Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

[Pavlov]

I was under the impression the oddly specific Russian stuff was put in after the DNC realized it'd been compromised from within.

How would that even work? They find out the data is stolen, then fake a hack using their own data with Russian signatures to take the heat off of Seth Rich, whom they would murder five days later? Where is the originally stolen stuff and the metadata for them?

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.

Great, they can actually use his name then. Dude is dead. All they are doing is torturing his family.

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.

Nah, him and his conditions.

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.

Was it needed for the DNC files? I can't even find a file size for those dumps. If Rich gave Murray the files in the woods like Murray says, why would Kim know anything about Rich in the first place?

[Pavlov]

I mean, it's just like 9/11. So many bits of gossip and nuggets of theory get posted without any real comment except GAME OVER, I don't see the narrative that would cover all of them. If you have that narrative, TSA, go ahead and post it, because the number of people apparently in on the conspiracy grows with every article paste.

[spurraider21]

I mean, it's just like 9/11. So many bits of gossip and nuggets of theory get posted without any real comment except GAME OVER, I don't see the narrative that would cover all of them. If you have that narrative, TSA, go ahead and post it, because the number of people apparently in on the conspiracy grows with every article paste.

[Adam Lambert]

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.

right, you only get your panties in a wad over things that definitely did happen.

[RandomGuy]

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.

"You think the Russians were sloppy on purpose to point back to themselves." ...not exactly.

Better:
"You think the Russians were sloppy on purpose to provide plausible deniability in case the actions of the insider were discovered."

Best:
"Sloppy papering is consistent with known Russian intelligence methods, in which establishing plausible deniability is fundamental to all operations if at all possible."

[RandomGuy]

I also think the Awan brothers could have been the source of the stolen emails. http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/ex...it-aides-home/

I think that websites like the daily caller have very specific points of view that colors their interpretations of data. When I read this website I apply a fair amount of skepticism when I see any kind of statement of conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

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.

From what I understand, there were multiple en ies targeting these systems. "the hacker", "the insider" is phrasing it in a way that limits that.

To be fair, the information could have been stolen by an insider for some reason, yet to be fully established, and an attempt to make it seem like Russians was made.

I believe that the evidence is inconclusive, ultimately. Since the evidence is inclusive, I withhold belief about the ultimate cause of the actions we know about, which is the logical default position.

One useful tool in determining good workable theories is simplification.

Which theory makes fewer assumptions?

List the assumptions underlying what you think happened.

[RandomGuy]

HUMINT


Both the GRU, and the SVR as the successor to the KGB, conduct HUMINT operations that target the United States. The most recent example of a HUMINT operation conducted by Russia is the case of Aldrich Ames. Ames was a Central Intelligence Agency employee in the Directorate of Operations. In his work with the Directorate of Operations, Ames was able to obtain information pertaining to ongoing operations targeting the former Soviet Union and later Russia. Ames volunteered to work for the KGB in April 1985 as a walk-in to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and continued to work for the SVR after the fall of the Soviet Union. His espionage activities continued until his arrest on the morning of February 21, 1994. Upon his arrest, it was determined that Ames had been paid at least $2.5 million for his services and that he had compromised, by his own admission, "virtually all Soviet agents of the CIA and other American and foreign services known to me." In addition, he stated that he provided the former Soviet Union and Russia with a huge quan y of information on U.S. foreign, defense, and security policies.[12]

It is very likely that the Russians will continue to place a significant emphasis on the development of HUMINT sources because of the quality of information they have received in the past.[13] Since the August 1991 coup, the number of HUMINT operations conducted by the SVR and KGB that target the United States and the West have risen rather than fallen. In March 1993, the FBI and German counterintelligence authorities reported that SVR/GRU activities in their respective countries had grown by over 12 percent from pre-coup levels.[14] This is due to a number of factors. First, as a result of arms control treaties, joint business opportunities, and numerous cultural and economic exchanges, the Russian intelligence services now have greater access to American society, government, and industry. Second, there has been a significant influx of Russian emigres into the United States. The FBI estimates that over 105,000 Russians emigrated to the United States in the late 1980s. The Russians have traditionally used emigres as a means to gather intelligence. Third, there has been a substantial influx of Russian students into the United States; many of these students are studying technical disciplines that are required by the Russians to improve both military and civil industries. Fourth, travel restrictions on Russian diplomatic and consular personnel in the United States have been lifted, making it easier to collect information on U.S. activities.[15]

sections also on SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT sections. See link below for those:

https://fas.org/irp/nsa/ioss/threat96/part03.htm

[RandomGuy]

Russian Intelligence Collection Trends


Russia is likely to continue to aggressively use its intelligence services to gain information concerning the United States. They will retain the ability to develop all source intelligence and will use the information gained through these efforts to improve their standing in global political, economic, and security matters. Russia will continue to pursue intelligence concerning U.S. military capabilities, foreign policy initiatives, and the development of military technologies. There is likely to be an increased emphasis on obtaining commercial or dual use technology through intelligence operations.[29]

Defectors from the former Soviet and the Russian intelligence services have stated that industrial espionage activities will escalate in the years ahead. Russia requires advanced technology to bolster its economy and foster increased technological progress. Defectors have stated that the SVR will target the increasing number of joint U.S./Russian business ventures in an effort to legally obtain or steal desirable Western technologies. The Russians do not in many cases have the ability to pay for those items they need to improve economic growth so they are willing to steal them or obtain them through other illegitimate means. Additionally, the Russians still must contend with restrictions on certain technologies that they desire. Most of these technologies are dual use technologies that would play a significant role in the development of advanced weapons systems or improved Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) systems. In 1994, the United States denied a request by the Russian government to purchase advanced telecommunications systems from AT&T. The request was denied based on an assessment by the National Security Agency that the technology would be used in C3I systems. Based on past collection patterns, it should be assumed that the Russians are still targeting these technologies.[30]

Another likely trend is that, because of the reported reduction in the number of SVR intelligence officers, the Russians will place increasing emphasis on gaining information through technical intelligence disciplines, and open source analysis.[31] Although the opportunity to collect HUMINT has expanded as a result of the relaxation of security standards in focused on Russia; the reduction in the number of SVR intelligence officers, the closing of diplomatic facilities throughout the world, and the loss of access to former Warsaw Pact intelligence services will lead to a overall reduction in intelligence acquired through HUMINT. HUMINT is likely to be more carefully targeted to gain information not readily available through technical intelligence collection or through open source exploitation. The Russians have always relied on open source information and will continue to obtain intelligence by analyzing public data in comparison with intelligence derived through classified sources. The Soviets used a variety of research and political ins utes for the analysis of open source data. The majority of these ins utes have been retained by the Russians and are likely performing the same roles as they did under the Soviet Union. The Russians will continue to use information gained through these research ins utes and from the collection opportunities provided by joint trade, research, and educational activities.[32]

[RandomGuy]

Sources

1 - Statement of William S. Sessions, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, contained in United States House of Representatives, The Threat of Foreign Economic Espionage, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, Committee on the Judiciary, April 29 and May 7, 1992, pp. 41, 42, 46, and 47.

2 - U.S. House of Representatives, FBI Oversight and Authorization Request, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, 101 Congress, 2d Session, 1990, p. 281.

3 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and Security Apparatus, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986; and U.S. House of Representatives, FBI Oversight and Authorization Request, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, 101 Congress, 2d Session. 1990. p. 281.

4 - Sander Thoenes and Alan Cooperman, "Yeltsin's Eyes and Ears," U.S. News and World Report, 119:6, August 7, 1995, pp. 36-39; and Victor Yasmann, "Security Services Reorganized: All Power to the Russian President?" RFEXRL Reports, 3:6, February 1 1, 1994, pp. 7-14.

5 - Victor Yasmann "Security Services Reorganized: All Power to the Russian President?" RFE/RL Reports, 3:6, February 11, 1994, pp. 7-14.

6 - James Sherr, "Change and Continuity in the Former KGB," Jane's Intelligence Review, March 1993, pp. 110-112; and Adam Zagorin, "Still Spying After All These Years," Time, June 29, 1992, pp. 58-59.

7 - Carey Schofield, "Interview with the Head of Russian Military Intelligence," Jane's Intelligence Review, March 1993, pp. 112-116.

8 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and Security Apparatus, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986, pp. 34-38.

9 - Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev, New York: Harper Collins, 1990, p. 609; and Viktor Suvorov, Inside Soviet Military Intelli~ence, New York: MacMillan, 1984, pp. 60 and 66.

10 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and Security Apparatus, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986.

11 - Victor Yasmann, "Security Services Reorgamzed: All Power to the Russian Presidentt, RFE/RL Reports, 3:6, February 11, 1994, pp. 7-14; and James Sherr, "Change and Continu ty in the Former KGB," Jane 's Intelligence Review, March 1993, pp.110-112.

12 - United States Senate, An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence: A Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC: USAGPO, November 1,1994, pp. l9, and 85-86.

13 - U.S. House of Representatives, FBI Oversight and Authorization Request, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, 101 Congress, 2d Session, 1990, p. 281-282.

14 - James Sherr, "Change and Continuity in the Former KGB," Jane's Intelligence Review, March 1993, pp. 110-112.

15 - Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, "Tighter Security Needed to Protect U.S. Intelligence," Signal, 45:1, ,Sgptember 1990, pp. 101-104.

16 - Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev, New York: Harper Collins, 1990, p. 609-610; and Desmond Ball, Soviet Signals Intelligence (SIGIN77: Intercepting Satellite Communications, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Canberra: Australian National University, 1989, pp. 62-63.

17 - Department of Defense publication, "Soviet Military Power,,' 1987, p.128.

18 - William Rosenau, "A Deafening Silence: U.S. Policy and the Sigint Facility at Lourdes," Intelligence and National Security, 9:4, October 1994, pp. 723-734.

19 - Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story, New York: Harper Collins, 1990, p. 609; and Desmond Ball, "Soviet Signals Intelligence: Vehicular Systems and Operations," Intelligence and National Security, 4:1, January 1989, pp. 5-23.

20 - Desmond Ball, "Soviet Signals Intelligence: Vehicular Systems and Operations,,' Intelligence and National Security, 4:1, January 1989, pp. 5-23.

21 - Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story, New York: Harper Collins, 1990, pp. 608-610; and Craig Covault, "Russian Space Program Advances Despite Crisis," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 16, 1995, pp. 22-24.

22 - Desmond Ball, Soviet Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence No. 47, Strategic and Defence Studies Center, Canberra: Australian National University, 1989; and Jeffrey T. Richelson,. "The Future of Space Reconnaissance," Scientific American, 264:1, January 1991, pp. 38-44.

23 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, "The Future of Space Reconnaissance," Scientific American, 264:1, January 1991, pp. 38-44.

24 - Nicholas L. Johnson and David M. Rodvold, 19911992 Europe and Asia in Space, Kirtland AFB, NM: USAF Phillips Laboratory, Technical Report DC-TR22191.103-1, 1992, pp. 241-245.

25 - Nicholas L. Johnson and David M. Rodvold, 19911992 Europe and Asia in Space, Kirtland AFB, NM: USAF Phillips Laboratory, Technical Report DC-TR2191.103-1, 1992, pp. 241-245.

26 - Nicholas L. Johnson and David M. Rodvold, 19911992 Europe and Asia in Space, Kirtland AFB, NM: USAF Phillips Laboratory, Technical Report DC-TR2191.103-1, 1992, pp. 241-245; and Craig Covault, "Russian Space Program Advances Despite Crisis," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 16, 27995' PP 22-24

27 - Nicholas L. Johnson and David M. Rodvold, 19911992 Europe and Asia in Space, Kirtland AFB, NM: USAF Phillips Laboratory, Technical Report DC-TR2191.103-1, 1992, pp. 241-245; and Craig Covault, "Russian Space Program Advances Despite Crisis," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 16, 1995, pp. 22-24.

28 - William B. Scott, "Russian Pitches Common Early Warning Network," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 9, 1995, pp. 46-47; and Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and Security Apparatus, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986, pp. 108-111.

29 - Adam Zagorin, "Still Spying After All These Years," Time, June 29, 1992, pp. 58-59.

30 - U.S. House of Representatives, The Threat of Foreign Economic Espionage to U.S. Corporations, Testimony of William S. Sessions, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, Committee on the Judiciary, 102:2, Washington, DC: USGPO, 1992, p.42.

31 - Adam Zagonn, "Still Spying After All These Years," Time, June 29, 1992, pp.58-59.

32 - James Adams, Sellout: Aldrich Ames and the Corruption of the CIA, New York: Viking, 1995, pp. 43-45; and Wayne Madsen, "Intelligence Agency Threats to Computer Security," International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Winter 1993, pp. 418, 420, and 422.

33 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, Foreign Intelligence Organiz3ations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988, p. 295.

34 - Nicholas Eftimiades, "China's Ministry of State Security: Coming of Age in the International Arena," Intelligence and National Security, 8:1, January 1993, pp 23-43.

35 - Wendell Minnick, "China Under Cover," Far Eastern Economic Review, March 2, 1995, p. 38.

36 - Desmond Ball, "Signals Intelligence in China," Jane's Intelligence Review, 7:8, August 1, 1995, pp.365-368; Jeffrey T. Richelson, Foreign Intelligence Organizations, Cambridge, MA: sallinger' 1988, p. 287; and Ellis Joffe, The Chinese Army After Mao, pp. 55, 60, and 104.

37 - Desmond Ball, "Signals Intelligence in China," Jane's Intelligence Review, 7:8, August 1, 1995, pp. 365-368.

38 - Nicholas Eftimiades, s Ministry of State Security: Coming of Age in the International Arena," intelligence and National Security, 8:1, January 1993, pp. 23~3; and Jeffrey T. Richelson, Foreign Intelligence Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988, p.293.

39 - U.S. House of Representatives, FBI Oversight and Authorization Request, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Civil and Cons utional Rights, Committee on the Judicialy, 101st Congress, 2d Session, 1sso, p. 282.

40 - Nicholas Eftimiades, "China's Ministry of State Security: Coming of Age in the International Arena," Intelligence and National Security, 8:1, pp. 23 43.

41 - Desmond Ball, "Signals Intelligence in China," Jane's Intelligence Review, 7:8, August 1, 1995, pp. 43265-368.

42 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, "The Future of Space Reconnaissance," Scientific American, 264:1, January 1991, pp. 38-44.

43 - Nicholas Eftimiades, "China's Ministry of State Security: Coming of Age in the International Arena," Intelligence and National Security, 8:1, pp. 23 43: and Jeffrey T. Richelson, Foreign Intelligence Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988, pp. 297-298.

44 - H.P. Klepak, "The Cuban Armed Forces," Jane's Intelligence Review Year Book, December 31, 1994, pp. 136-138; and Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sword and Shield: The Soviet Intelligence and Security Apparatus, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986, pp. 210-212.

45 - Calvin Sims, "Engineer Says He Stole Secrets of Chip Makers," The New York Times, ~yr 22, 1995, p.l; and Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story, New York: Harper Collins, 1990, pp. 561-563.

46 - Andrea Mattes Sevada, ed. North Korea: A Country Study, Washington, DC: USGPO, June 1993, pp. 261-262; Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr. "North Koreans Intelligence Agencies and Infiltration Operations," Jane's Intelligence Review, June 1991, pp. 269-271; and Kongdan Oh, North Korea in the 1990s: Implications for the Future of the U.S.-South Korean Security Alliance, RAND Note 3480, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992.

47 - Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr. "North Korea's Intelligence Agencies and Infiltration Operations," Jane's Intelligence Review, June 1991, pp. 269-271.

48 - Marko Milovojevic, "Romania's Intelligence Services: Purges and Politics," Jane's Intelligence Review, 7:1, January 1995, p. 12-13; and Dan Ionescu, "Personnel Changes in the Romanian Intelligence Service," RFE/RL Report, 3:27, July 8, 1994, pp. 22-23.

[TSA]

I think that websites like the daily caller have very specific points of view that colors their interpretations of data. When I read this website I apply a fair amount of skepticism when I see any kind of statement of conclusion.

What specifically in that article are you skeptical about? The only thing I hadn't seen before was that the FBI was now working with capitol police and the interview with the marine. Everything else has been reported by Politico multiple times and there is video of Wasserman-Schultz threatening consequences if the laptops weren't returned.

[boutons_deux]

I can imagine Pootin flipping Seth Rich with $100Ks, got him to steal the data, turns it over, is verfied, then have him murdered.

Pootin's people know how to murder with clean getaway.

The data goes to Pootin stooge Assange to be leaked slowly to distract from Hillary's vampaign.

That's still a Pootin hack of USA.

[RandomGuy]

During the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviets developed a unique model of espionage. They would certainly recruit government officials or steal do ents. What they excelled at, however, was placing undetectable operatives in key positions. Soviet talent scouts would range around left-wing meetings to discover potential recruits. These would be young people with impeccable backgrounds and only limited contact with the left. They would be recruited based on ideology, and less often via money, sex or blackmail. They would never again be in contact with communists or fellow travelers. They would apply for jobs in their countries' intelligence services, foreign or defense ministries, and so on. Given their family and academic backgrounds, they would be hired. They would then be left in place for 20 or 30 years while they rose in the ranks — and, on occasion, aided with bits of information from the Soviet side to move their careers ahead. The Soviets understood that a recruited employee might be a double agent. But stealing information on an ad hoc basis was also risky, as the provenance of such material was always murky. Recruiting people who were not yet agents, creating psychological and material bonds over long years of management and allowing them to mature into senior intelligence or ministry officials allowed ample time for testing loyalty and positioning. The Soviets not only got more reliable information this way but also the ability to influence the other country's decision-making. Recruiting a young man in the 1930s, having him work with the OSS and later the CIA, and having him rise to the top levels of the CIA — had that ever happened — would thus give the Soviets information and control. These operations took decades, and Soviet handlers would spend their entire careers managing one career. There were four phases:

• Identifying likely candidates,
• Evaluating and recruiting them,
• Placing them and managing their rise in the organization,
• And exploiting them.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/weekl...c_intelligence

[TSA]

How would that even work? They find out the data is stolen, then fake a hack using their own data with Russian signatures to take the heat off of Seth Rich, whom they would murder five days later? Where is the originally stolen stuff and the metadata for them?

Great, they can actually use his name then. Dude is dead. All they are doing is torturing his family.

Nah, him and his conditions.

Was it needed for the DNC files? I can't even find a file size for those dumps. If Rich gave Murray the files in the woods like Murray says, why would Kim know anything about Rich in the first place?

Guccifer 2.0 announced the "hack" on June 15th...Seth Rich killed on July 10th.

[RandomGuy]

Phish email is the first indicator of super sophisticated hacker.

win Goals and the Espionage Challenge
One of the Russian operatives, Don Heathfield, once approached a STRATFOR employee in a series of five meetings. There appeared to be no goal of recruitment; rather, the Russian operative tried to get the STRATFOR employee to try out software he said his company had developed. We suspect that had this been done, our servers would be outputting to Moscow. We did not know at the time who he was. (We have since reported the incident to the FBI, but these folks were everywhere, and we were one among many.) Thus, the group apparently included a man using software sales as cover — or as we suspect, as a way to intrude on computers. As discussed, the group also included talent scouts. We would guess that Anna Chapman was brought in as part of the recruitment phase of talent scouting. No one at STRATFOR ever had a chance to meet her, having apparently failed the first screening. Each of the phases of the operatives' tasks required a tremendous amount of time, patience and, above all, cover. The operatives had to blend in (in this case, they didn't do so well enough). Russians have always had a tremendous advantage over Americans in this regard. A Russian long-term deployment took you to the United States, for example. Were the Americans to try the same thing, they would have to convince people to spend years learning Russian to near-native perfection and then to spend 20-30 years of their lives in Russia. Some would be willing to do so, but not nearly as many as there are Russians prepared to spend that amount of time in the United States or Western Europe. The United States can thus recruit sources (and sometimes it gets genuine ones). It can buy do ents. But the extremely patient, long-term deployments are very difficult for it. It doesn't fit with U.S. career patterns or family expectations.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/weekl...c_intelligence

[Pavlov]

Guccifer 2.0 announced the "hack" on June 15th...Seth Rich killed on July 10th.

The "fake cover up hack" you've been pimping was July 5.

[TSA]

From what I understand, there were multiple en ies targeting these systems. "the hacker", "the insider" is phrasing it in a way that limits that.

To be fair, the information could have been stolen by an insider for some reason, yet to be fully established, and an attempt to make it seem like Russians was made.

I believe that the evidence is inconclusive, ultimately. Since the evidence is inclusive, I withhold belief about the ultimate cause of the actions we know about, which is the logical default position.

One useful tool in determining good workable theories is simplification.

Which theory makes fewer assumptions?

List the assumptions underlying what you think happened.

There were multiple breaches so it does get confusing. Here is a pretty decent timeline to work with the events---just ignore the opinion pieces added in.

>>November, 2013: Trump is staying in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, during the Miss Universe pageant. He appears in a music video with a Russian pop star: Emin Agalarov. Later:

A person with knowledge of the 2013 trip to Moscow said Emin Agalarov offered to send pros utes to Trump’s hotel room, but the repeated offers were rejected by Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9df_story.html

>>Reminder: this is when Trump allegedly hired the "peeing pros utes".

>>>March 19, 2016: John Podesta receives a phishing email purportedly from Google, telling him to change his password. After a staffer tells him it is "legitimate" (and subsequently claimed that was a typo), Podesta purportedly used it to change his password.

>>June 3, 2016: the same Emin Agalarov contacts Trump, Jr. through Rob Goldstone, promising compromising info on Clinton's campaign.

>>June 9, 2016: Trump, Jr. holds the meeting with an attorney connected with FusionGPS, but she instead tries to lobby against anti-Russian legislation (the Magnitsky Act).

>>June 12, 2016: Wikileaks announces they have "emails relating to Hillary Clinton" and will be publishing them soon.<< The Podesta Emails

>>June 14, 2016: DNC announces their server was "hacked" back in April, and the perpetrator stole "Trump opposition research".

>>June 15, 2016: DNC/Crowdstrike announces "it was the Russians!", with very thin evidence, some of which they subsequently retracted.

>June 15, 2016 (yes, the same day): Guccifier 2.0 appears, takes credit for the "hack" and sends the Trump opposition research to several media outlets. Do ents appear to have "Russian fingerprints", but it's a sham.... the do ents were first created by an English language user -- possibly in the office of a Democrat politician -- and then opened and saved again on a computer with Russian language settings, all within 30 minutes on 2016-06-15: http://g-2.space/

>>July 5th James Comey Makes public statement concluding Clinton Server investigation

>>July 5, 2016: On that same day 3 weeks after DNC/Crowdstrike announces they were "hacked", And Seven Hours After James Comey's Public conclusion of the Clinton Ivestigation, a second set of files are copied onto a USB memory drive or over a local area network. File modification timestamps indicate it was probably done with Linux, and a copy speed of 22.6 megabytes/second -- too fast to be done remotely: https://theforensicator.wordpress.co...data-analysis/



>>July 10th 2016: Seth Rich is Shot, 5 days after the second breech was mae.

>>July 22, 2016:17 days after the second DNC breech, Wikileaks starts to publish first batch DNC emails.

>>September 1, 2016: a second set of files (copied on 7/5) are repackaged into new archives, on a computer with US Eastern timezone settings[/u].

>>September 13, 2016: the New archives of that second set of files are released by Guccifer 2.0

>>September, 2016: Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, says he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the (Podesta?) email sources in September.<<Those were probably the DNC Emails released a day or two before the election on November 6th.


>>October 10, 2016: Wikileaks starts to publish Podesta's emails, six months after he received the "change your password" phishing email.

>>November 6th releases the emails retrieved by Murray.

RELEASE: 8263 new emails from the DNC #DNCLeak2 #feelthebern #imwithher #demexithttps://t.co/ftwH5t57lj pic.twitter.com/EljYHE0n9E
WikiLeaks WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 7, 2016

>>December 13, 2016: Craig Murray goes public, saying that: "Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Murray in an interview. 'The source had legal access to the information. The do ents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

My working theory right now is Podesta Knew that Wikileaks had his emails since June of 2016.

Guccifer, TeaLeaves, The Piss dossier, The Russian Lawyers Meeting with Trump, and the April theft of DNC opo research were creations of FusionGPS with collaboration from Crowdstrike.

I think the April Hack was a FusionGPS creation from the start with collaboration from Crowdstrike.

I think it was a way to get Steeles dossier in the pipeline as evidence for the second FISA attempt by Obama.

Seth Rich Stole the emails July 5th after Comey dropped the server investigation. Rich gave some or all of them to someone who could get them to Assange between the 6th and the 9th, and was then shot late at night, early the next morning walking home after a hard night drinking.

Assange, realizing his source was murdered, Releases the DNC stuff from Rich starting on the 22nd of July 2016. They did a lot of damage.

To cover up the Murder of Rich, the Guccifer2 cut out is used to release a set of spoof files with the time stamp of 7/5 and everything else that would match up with the embed on the disk of the serve in early September, well after the Wikileaks dumps..

The September leaks by guccifer2 were not meant to hurt Clinton. And the didn't. Same goes for all earlier guccifer2 releases.

The Podesta Emails released by wikileaks On October 10th a full month later, and our Spy agencies would have known real time when Assange planned to release the emails, because his communications are tapped constantly. A good idea would be to see the difference from when the Billy Bush tape was leaked until wikileaks published.

The video was probably released within minutes of the time when Wikileaks committed to a publishing time for Podesta's emails.

[RandomGuy]

Hacktivists and cyber-criminal syndicates have been a central feature of
Russian offensive cyber operations, because of the anonymity they afford and
the ease with which they can be mobilized. However, the crowd-sourced
ii
approach that has typified how the Kremlin has utilized hackers and criminal
networks in the past is likely to be replaced by more tailored approaches, with
the FSB and other government agencies playing a more central role.

PDF:

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/DO...14231-1Rev.pdf

“We’re not doing this on the state level,” Mr. Putin said on Thursday.

The boundary between state and private action, however, is often blurry in Russia, particularly in matters relating to the projection of Russian influence abroad. This provides a measure of plausible deniability for actions that the Kremlin does not want to be linked to publicly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/w...p-hacking.html

"Mr Putin said that Russian hackers could have taken it upon themselves to try and influence the 2016 US election, saying that hackers "are like artists" who make decisions on who to target depending on how they feel on any given day."

"If they are patriotically minded, they start making their contributions - which are right, from their point of view - to fight against those who say bad things about Russia,"

he said.

[TSA]

The "fake cover up hack" you've been pimping was July 5.

Two separate "hacks"

June 15th
July 5th

[RandomGuy]

There were multiple breaches so it does get confusing. Here is a pretty decent timeline to work with the events---just ignore the opinion pieces added in.

>>November, 2013: Trump is staying in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, during the Miss Universe pageant. He appears in a music video with a Russian pop star: Emin Agalarov. Later:

A person with knowledge of the 2013 trip to Moscow said Emin Agalarov offered to send pros utes to Trump’s hotel room, but the repeated offers were rejected by Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9df_story.html

>>Reminder: this is when Trump allegedly hired the "peeing pros utes".

>>>March 19, 2016: John Podesta receives a phishing email purportedly from Google, telling him to change his password. After a staffer tells him it is "legitimate" (and subsequently claimed that was a typo), Podesta purportedly used it to change his password.

>>June 3, 2016: the same Emin Agalarov contacts Trump, Jr. through Rob Goldstone, promising compromising info on Clinton's campaign.

>>June 9, 2016: Trump, Jr. holds the meeting with an attorney connected with FusionGPS, but she instead tries to lobby against anti-Russian legislation (the Magnitsky Act).

>>June 12, 2016: Wikileaks announces they have "emails relating to Hillary Clinton" and will be publishing them soon.<< The Podesta Emails

>>June 14, 2016: DNC announces their server was "hacked" back in April, and the perpetrator stole "Trump opposition research".

>>June 15, 2016: DNC/Crowdstrike announces "it was the Russians!", with very thin evidence, some of which they subsequently retracted.

>June 15, 2016 (yes, the same day): Guccifier 2.0 appears, takes credit for the "hack" and sends the Trump opposition research to several media outlets. Do ents appear to have "Russian fingerprints", but it's a sham.... the do ents were first created by an English language user -- possibly in the office of a Democrat politician -- and then opened and saved again on a computer with Russian language settings, all within 30 minutes on 2016-06-15: http://g-2.space/

>>July 5th James Comey Makes public statement concluding Clinton Server investigation

>>July 5, 2016: On that same day 3 weeks after DNC/Crowdstrike announces they were "hacked", And Seven Hours After James Comey's Public conclusion of the Clinton Ivestigation, a second set of files are copied onto a USB memory drive or over a local area network. File modification timestamps indicate it was probably done with Linux, and a copy speed of 22.6 megabytes/second -- too fast to be done remotely: https://theforensicator.wordpress.co...data-analysis/



>>July 10th 2016: Seth Rich is Shot, 5 days after the second breech was mae.

>>July 22, 2016:17 days after the second DNC breech, Wikileaks starts to publish first batch DNC emails.

>>September 1, 2016: a second set of files (copied on 7/5) are repackaged into new archives, on a computer with US Eastern timezone settings[/u].

>>September 13, 2016: the New archives of that second set of files are released by Guccifer 2.0

>>September, 2016: Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, says he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the (Podesta?) email sources in September.<<Those were probably the DNC Emails released a day or two before the election on November 6th.


>>October 10, 2016: Wikileaks starts to publish Podesta's emails, six months after he received the "change your password" phishing email.

>>November 6th releases the emails retrieved by Murray.

RELEASE: 8263 new emails from the DNC #DNCLeak2 #feelthebern #imwithher #demexithttps://t.co/ftwH5t57lj pic.twitter.com/EljYHE0n9E
WikiLeaks WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 7, 2016

>>December 13, 2016: Craig Murray goes public, saying that: "Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Murray in an interview. 'The source had legal access to the information. The do ents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

I don't see any underlying meta-assumptions.

You do understand my question, yes?

[Pavlov]

There were multiple breaches so it does get confusing. Here is a pretty decent timeline to work with the events---just ignore the opinion pieces added in.

>>November, 2013: Trump is staying in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, during the Miss Universe pageant. He appears in a music video with a Russian pop star: Emin Agalarov. Later:

A person with knowledge of the 2013 trip to Moscow said Emin Agalarov offered to send pros utes to Trump’s hotel room, but the repeated offers were rejected by Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9df_story.html

>>Reminder: this is when Trump allegedly hired the "peeing pros utes".

>>>March 19, 2016: John Podesta receives a phishing email purportedly from Google, telling him to change his password. After a staffer tells him it is "legitimate" (and subsequently claimed that was a typo), Podesta purportedly used it to change his password.

>>June 3, 2016: the same Emin Agalarov contacts Trump, Jr. through Rob Goldstone, promising compromising info on Clinton's campaign.

>>June 9, 2016: Trump, Jr. holds the meeting with an attorney connected with FusionGPS, but she instead tries to lobby against anti-Russian legislation (the Magnitsky Act).

>>June 12, 2016: Wikileaks announces they have "emails relating to Hillary Clinton" and will be publishing them soon.<< The Podesta Emails

>>June 14, 2016: DNC announces their server was "hacked" back in April, and the perpetrator stole "Trump opposition research".

>>June 15, 2016: DNC/Crowdstrike announces "it was the Russians!", with very thin evidence, some of which they subsequently retracted.

>June 15, 2016 (yes, the same day): Guccifier 2.0 appears, takes credit for the "hack" and sends the Trump opposition research to several media outlets. Do ents appear to have "Russian fingerprints", but it's a sham.... the do ents were first created by an English language user -- possibly in the office of a Democrat politician -- and then opened and saved again on a computer with Russian language settings, all within 30 minutes on 2016-06-15: http://g-2.space/

>>July 5th James Comey Makes public statement concluding Clinton Server investigation

>>July 5, 2016: On that same day 3 weeks after DNC/Crowdstrike announces they were "hacked", And Seven Hours After James Comey's Public conclusion of the Clinton Ivestigation, a second set of files are copied onto a USB memory drive or over a local area network. File modification timestamps indicate it was probably done with Linux, and a copy speed of 22.6 megabytes/second -- too fast to be done remotely: https://theforensicator.wordpress.co...data-analysis/



>>July 10th 2016: Seth Rich is Shot, 5 days after the second breech was mae.

>>July 22, 2016:17 days after the second DNC breech, Wikileaks starts to publish first batch DNC emails.

>>September 1, 2016: a second set of files (copied on 7/5) are repackaged into new archives, on a computer with US Eastern timezone settings[/u].

>>September 13, 2016: the New archives of that second set of files are released by Guccifer 2.0

>>September, 2016: Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, says he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the (Podesta?) email sources in September.<<Those were probably the DNC Emails released a day or two before the election on November 6th.


>>October 10, 2016: Wikileaks starts to publish Podesta's emails, six months after he received the "change your password" phishing email.

>>November 6th releases the emails retrieved by Murray.

RELEASE: 8263 new emails from the DNC #DNCLeak2 #feelthebern #imwithher #demexithttps://t.co/ftwH5t57lj pic.twitter.com/EljYHE0n9E
WikiLeaks WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 7, 2016

>>December 13, 2016: Craig Murray goes public, saying that: "Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Murray in an interview. 'The source had legal access to the information. The do ents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

Originally Posted by waterglass
My working theory right now is Podesta Knew that Wikileaks had his emails since June of 2016.

Guccifer, TeaLeaves, The Piss dossier, The Russian Lawyers Meeting with Trump, and the April theft of DNC opo research were creations of FusionGPS with collaboration from Crowdstrike.

I think the April Hack was a FusionGPS creation from the start with collaboration from Crowdstrike.

I think it was a way to get Steeles dossier in the pipeline as evidence for the second FISA attempt by Obama.

Seth Rich Stole the emails July 5th after Comey dropped the server investigation. Rich gave some or all of them to someone who could get them to Assange between the 6th and the 9th, and was then shot late at night, early the next morning walking home after a hard night drinking.

Assange, realizing his source was murdered, Releases the DNC stuff from Rich starting on the 22nd of July 2016. They did a lot of damage.

To cover up the Murder of Rich, the Guccifer2 cut out is used to release a set of spoof files with the time stamp of 7/5 and everything else that would match up with the embed on the disk of the serve in early September, well after the Wikileaks dumps..

The September leaks by guccifer2 were not meant to hurt Clinton. And the didn't. Same goes for all earlier guccifer2 releases.

The Podesta Emails released by wikileaks On October 10th a full month later, and our Spy agencies would have known real time when Assange planned to release the emails, because his communications are tapped constantly. A good idea would be to see the difference from when the Billy Bush tape was leaked until wikileaks published.

The video was probably released within minutes of the time when Wikileaks committed to a publishing time for Podesta's emails.

Great, where did you get all this? Reddit?

So the theory as far as I can tell is the DNC would rather murder a guy (badly, amateur serial killer style apparently) than admit they were wrong about the source of a hack that the intel community agreed was the hack? Seems pretty stupid.

Actually seems really stupid.

[TSA]

I don't see any underlying meta-assumptions.

You do understand my question, yes?

Yes.

You think a simpler theory is Russia had a DNC insider, and I disagree with that theory.

I added the timeline so we are all on the same page about which "hacks" happened and when. Also found it very interesting to see how the chain of events unfolded.

[TSA]

Great, where did you get all this? Reddit?

So the theory as far as I can tell is the DNC would rather murder a guy (badly, amateur serial killer style apparently) than admit they were wrong about the source of a hack that the intel community agreed was the hack? Seems pretty stupid.

Actually seems really stupid.

You are assuming the DNC was only worried about being wrong about the source of the hack. The DNC paid for a bogus dossier that the FBI used to obtain the FISA warrants on Trump's team. Not to mention the DNC still was working under the assumption that Hillary would win the election.

[Pavlov]

You are assuming the DNC was only worried about being wrong about the source of the hack. The DNC paid for a bogus dossier that the FBI used to obtain the FISA warrants on Trump's team. Not to mention the DNC still was working under the assumption that Hillary would win the election.

The murder makes even less sense when you put it that way. It would be much easier for a Clinton administration to obfuscate all the dossier/FISA stuff (if it actually became an issue -- it hasn't been after everyone found out about it) and hacking "disinfo" than trying to derail a local investigation of a murder by an amateur serial killer hitman.

I really think you need to take a step back from r/thedonald and look at this objectively.

[TSA]

The murder makes even less sense when you put it that way. It would be much easier for a Clinton administration to obfuscate all the dossier/FISA stuff (if it actually became an issue -- it hasn't been after everyone found out about it) and hacking "disinfo" than trying to derail a local investigation of a murder by an amateur serial killer hitman.

I really think you need to take a step back from r/thedonald and look at this objectively.

The Seth Rich murder is the biggest head scratcher for me, and not surprisingly all you want to focus on.

In this thread I'm more interested in talking about the "hacks"