Official narrative of "Russian hack" of Democrats changes

Initially, the DNC passively supported the notion that Guccifer 2.0 stole a copy of a Trump opposition report by penetrating the DNC at the behest of the Russian state. Then over a year later, an un-named ex-DNC official tells us that this document in fact came from Podesta’s emails, not the DNC. This single statement by a DNC official invalidated the circumstantial evidence that had been used to support the DNC’s Russian hacking claims, and represents a groundbreaking contradiction that has gone unobserved by establishment press outlets.

This report will also discuss numerous mistakes made by various legacy press outlets in their obsessive focus on the Russian hacking narrative and their rush to judgment in the matter.

A Late (and Quiet) Change in the DNC Russian Hacking Narrative

In November 2017, the DNC changed their Russian hacking narrative via their proxies in the legacy media. The Associated Press published, Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails; they cite an anonymous former DNC official who asserts that Guccifer 2.0’s first document (the Trump opposition report) did not originate in the DNC as initially reported. The importance of this contradiction, combined with earlier allegations of hacking the DNC made by Guccifer 2.0, cannot be overstated.

The Associated Press wrote in November 2017:

“…There were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox, according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.”

By classifying Guccifer 2.0’s claim to have obtained the Trump Opposition Report through a breach of the DNC as a sign of dishonesty, the Associated Press uses the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s widely held claim as an example of contradiction with their new version of the 'official' Russian hacking narrative. In so doing, the AP makes the hacking allegations entirely nebulous: a fantasy narrative that can be neither proven nor disproven but easily edited and rearranged when convenient. Incredibly, the AP’s article also contradicts the claims made by the DNC themselves, and so-called papers of record, including the Washington Post.

By returning to the genesis of the Russian hacking narrative, we find that the AP's November report runs contrary to the DNC's initial claims, as reported by The Washington Post, in an article titled, Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC, Stole Opposition Research On Trump. When reviewing this early history of the matter, it becomes clear that it is logically impossible to separate the Guccifer 2.0 persona from the allegations of a Kremlin-backed hack of the DNC. Critical statements in that initial report by the Washington Post are highlighted below for emphasis:

“Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach…

…[Fancy Bear] broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files,[Shawn] Henry said.”

By taking this later (2017) stance, the Associated Press contradicts the "official" Russian hacking narrative involving Guccifer 2.0 (as implied by the DNC’s own security firm) and which had, until that point, been characterized by the corporate press as Russian-hacking-gospel-truth. By seamlessly excising Guccifer 2.0 from culpability within a new timeline of events, the Associated Press makes the entire hacking story a fantasy narrative that can be neither proven nor disproven but must not be questioned.

www.zerohedge.com...

Ok so this is a tough article to read, and I am not very tech literate, but I will do my best to articulate what I see here.

The official narrative is as follows; both the DNC and John Podestas personal emails were hacked. In other words, two seperate accounts were hacked.

Originally, the media and the democrats reported that the very first documents that were hacked were the dmeocrats opposition research file on trump, and this was hacked from the DNC server.

This is quoted in the section I quoted above, showing that Crowdstrike, the dnc paid firm that analyzed the server, said that the russian hackers broke in to the DNC (not Podesta) server and got the Trump opposition files.

Now fast forward to the Ap story from November 2017.

That story specifically says that the russian hacker was Guccifer 2.0, and that intial reporting was wrong saying that the original trump opposition research was hacked from the DNC server, but it was actually the Podesta server that was hacked for that info.

SO what does this mean.

That Crowdstrike was wrong with their initial claims, and wasnt even able to correctly analyze which server the original hacked material came from.

And that the media that parroted crowdstrike and breathlessly said they were absolutely right were oin fact, wrong.

Now some will say; so what, the AP now says the russians still hacked the democrats, crowdstrike just had the wrong server intially.

The point is if Crowdstrike was so conbfident in their intial claims, and the media believed them without question, and they were wrong, why should we now take their word for any of their work.

This may have been an important reason to HAVE THE FBI LOOK AT THE SERVER!!!!!! instead of a democratic paid firm.

Now the article goes on to point out other discrepancies, such as Guccifer adding water marks and russian signatures that werent on the original files that made it easier to find out Russians did it; and how these matters seem very sketchy.

But the important part is the original narrative, that we were all told was the gospel and couldnt be questioned, is now admitted to have been wrong, but just trust them, this time they are right.

Oh, also take their word that THERE WAS NO NEED FOR TH FBI TO LOOK AT THE SERVER!!!

a reply to: Grambler

Can't look at the server.

Not now.

Not ever.

It was lost in the chain of custody for 5 weeks.



So I guess we'll just have to take their word for i-. . . . .




Sorry. Just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Can't look at the server.

Not now.

Not ever.

It was lost in the chain of custody for 5 weeks.



So I guess we'll just have to take their word for i-. . . . .




Sorry. Just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

No I thinkl you are thinking of Hillarys server.

I know, its so convoluded.

But I think the story you are referencing is the Hillary server that was taken by the FBI for the investigation they did on Hillary.

They lost chain of custody of that server for 5 weeks.

The DNC server that was supposedly hacked by Russia was never in FBI custody at all, hence they would not be able to lose chain of custody.

So as unbelievable as it sounds, in both the russia hack case, and the Hillary server case, the FBI has screwed up both of the two pieces of evidence in those cases; the two servers.

In the Hillary case, they lost chain of custody for 5 weeks, making any evidnce on the server all but worthless.

In the russia hack case, they never even looked at the server to get evidence from it, and instead relied on a paid DNC firm to look at the server.

It boggles the mind how the anti trumpers have no problem with this.

a reply to: Grambler

That's even worse. They way they have basically destroyed any chance of developing evidence shows premeditation and a well crafted plan A and plan B.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

That's even worse. They way they have basically destroyed any chance of developing evidence shows premeditation and a well crafted plan A and plan B.

If you were to look at the situation in the absolute best possible light for the FBI and intel agencies, it would be that this shows extreme incompetence.

However, if you look at this in connections with all of the other facts we know, I think it paints a picture of extreme corruption, and a hatred of trump.

Either way, even anti trumpers should be disgusted by this.

Yet as we know, many of them dont care at all about deep state corruption or incompetence as long as its used against trump.

a reply to: Grambler

We already know based on the timestamps the files were transferred at speeds we would expect of direct file copy operations that are substantially faster than a web transfer. If Russians stole the files, then they were either onsite, or not the only ones. But let's remember here that John Mark Dougan sought and continues to live in Russia under political asylum. He claims to have been in receipt of the files and had two meetings with the leaker.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's worse because its obstruction of justice?

a reply to: Grambler

I can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to prove. Also, Podesta didn't have a server to be hacked. Podesta's Gmail account was phished.

Just start shooting people until someone talks.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to prove. Also, Podesta didn't have a server to be hacked. Podesta's Gmail account was phished.

It's a bit confusing but I think I get it. They first contended Russians hacked the dnc based on evidence later found to be incorrect -- a trump opposition email that was actually stole from Podesta phishing hack.

The "phishing" of course should not to be confused with the picture of Podesta with a pictionary on his hands saying "fishing for teens" in pictograms.

a reply to: Grambler

This whole saga reads like a conspiracy that seeks to be pinned on someone other than the perpetrators.


1+1 = 30,0000

a reply to: Grambler


The upcoming installment of the multi-part I.G. Report is focused on what happened during the 2016 election cycle. I hope there are revealing details on the DNC/Podesta hacking. Maybe we'll even find out how those e-mails made it to Wiki-leaks.

a reply to: JinMI

Lol@ 30,0000. It's okay tho, commas really have no meaning aside from formatting for regions/locales.

I gave you a * for putting up with my crap.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: JinMI

Lol@ 30,0000. It's okay tho, commas really have no meaning aside from formatting for regions/locales.

I gave you a * for putting up with my crap.

Caught me fat fingering....I should edit it but I think it'll stay.

Should we be paying the people who work at the FBI so well? They seem to mess things up, maybe some new people should be hired. If I had workers like they do, I would have been out of business in a few years.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I can't make heads or tails of what this is trying to prove. Also, Podesta didn't have a server to be hacked. Podesta's Gmail account was phished.

Right.

The original narrative put forth by corwdstrike, the DNC, and the media was that the very first tghing hacked was the opp files on Trump.

That hack came from: the DNC account hacked.

Here is the wash post story at the time.

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

...

DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.

...

That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called Henry, [this is Grambler adding this, Henry is Shawn Henry, President of Crowdstrike] whom he has known for many years.

Within 24 hours, CrowdStrike had installed software on the DNC’s computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.

...

The firm identified two separate hacker groups, both working for the Russian government, that had infiltrated the network, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer. The firm had analyzed other breaches by both groups over the past two years.

One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring the DNC’s email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.

The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff — an average of about several dozen on any given day.

www.washingtonpost.com... 4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.75acc96ba396

So crowdstrike is saying the opposition files came from the hack of the DNC account.

That was the narrative.

Now fast forward to November 2017.

The AP does a story saying a DC official has said that this was in fact false, and the opposition file did not come from the DNC account, but from Podestas.

The AP has since found that each of one of those Democrats had previously been targeted by Fancy Bear, either at their personal Gmail addresses or via the DNC, a finding established by running targets’ emails against the Secureworks’ list.

All three leak-branded sites have distanced themselves from Moscow. DCLeaks claimed to be run by American hacktivists. WikiLeaks said Russia wasn’t its source. Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian.

But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document .

Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.

www.apnews.com...

Now notice the Ap article is saying Guccifer 2.0 is Fancy bear.

So lets look at this.

Corwdstrike says in the roiginal washington post story that they were called in to investigate the DNC server, and found that Fancy bear hacked the opposition files on trumps from that server.

That was wrong.

Now the story has changed to the oppositon files on trump were not hacked from the DNC server, but from Podestas email account.

So way back on June 14, 2016, the washington post is interviewing the head of crowdstrike, who is saying he got a call from a woamn at the dnc to investigate there server, and found evidence of fancybear hacking an opposition file from that server.

Now we find out that never happened, that in fact that oppo research was got by fancy bear from Podesta email account, not the DNC server.

How could crowdsstrike make this blunder?

More to follow

a reply to: Grambler

How could crowdstrike make this blunder you ask? Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukranian billionaire with ties to Clinton. Sounds like Russian meddling to me...

Basically if you see libs accuse another party of something its cuz they are already guilty of it.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: Grambler

How could crowdstrike make this blunder you ask? Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukranian billionaire with ties to Clinton. Sounds like Russian meddling to me...

Basically if you see libs accuse another party of something its cuz they are already guilty of it.

Beat me to it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow, I think I may have really stumbled on to something here.

Lets look at the timelines here.

The washington post article is from June 14, 2016.

This article outlines crowdstrikes initial claims.

It claims that crowdstrike was called in in late April 2016, and within days had found out about the hack.

Notice what it says.

The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff — an average of about several dozen on any given day.

www.washingtonpost.com... 4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.75acc96ba396

Not only does it say that Fancy bear stole these opposition files on trump in late april, but it says this was the alarm that triggered them knowing about the hack in the first place.

Now in November 4 2017, we are told this is not true, that is was incorrectly reported that the opposition research fuiles were hacked from the DNC server, but really it was from Podestas email account.

This means that not only was crowdstrike wrong, they flat out lied or were wrong about what caused the intial alarm for the hack!

This is damning!

But wait, there is more.

You might say, "OK there is a simple explanation. Crowdstrike was investigating the DNC server hack AND Podestas email account in April of 2016, and they merely got confused when the said the opposition files on trump came from the DNC server."

I htought of that.

SO lets see what John Podesta himeslf says about that.

TechCrunch: When did you know your account was compromised? You were hacked in March but these emails didn’t start coming out until October. Did you know in between then that this was a possibility?

Podesta: In the summer, when the DNC hack documents started coming out, there was a document in that release that didn’t seem like it would have made its way to the DNC and may have come from my email account. So at least the possibility I’d been hacked rose during the course of the summer. In August, [Trump adviser] Roger Stone started pointing to WikiLeaks and pointing to me. So that seemed to be the second indicator that they at least had something, but it wasn’t until October 7th that the full extent of the loss was known to me and our team.

techcrunch.com...

Did you get that?

Podesta didnt even know he was hacked until the summer of 2016! That means that Crowdstrike was not investigating Podestas hack in April 2016 when they claimed that the opposition files on trump were hacked from the DNC server, and that sent the alarm for the whole thing.

The entire story is garbage!

Think what this means.

The FBI, instead of LOOKING AT THE SERVER THEMSELVES!!!!, took crowdstrikes word as to what happened.

Crowdstrike is brazenly saying in April of 2016 fancybear hacked the DNC and this triggered the alram that got them called in.

Now we know that was not the case, and in fact these opposition researched files were from the Podesta emails, not the dnc.

SO crowdstrike was wrong about the hacks from the get go.

And yet the FBI has taken their word for where the hacks came from, and to this day have not looked at the server.

This shatters the official russian hack narrative we have been fed.

a reply to: rickymouse


Most FBI agents are of sterling character. In fact, many of them want to testify to Congress about how slimy Comey and McCabe were. Those two being fired from the top of the agency was welcomed by most of the rank-and-file.

Story: www.westernjournal.com...