New report casts dooubt on the Russia hacking narrative

J

jmotivator

Verified User
jmotivator said:
New report by independent IT security group strongly indicates that the release of the DNC emails was an inside job.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

This opens up a lot of questions, obviously.

What is most interesting, though, and raises the most questions for me, is the claim by this firm that the Gucifer 2.0 email dump was edited after the fact to make it appear to be of Russian origin.
Click to expand...

Does that mean the Lynch and Rice conspiracies aren't the official deflections now?

Everyday we get another right wing conspiracy involving everyone but the parties actually being investigated, now why do you suppose that is?
 
archives said:
Does that mean the Lynch and Rice conspiracies aren't the official deflections now?

Everyday we get another right wing conspiracy involving everyone but the parties actually being investigated, now why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

So now you dont' want to talk about Russiaphobia :palm:
 
archives said:
Does that mean the Lynch and Rice conspiracies aren't the official deflections now?

Everyday we get another right wing conspiracy involving everyone but the parties actually being investigated, now why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...


The Nation is a Progressive news outlet and the firm releasing the report is not "right wing". Do you have anything of substance to contribute?
 
There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer. [from link]
_________________

Awan, Wasserman's Pakistani IT crook.

Mueller? Where are you on this?
 
Darth Omar said:
There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer. [from link]
_________________

Awan, Wasserman's Pakistani IT crook.

Mueller? Where are you on this?
Click to expand...
https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/p
 
Covfefe said:
https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/
Click to expand...

I can tell you didn't read the story. I know it must suck to be so wrong, but I do suggest you read it.

The report in questions states clearly that the Russian language in the metadata was introduced after the original documents were cut and pasted into a Russian Word template. This doesn't match the MO of a Russian hacker since it would add a trail back to the Russian hacker with absolutely zero purpose. A real hacker would take the documents as downloaded and present them to Wikileaks with their original English metadata.

Also, the only copy of the data in question occurred at a speed only achievable on an internal network.

So the only option left to maintain the impression that Guccifer 2.0 was the culprit is that the DNC had Guccifer 2.0 on their payroll AND that Guccifer 2.0 took the documents off site and then cut and pasted them into a Russian Word template for absolutely no reason.

Also, the use of FANCY BEAR as evidence that Guccifer 2.0 and the Russians were involved in a hack are simply dishonest reporting since FANCY BEAR has been in the wild for years.
 
jmotivator said:
I can tell you didn't read the story. I know it must suck to be so wrong, but I do suggest you read it.

The report in questions states clearly that the Russian language in the metadata was introduced after the original documents were cut and pasted into a Russian Word template. This doesn't match the MO of a Russian hacker since it would add a trail back to the Russian hacker with absolutely zero purpose. A real hacker would take the documents as downloaded and present them to Wikileaks with their original English metadata.

Also, the only copy of the data in question occurred at a speed only achievable on an internal network.

So the only option left to maintain the impression that Guccifer 2.0 was the culprit is that the DNC had Guccifer 2.0 on their payroll AND that Guccifer 2.0 took the documents off site and then cut and pasted them into a Russian Word template for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...

The proper phrase for the data transfer rate is 'irrefutable scientific evidence'.

It was absolutely a leak. For crying out loud, somebody talk to Awan. Offer him a plea bargain.
 
archives said:
Does that mean the Lynch and Rice conspiracies aren't the official deflections now?

Everyday we get another right wing conspiracy involving everyone but the parties actually being investigated, now why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

Because the deep state is committed to bringing down President Trump and not getting at the truth. What is more likely an inside job from the DNC or Russia hacking their emails? Couple this with the Debbie Wasserman Schultz scandal that is brewing and I think we get closer to the truth.

The Russian narrative was created to give cover to your democrat party
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
Because the deep state is committed to bringing down President Trump and not getting at the truth. What is more likely an inside job from the DNC or Russia hacking their emails? Couple this with the Debbie Wasserman Schultz scandal that is brewing and I think we get closer to the truth.

The Russian narrative was created to give cover to your democrat party
Click to expand...

exactly this. it was all cover for their crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top