other" logic, or that conclude "if there is a virus reporting back to a hacker in Russia, then the material at Wikileaks did not come from a leaker."
“...When the DNC discovered that someone from inside their group had leaked their emails to Wikileaks, they concocted the Russian meme to cover it up?...”
Absolutely correct. This has been my hypothesis as well.
For months now this has been my conclusion. It is really no more complicated than that - Rush’s theory (although well meaning) yesterday that it was concocted at the time the then candidate Trump made the joke about Russia releasing the rest didn’t resonate with me at all because your statement above is almost certainly correct.
To reiterate how this almost certainly happened here: the “Russians hacked the election” narrative was 100% fabricated as a cover story for the Seth Rich murder - that is the reason for it and this had better all come out and be aggressively investigated by a special prosecutor sooner rather than later.
Also - I am not convinced at all that the current White House leakers are flesh and blood people close to Trump - I think the President is still being surveilled by the deep state using the same methods that they employed to monitor Trump during the campaign. More than likely, the deep state holdovers are surveilling Trump to this day and leaking their eavesdropped findings.
If the bad guys have about 15% of the population, a small fraction, they can maintain control even if the vast bulk of the public is vaguely aware that something is wrong. "Big Brother" doesn't have to be liked, just feared. Plus, it is trivially easy to mislead the masses. "Stupid" is too kind.
Some hacking techniques leave scant or even ZERO tracks in the hard drive, and are transient in memory and network traffic. For those sorts of attack, access to the server -while it is running- is necessary to see the attack while it is underway. Also, some servers have crappy logging, so intrusions are not logged.
...and if it wasn’t a hack, but an insider who snagged a copy of the emails on the server from a backup, there would be nothing on the log. The dog that didn’t bark, so to speak.
Seth Rich later leak documents too, probably heard on the news of this first fake leak by guccifer 2 , a madeup name ( not to confused with the real guccifer) . The DNC , and or Obamas deep state people would realized Seths documents did not have the fake Russian finger prints, blowing their wiretapping cover in addition to the leaks were damaging to Hillary, so he became a problem.
This is the summary if I'm reading this correctly .
Yes.
All the above..................
Pull on the string marked Seth Rich, and the whole DNC/Obama Administration comes undone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed. I first heard the name Warren T. Flood yesterday (in the George Webb stuff, IIRC)
Server log files get massive. But almost all servers have archiving and backups. These days, if security isn’t critical, backups are often cloud based. Otherwise they are local. You know someone is covering something up if logs and backups get erased or ‘disappear’.... or “beached”. heh.
follow
Another good point. Assume there are two machines, a server, and a machine used to archive and backup. If the theft happens on the machine containing the backup, any logging would originate from that machine.
That said, and complicating things, it is possible for logging to be remote too. I administer a small network, and SOME activities are logged in two places - on the machine where the activity took place, and on a remote machine. Without remote logging, even if the backup machine logged somebody taking a copy, the server would have ZERO evidence of a person taking a copy from the backup machine.
At any rate, my general point was that most of the forensic work the FBI or anybody else would do (regarding intrusions) would use a disk image. Without more detail and questions, arguing over access to the server is a smokescreen/distraction. Ok, FBI didn't ask to access the server. Did it ask for a disk image and logs? I see no reporting that gets to the bottom of that.
Plus, as you see from my later remark, resolving the source of a hack does not rule out the INDEPENDENT taking of a copy by a leaker.
Carlos Slim's substantial financial interest in NYT for example. Global media holding company News Corporation for another.
The Obama campaign deliberately avoiding the tracking of nationality for donations made by CC, for another example.
If this summary is what the author is saying, then the Wikileaks documents will have different metadata than those released by Guccifer.
++++
The question of the day for certain by Freeper dontreadthis.
SO, ARE THEY DIFFERENT OR NOT?
Does anyone know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.