at the alleged "forensic analysis" of rar file dates... like you can't change those to whatever you want...
Yahtzee!
I do care. You should not lie about what I think, just because we disagree on things.This is a case of actual foreign nationals stealing data from the head of the DNC and congress, sending it to private servers, and you don't give a
I just don't care enough to spend much of my time on it, as I figure that the police are investigating, as you noted, and it seems awfully ancillary to other larger problems that I think are worth my time. I skimmed the article you provided.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-de...n-plain-sight/
FWIW.
TSA might find it interesting as well, although it paints some Republicans in a bad light as well as Democrats. (gasp)
Eyup. Just because something says "forensic analysis" doesn't make it authoritative.
Yahtzee!
The opposite really. "forensic" just means "legal", and is very commonly misused by people attempting to add legitimacy.
Source Materials
Yahtzee!
https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/1.doc (link)
https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/2.doc (link)
https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/3.doc (link)
Mirror copies are available below (please use originals above if available):
Host: d3f.uk -> 1.doc 2.doc 3.doc
Host: g-2.space -> 1.doc 2.doc 3.doc
link to metadata
http://g-2.space/intent-conclusion.html
Can't metadata be manipulated just by downloading and couldn't it have been manipulated by saving the file at times you haven't considered?
While downloading the files to your PC will cause the file headers to have the current time/date recorded - these are completely separate from the RTF metadata (which remains untouched and will still have the creation/modification dates in June of 2016). - So the downloading, etc. process and copying/moving the file around in your OS won't cause the RTF metadata to be altered.
That said, there still ARE cir stances in which the data can be reset, etc. (when opening and saving the file in apps, etc).
We have given a lot of consideration to this too...
To figure out the sort of application behaviors we are likely dealing with - it helps to know what application was likely used to generate and save them. - fortunately, this can be evaluated to some degree because we can see that all 5 RTF files have the following string in them:
{\xmlns1 http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/
You can test using OpenOffice, LibreOffice, WordPad and other apps that can save to the RTF format and check which ones produce the above string and which ones don't . We can't entirely rule out the possibility of other apps producing this but of those tested, only MS-Word seemed to leave this in files. (There are other things we can test if it ever turns out other applications have this behavior).
So testing was carried out with a few recent copies of MS-Word to see the various cir stances when the actual RTF metadata changes.
The following was observed:
Author name
Set on creation, retained when saving and saving-as (people who edit the do ent subsequently are recorded as 'operator' rather than 'author'.)
Creation date
Set on creation, CAN BE REFRESHED by someone saving do ent as a new copy.
Operator name
(last person who edited) - Set on creation, set when saving.
Modified date
Set on creation, set when saving.
We have tried to consider various possibilities and even if the creation timestamps are modified on the do ents in a way we had not accounted for (eg. due to a Save-As event we perhaps had not considered) - the only difference it really makes is that it changes the time/date on which someone using an account named "Warren Flood" created the initial Russian-tainted template that the first 3 files are all based on.
(This is because the RTF-RSID correlations on the Russian language stylesheets in the first 3 do ents allow us to evaluate the chronological order in which they and the actual content became present in each of the files - regardless of the metadata.).
UPDATE (May 13th, 2017): Following some tests on RTF files generated on Mac (h/t Steve Cunningham) and Windows versions of MS Office it seems highly likely the RTF docs produced by Guccifer 2.0 were generated using the Windows version of Microsoft Office.
Thanks for this. I'll try and listen after work today.
If memory serves, the Steele dossier mentions a concerted Russian effort to affect the election, including infiltration of the campaigns, and I would guess the major political party HQs.It's a Unix system! I know this!
Russian methodology is to develop and place human assets where they want them, and always to add in layers of plausible deniability. (e.g. the hacker"patriots" alluded to by Putin, who just happen to do whatever is in the interest of the Russian government)
The evidence you presented in this thread shows an insider copying and pasting data, with a clumsy attempt to make it look Russian that would be easily identifiable as such by anyone with any sophistication. That insider was, apparently Seth Rich, who met an unfortunate and mysterious end. An end that mirrors, coincidentally, that of a Russian inteligence general who was killed shortly after the Steele dossier was made public, as was Rich.
Hypothesis:
Rich was a Russian intelligence asset in the mold of so many Americans who have been recruited through greed and/or blackmail, and downloading what data he could, in a way that would provide the Russians with an easy way to say they were being framed if it ever came to light.
The Russians, per the Steele dossier, were said to be somewhat alarmed about getting caught out, and were scaling back their activities. Their efforts in this regard, were to tie up loose ends, Rich being one, and the Russian intel general being another.
This hypothesis explains, without many extra assumptions, the observed evidence, as well as conforming to known Russian intelligence methodology.
Both the aim, and methods here appear consistant with Russian intelligence carrying out directives from the leadership in the Kremlin.
Not sure if serious. Do you believe the hypothesis you laid out?
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report led “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the ulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different en ies, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC do ents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
* * *
Mr. President:
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy en y with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a do ent that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA do ents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original do ents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any en y or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
are you paid to post stuff like that? you cant possibly believe anyone here is reading that
Seriously.
Serious, yes.
Belief?
Not enough information in any event to form a hypothesis I would have much confidence in either way.
Merely pointing out that your evidence doesn't exactly say what you think it does, and can be interpreted in a way that you seem blind to, in addition to having some rather obvious flaws.
"game over" = overreach
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
Russian intelligence services work to put people on the inside.
They work to have plausible deniability.
Evidence in TSA's posts here are consistent with both, and he has not provided evidence that would rule out this possibility, which is ironic, because all he was attempting to do was to show it couldn't possibly have been Russians, but some scheme at the DNC.
What he has done is show evidence very consistent with Russian intel methods, but doesn't seem to want to admit that now that it has been pointed out.
whats happening is he spends hours every day in a 4chan/reddit echo chamber and thinks everyone will find the stuff they obsess over interesting.
Not only reading but replying as well.
Unlike your dud
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...56#post9098556
I presented evidence to show it was not a hack but done from the inside. After months of presenting the findings you have finally come around to accepting this.
Where we differ is who the insider was.
You think the Russians had a DNC insider, possibly Seth Rich.
I think it was a disgruntled DNC insider, probably Seth Rich.
You think the Russians were sloppy on purpose to point back to themselves.
I think it was crafted to frame the Russians.
I also think the Awan brothers could have been the source of the stolen emails.
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Seized Smashed Hard Drives From Wasserman Schultz IT Aide’s Home
FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s information technology (IT) administrator, according to an individual who was interviewed by Bureau investigators in the case and a high level congressional source.
Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back, the individual told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.
The congressional source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, confirmed that the FBI has joined what Politico previously described as a Capitol Police criminal probe into “serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” by Imran and three of his relatives, who had access to the emails and files of the more than two dozen House Democrats who employed them on a part-time basis.
Capitol Police have also seized computer equipment tied to the Florida lawmaker.
Awan’s younger brothers, Abid and Jamal, his wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, Imran’s best friend, are also under investigation. There have been no arrests in the case.
There is also evidence of financial schemes that extend beyond the Capitol Police’s purview and may expand to Pakistan, where Imran spends significant portions of the year.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in March that the Capitol Police are “getting the kind of technical assistance they need to do that. This is under an active criminal investigation, their capabilities are pretty strong but, they’re also able to go and get the kind of help they need from other sources.”
The brothers’ stepmother independently filed court do ents in Virginia accusing the brothers of wiretapping and extorting her.
Soon after Imran began working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, his two brothers and two of their wives — plus Abbas and another friend — began appearing as IT staffers on the payrolls of other House Democrats. Collectively, the Awan group has been paid $4 million since 2009.
Fellow IT staffers interviewed by TheDCNF said the Awans were often absent from weekly meetings and email exchanges. One of the fellow staffers said some of the computers the Awans managed were being used to transfer data to an off-site server.
Shortly after the criminal probe was revealed in February, Imran abruptly moved out of his longtime home on Hawkshead Drive in Lorton, Va., and listed it for rent on a website that connects landlords with military families.
One of new tenants — a Marine Corps veteran married to a female Navy Officer — said he found “wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destroy, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner.”
The tenants called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and not long after, FBI agents arrived together with the Capitol Police to interview them and confiscate the equipment. The Marine spoke on condition of anonymity because of concerns for his wife’s naval career, saying she doesn’t want to be associated with a national security incident.
“It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry,” the Marine said. “It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over.”
Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chief in July 2016 after the committee’s IT system was hacked. She has since refused to fire Imran despite learning that he is a target of a criminal investigation.
The Marine said Imran wanted the hard drives back so desperately that he threatened to sue the renter for stealing them.
“It was unbelievable. I don’t know where they get off thinking they’re going to sue us for items we have no obligation to hold onto,” he said.
Imran came to the house for the items “three to four times,” but the Marine wouldn’t let him enter.
“Their lawyer contacted us today via email and said we owed $350 in late charges and the items he left in the house,” the Marine said.
The Marine heard about the House investigation on the radio, and by that time, he had noticed other bizarre signs of desperation from his landlord.
“When we first moved in, a mailman came with certified mail from the House of Representatives. We were trying to be nice and signed for it. They lost their , saying ‘why did you sign for it, this is illegal!’ It was certified from the [Chief Administrative Officer of the House],” he said.
“The postman came a second time with a certified letter and I called Imran on the spot, asking ‘what do you want me to do.'” He said ‘just send him away, I’m homeless.’ They refused to forward their mail.”
Imran’s brother Abid has also been evasive about his location, failing to provide an accurate address for delivery of court materials in a lawsuit in which he is accused of defrauding the brothers’ stepmother. Imran’s wife, Hina, has traveled to Pakistan since the probe was revealed, according to neighbors.
Wasserman Schultz has demanded return of a laptop seized by the Capitol Police because it was purportedly used by Imran and was found hidden in a vacant office. The Florida Democrat used a Capitol Police budget hearing to threaten “consequences” for them if the laptop wasn’t returned.
On Thursday it was reported that police have not examined its contents because of the invocation of the Cons ution’s “Speech and Debate clause,” and after months of refusal, her lawyer is now “negotiating” access to the data on yet-to-be-determined terms.
Members have been unusually mum about the apparent cybersecurity breach, especially given the pattern of cyberattacks on other government and political ins utions.
The Marine expressed disgust with the muted reaction, saying “I served in the Marine Corps for 14 years; if I downloaded files to an offsite server, I’m going to prison for a lot of years.”
He implied he’s a Democrat but said when it comes to national security “political ideology doesn’t matter.”
He believes “there’s no way they could get this far without help” from some of the Democratic members of Congress for whom the brothers worked. Other Democrats have ignored a major security breach because it could look like a “black eye” in that they failed to vet the Pakistanis, he said.
“He’s dangerous. This is a crime syndicate that has successfully indicated Congress,” he said.
“If Donald Trump and the Republicans had hired foreign nationals to be their top IT guys and somehow their congressional files had been compromised, this would have been all over the news,” he continued.
A Bureau spokesman said the “FBI does not have anything to provide on this and I will still have to refer you to [Capitol Police] for any public comment.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/ex...it-aides-home/
I have a question since I don't know much about this stuff. Where did all these guys get this metadata? Is it something anyone can see on the Wikileaks files?
I believe all the metadata was taken directly from guccifer 2.0's blog.
Click some links on my post #130 I think it's all explained in there.
dud? you think i was trying to create an in-depth discussion on whether or not the republicans are stuck in the 50s? no one responded to that thread because theres nothing to say. i assume you trump apologists would just prefer not to think about it.
Much like your assumptions on my view of buttsecks you are also dead wrong on my views on marijuana.
OK, I looked and found this:
http://g-2.space/intent-conclusion.htmlWe can see that a copy of MS-Word registered to "Warren Flood" was apparently used to create all 3 do ents at the same time, this would seem odd usually, but we know they were just saving a tainted blank template as multiple files.
We then see that "Феликс Эдмундович" (the founder of the soviet secret police and someone who has been deceased for 90 years!) opens the files in sequence 30 minutes later, doing something (copying in the contents from original do ents into the blank 'pre-tainted' template) and then saving the files, within the space of a few minutes.
SUMMARY: The files were constructed from the same template do ent with a Russian stylesheet entry in it and then each file, in sequence, was opened to add a secondary layer (writing the Russian name to metadata) when content was copied into them. - TWO layers of Russian "fingerprints", with one existing in the do ents even before the main content was present in them!
Guccifer 2.0, from day one, was using a Russian masquerade and knew anything he could forge a perceived attribution with would later be easy to discredit because of their association with the 'Russian Hacker' persona.
So the theory is that Seth Rich was putting all the oddly specific Russian stuff in himself?
Seriously though, whether it's Seth Rich or not, Assange and Kim Dot Com are being complete assholes teasing that they know it's him for personal gain.
i assume youre pro marijuana, so you probably dont want to talk about marijuana issues much because your mo here is pro trump and those two things conflict. way to support the team.
I was under the impression the oddly specific Russian stuff was put in after the DNC realized it'd been compromised from within.
Assange has basically said it was Rich without naming him. He also said the person wasn't Russian or a Russian state actor. Craig Murray has backed this account up and said the same. I'd really like the FBI to take up Dot Com on his offer to come over and testify but as of now the FBI has still refused. If they think he is bluffing call him on it and bring him over. Dot Com's claims could be legit as he was in the business of massive file storage and it would be needed for some of these file dumps.Seriously though, whether it's Seth Rich or not, Assange and Kim Dot Com are being complete assholes teasing that they know it's him for personal gain.
I'm not going to get my panties in a wad over some marijuana legislation that hasn't even happened. When my 6 plants per person limit is threatened in my state you'll see me speak up, not that it matters anyways on spurstalk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
