Forensic Evidence That The Russians DID NOT Hack The DNC...It Was An Insider Leak

Looks like the truth is starting to unfold. A group of former U.S. Intelligence Officers say the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by a Russian operative. It was, in fact, an "inside" leak.

The report alleges the DNC suffered an insider leak, which was conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

Men with very high credentials were involved in this extensive report, which was shared with the left-liberal magazine, THE NATION.

The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. These men have experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies.

Supposedly they have shared this report with the appropriate authorities and are hoping that it's recognized by Special Counsel Mueller. There were some very damning information these men uncovered:

President Trump’s ability to conduct foreign policy with Russia has been crippled. He was forced into signing legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia which will make it difficult for it to pursue its pipeline project to its vital energy sector. This could actually be considered an act of war. This was directly caused by the DNC’s assertions that Russians hacked the server in July. This is actually the foundation that ended up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller just calling a Grand Jury! The equation that has been used in this absurd evolution, crippling a sitting President is: possibilities turning into allegations – allegations turning into probabilities – probabilities turning into certainties – certainties being used as established truths. I am not a lawyer, but I would say this makes a mockery out of the law, does it not? This was a highly corrupt manipulation of language repeated by the news media. We have been urged to accept the word of institutions and officials with serious records of deception. A year has been lost without any credible evidence of what happened last year at the DNC and who was responsible for it. The so-called professionals surrounding this investigation have used words “high confidence” in their “assessment.”

investmentwatchblog.com...< br />
It wasn't a Russian "hack", but an inside "leak."

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. Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

www.thenation.com...

The author of this article implies that Seth Rich could be the "leaker."


The article mentions that besides these intelligence officers, there were other sources (Julian Assange and Kim DotCom) who also had evidence of the inside DNC leak. The DNC's response to this information, that was disclosed first in THE NATION magazine, written by Patrick Lawrence:

“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

investmentwatchblog.com...< br />

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The author of this article implies that Seth Rich could be the "leaker."

I'm guessing that will be what is used against the source in attempts to discredit the whole thing. However some great points are made:

This highly moral group of professionals were overwhelmed at the incompetence of the FBI investigation into the DNC hack, which has been proven to be a leak. The following aspects of the investigation concerned them, as it should everyone.

President Trump’s ability to conduct foreign policy with Russia has been crippled. He was forced into signing legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia which will make it difficult for it to pursue its pipeline project to its vital energy sector. This could actually be considered an act of war. This was directly caused by the DNC’s assertions that Russians hacked the server in July.

This is actually the foundation that ended up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller just calling a Grand Jury!

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

This is speculation - albeit made by people who will be used to determining the likely truth. It sounds like their analysis agrees that the rate of data transfer precludes a hack.

Personally, it's difficult to take a definitive position as no one has provided any real evidence - including the "17 agencies" - I mean a hand picked team from 3 agencies.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Okay, if you can't take the word of four career intelligence analysts who actually investigated the matter, who can you trust?

Talk about towing the party line....

Also, the OP posted two videos which collectively span ten minutes. You posted your comment 6 minutes after the thread was made... Clearly you didn't bother watching those. Though I get it. Gotta be quick to undermine the case that will bring this corrupt establishment down.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Is the FBI investigating this currently? Or have they closed the book on these leaks.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

How do you explain the d/l speed of the files then? Too fast to be remotely done.

Both the article in The Nation and the letter from VIPS seem balanced and well thought out. They lay things out in a clear fashion. On the other hand, all they have is anonymous sources. Is the metadata published anywhere? This absolutely doesn't prove anything, but it's definitely something worth looking into.

The download speed might be hard evidence, something that's been sorely lacking on both sides in this whole case. They should just publish that data.

And I don't get why Assange has to give those mysterious warnings in advance, why not just put it out right away? Could have saved people a lot of trouble, if these experts are right. I still don't know what to make of this.

DUDE!!!!!

Keep up with the narrative. They know this and have dropped the Russia crap.

They are back on Trump's a racist. That's always the fall back.

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Okay, if you can't take the word of four career intelligence analysts who actually investigated the matter, who can you trust?

Talk about towing the party line....

Also, the OP posted two videos which collectively span ten minutes. You posted your comment 6 minutes after the thread was made... Clearly you didn't bother watching those. Though I get it. Gotta be quick to undermine the case that will bring this corrupt establishment down.

You figured me out. I'm a very hardcore DNC and Clinton supporter. My post history shows my very clear leanings toward being alt-left and anti-Trump. Ask anyone and they'll tell you I am definitely the most rabid antifa supporter in the KNOWN UNIVERSE.

There was lots of discussion on the forensics here.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

How do you explain the d/l speed of the files then? Too fast to be remotely done.

I agree, read the thread in my link above.

An article about an article about evidence isn't really going to get anybody put behind bars.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sarcasm aside it doesn't change the fact that your knee jerk reaction is to declare "fake news". What is it that the OP presented that causes you to make that claim in 6 minutes or less?

And for the record, state sponsored accounts often present opposing views so to throw off suspicion... so....

a reply to: HorizonFall

Do you really think these former career intelligence analysts have all the evidence available to them that the Feds have? Doubtful. This is like the story of the blind men holding different parts of an elephant and describing what it looks like.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

How do you explain the d/l speed of the files then? Too fast to be remotely done.

I agree, read the thread in my link above.

An article about an article about evidence isn't really going to get anybody put behind bars.

I will look at your link.

It's still evidence and can either be proved or disproved. Hell the FBI,NSA ect...STILL haven't told us exactly what evidence has them convinced that Russia hacked the DNC. They didn't even look at servers for God's sake. Too many uncertainties for me to just take the word of Spook Acronyms on this one.

a reply to: Regnor

I disagree. However, all of this is entirely irrelevant to begin with. Even if Russia did hack them, would anyone really care? The US is complicit in hacking every other country and meddling with their electoral process. Would anyone really care if they got a taste of their own medicine? I for one would not.

Though even that is irrelevant because if one hacks someone's emails and leaks them revealing various crimes and corruption, can that really be considered a crime?

Clinton, Podesta, Schultz and the DNC are all career criminals. The reason this sham investigation has gotten nowhere in 9 months is because the FBI is stalling it for as long as possible so to avoid the real investigation: The content of the leaks.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I reread the thread again....nothing in that thread does much to disprove the assertions of Foregisncator. This assertion should be easily proven or disproven. Lack of server hampers proving one way or other. What proof to you have to offer that the files were remotely downloaded and not downloaded from an DNC computer that was in the Eastern Time Zone? Till disproven, the OP is still a potential way of it happening.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

I agree , trust but verify. But , and there is always one , there is a term in law "preponderance of evidence" (even if circumstantial) . This can lead to a prosecution of law no matter what is "believed" by the populace.
Be careful when you state absolutes. As Forrest Gump said , "thats when it jumped up and bit me on the buttocks"

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Sarcasm aside it doesn't change the fact that your knee jerk reaction is to declare "fake news". What is it that the OP presented that causes you to make that claim in 6 minutes or less?

And for the record, state sponsored accounts often present opposing views so to throw off suspicion... so....

Did you read the thread I linked? There's a whole big thread how did you read it so fast? Why the knee-jerk reaction?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I reread the thread again....nothing in that thread does much to disprove the assertions of Foregisncator. This assertion should be easily proven or disproven. Lack of server hampers proving one way or other. What proof to you have to offer that the files were remotely downloaded and not downloaded from an DNC computer that was in the Eastern Time Zone? Till disproven, the OP is still a potential way of it happening.

I agreed with you... as I said many times in the thread you just read. I didn't dispute it at all.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Hate to say it, but... fake news. There may well have been an inside leak, but this isn't evidence of it.

I agree , trust but verify. But , and there is always one , there is a term in law "preponderance of evidence" (even if circumstantial) . This can lead to a prosecution of law no matter what is "believed" by the populace.
Be careful when you state absolutes. As Forrest Gump said , "thats when it jumped up and bit me on the buttocks"

I think we all know it was not Russians. Without the servers, which are probably in little pieces somewhere, we will never know. The AG should have subpoenaed the servers the moment they alleged Russian interference instead of allowing the 3rd party investigation nonsense that happened.

Aside from that who is going to be prosecuted and for what? The whole point, in my opinion, in proving it wasn't Russians was to stop the asinine collusion narrative. The left has moved on to racism now because Russia was not flying with anybody except for rabid leftists.