Who is Guccifer?

by Franto Hruz - Our Team Members Get More Value
Original by richardstevenhack

Critical responses to the Mueller indictment of twelve alleged GRU officers in the alleged DNC "hack" are beginning to appear.

Mark McCarty offers this take:

Mueller’s New Indictment — Do the Feds Take Us for Idiots?!

He references Adam Carter's initial take. Carter has done most of the work on exposing the alleged Guccifer 2.0 entity as a likely false flag.

Mueller’s Latest Indictment Contradicts Evidence In The Public Domain


This author is responding to the indictment because it features claims about Guccifer 2.0 that are inconsistent with what has been discovered about the persona, including the following:

Evidence was found over 500 days ago relating to the Guccifer 2.0 persona that showed they had deliberately manipulated files to have Russian metadata. We know the process used to construct the documents was not due to accidental mistakes during the creation process.

The original template document that Guccifer 2.0 used has been identified. It is also the source of the presence of Warren Flood’s name, and can be found attached to one of Podesta’s emails (it has RSIDs matching with Guccifer 2.0’s first couple of documents).

The Trump opposition research, which CrowdStrike claimed was targeted at the DNC, apparently in late April 2016, isn’t what Guccifer 2.0 actually presented to reporters. It also didn’t come from the DNC, but was an attached file on one of John Podesta’s emails – not the DNC’s. This specific copy appears to have been edited by Tony Carrk shortly before it was sent to Podesta. The fact that Guccifer 2.0’s initial releases were Podesta email attachments was even conceded by a former DNC official.

It appears that Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence on June 15, 2016, that coincidentally dovetailed with multiple claims made by CrowdStrike executives that had been published the previous day.

Guccifer 2.0 went to considerable effort to make sure Russian error messages appeared in copies of files given to the press.

Evidence – which Guccifer 2.0 couldn’t manipulate due to being logged by third parties – suggests he was operating in the US.

Additional evidence, which Guccifer 2.0 would have been unlikely to realize “he” was leaving, indicated that the persona was archiving files in US timezones before release, with email headers giving him away early on.

Virtually everything that has been claimed to indicate Guccifer 2.0 was Russian was based on something he chose to do.

Considering that Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta’s emails, yet never leaked anything truly damaging to the Clinton campaign even though he would have had access to it, is highly suspicious. In fact, Guccifer 2.0 never referenced any of the scandals that would later explode when the DNC emails and Podesta email collections were published by WikiLeaks.

End Quote

He goes on to substantiate these points.

In particular, to Mueller's point that the "Conspiractors" took efforts to hide their identities, Guccifer 2.0 did just the opposite:


Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn’t make a genuine effort to “conceal a Russian identity,” far from it. The persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of Russian-themed breadcrumbs, examples include:

Choosing the Russian VPN Service (using the publicly accessible default server in France) in combination with a mail service provider that would forward the sender’s IP address.

Creating a blog and dropping a Russian emoticon in the second paragraph of the first post, something he only ever did one other time over months of activity (in which he used “:)” at a far higher frequency).

Tainting documents with Russian language metadata.

Going through considerable effort to ensure Russian language errors were in the first documents provided to the press.

Probable use of a VM set to Russian timezone while manipulating documents so that datastore objects with timestamps implying a Russian timezone setting are saved (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0’s documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!)

The deliberate and inconsistent mangling of English language (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with).

Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for a hack that was already being attributed to Russians without making any effort to counter that perception and only denied it when outright questioned on it.

End Quote

By the way, I believe the bit about the alleged Russian hackers using a server in the Central Time Zone was explicitly inserted into the indictment to counter the fact that at least some of Guccifer's documents had time stamps indicating the Eastern Time Zone, this as a result of The Forensicator's analysis which the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity relied on (mostly incorrectly) to assert that this "proved" the alleged "hack" was actually a leak.

While it is no surprise that hackers of any stripe would acquire access to servers or PCs in their target country, either by compromise or by legitimately leasing using anonymous means, the indictment has them going all over the place to locations in Arizona, Malaysia, none of which were discussed by CrowdStrike or anyone else over the last two years.

This, as Larry Johnson points out in references in the next article, indicate that much of the indictment's source has to be the intelligence community, and not the FBI. Only the NSA is likely to have this sort of information, as we know from Snowden and Bill Binney that the NSA has the capability to track almost every packet on the Internet that crosses the US network (minus local, short-range wireless.)

Clinging to Collusion: Why Evidence Will Probably Never Be Produced in the Indictments of ‘Russian Agents’


“When you dig into this indictment … there are huge problems, starting with how in the world did they identify 12 Russian intelligence officers with the GRU?” said former CIA analyst Larry Johnson in an interview with Consortium News. Johnson pointed out that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was not allowed to take part in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on alleged interference by the GRU. Only hand-picked analysts from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA were involved.

“The experts in the intelligence community on the GRU … is the Defense Intelligence Agency and they were not allowed to clear on that document,” Johnson said.

“When you look at the level of detail about what [the indictment is] claiming, there is no other public source of information on this, and it was not obtained through U.S. law enforcement submitting warrants and getting affidavits to conduct research in Russia, so it’s clearly intelligence information from the NSA, most likely,” Johnson said.

End Quote

Or, of course, it could just be total BS cooked up out of whole cloth precisely so it can be presented without any expectation of having to produce actual evidence in court...

Stephen McIntyre, of the ClimateAudit Web site, who has done a lot of articles on the alleged DNC "hack" (he has links to them in his Twitter posts), has a long multipart post on Twitter analyzing the indictment. He has been going over his articles to see what might have to be updated and he's not finding much that changes his mind about anything.


Stephen McIntyre‏ @ClimateAudit 6h6 hours ago
21/ re-capping: nearly everything in the indictment pertains to hacking of uninteresting and unimportant DNC and DCCC documents which no one was interested. Podesta hack was very first event, was simple spearphish, no exotic malware. No new details on DNC email hack.

End Quote


Get the whole story at .... 

Posted 15-jul-18

Sponsor Ads

About Franto Hruz Magnate I     - Our Team Members Get More Value

1,904 connections, 72 recommendations, 9,130 honor points.
Joined APSense since, September 25th, 2007, From Toronto, Canada.

Created on Jul 16th 2018 20:51. Viewed 404 times.


No comment, be the first to comment.
Please sign in before you comment.