Julian Assange: Trump 'offered pardon for Russia denial'

a reply to: chr0naut

Stone's request for proof Russia hacked DNC
Stone De 123 DOJ Response to MTC CrowdStrike Reports

Official court documents from the Roger Stone trial.

Stone wanted the FBI's proof Russians hacked the DNC server as part of his defense. The rebuttal states the FBI only received '3 redacted draft reports from the DNC' and doesn't have anything at all from their actual servers. Just the 3 CrowdStrike reports...

From the 2nd link:
 

As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.

That's a direct statement from the FBI admitting they never got access to the servers or 'drive images' of them. The FBI and '17 intelligence agencies' all made their judgement from CrowdStrike's 3 redacted draft reports. Not even a full, finished report.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: chr0naut

Seth Rich died on the July 10th 2016. The Wikileaks files are dated (inside the .zip files) 7 Dec 2016. Not that it means much but that is months after he was dead.

Where’s your source for that? Because it
definitely wasn’t that Wikipedia link you gave just above. Nowhere on the Wikipedia page for The Murder Of Seth Rich does it even mention Wikileaks.

Not that it means much, but that means you’re full of sh!t.

In a previous post I had a link to the actual source files of the Wikileaks DNC Archive. I opened several of the files, which are compressed, and looked at the dates on those files which were timestamped when the files were compressed.

In the topic thread, it was suggested by another poster that Seth Rich was the source for the DNC hack/leak.

I posted just one reason that it was not likely to have been Seth Rich. That doesn't rule him out, but it has been investigated by others and the general consensus is that it could not have been him.

Along with the VIPS clarification of their original memo, the whole set of presumptions leading to the idea that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails, begins to look tenuous.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.

A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee

The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Was anyone under a sworn oath when that statement was made?
Do they have actual evidence, beyond hearsay, that the statement is true?

I have had it with attacks based upon hearsay....I want actual evidence, that you can use in a court of law.

Until then, it's all just noise.

My but Trump has so many apologists!

Always with the excuses.

SO, asking for a statement to be made under oath, with the risk of perjury and jail sentence is now being an apologist?

YOu truly arte delusional arent; you?

As I have stated dozens of times here, and you already know this, I didn't vote for Trump. So, I have nothing to apologize for at all. But I am still fed up with hearsay, presumptions, assumptions, and outright lies being used as "evidence of anything". And I do not give a furry rat's tail what political party is doing that.

Umm, this was a statement, by a lawyer, attending a court of law, but slightly before a hearing had taken place, so I guess he wasn't under oath at the time.

My guess is that neither the lawyer, nor Julian Assange, will profit personally from saying this (at least I can't see an ulterior motivation), so, it is likely to be true. Of course, if it is true, it is another attempt by Trump to pervert the course of justice by asking Assange to say something that may have been false.

And since Assange had previously denied any knowledge of Russian source, it is indicative of an ill-considered guilty reaction on Trump's part.

However, in the post I was commenting on the large number of times there has been an accusation against Trump and then people make all sorts of mental gymnastic efforts to not see the bleedin' obvious. Don't you guys get tired of doing it over and over? Making excuses for him?

You are mistaken, I am not making excuses. I am asking that we vett these accusations by requiring them to be done under oath, and threat of penalty if found to be untruths. REGARDLESS of who it is....how is that an excuse????


Seriously?

The accusations have been vetted and backed up by enough evidence that a high court judge has ruled it admissible in court. That only happens when there's a mountain of evidence to show it was true. Lawyers and judges aren't going to make such claims and risk lengthy sentences for perjury and complete collapse of the defence if it turns out to be untrue.

It doesn't rule out the fact Wiki/Assange publicly claimed the source wasn't Russian prior to the approach by the US (journalists don't reveal sources anyway) but it does show with a very high likelihood and substantial amount of evidence that passes the pre-trial tests that some form of plea bargain was offered.

It's the UK court system and judges - such rulings don't happen without serious amounts of evidence. Assange, the defence lawyers and the judge can be held in jail for a lengthy time for deciet and perjury if the claims are shown and known to be fabricated at this and latter trial stages.


Here's an overview of the process and applicable perjury and deceit laws: www.cps.gov.uk...

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: chr0naut

Stone's request for proof Russia hacked DNC
Stone De 123 DOJ Response to MTC CrowdStrike Reports

Official court documents from the Roger Stone trial.

Stone wanted the FBI's proof Russians hacked the DNC server as part of his defense. The rebuttal states the FBI only received '3 redacted draft reports from the DNC' and doesn't have anything at all from their actual servers. Just the 3 CrowdStrike reports...

From the 2nd link:
 

As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.

That's a direct statement from the FBI admitting they never got access to the servers or 'drive images' of them. The FBI and '17 intelligence agencies' all made their judgement from CrowdStrike's 3 redacted draft reports. Not even a full, finished report.

CrowdStrike had superior and proprietary software for data forensics and were employed by the FBI to identify who the hackers may have been. The drive images were given to the FBI by the DNC administrators. If they simply handed them straight to CrowdStrike without retaining backups then it may have been because they had total trust in CrowdStrike.

And what do you imagine they would find on the server that CrowdStrike couldn't? Do you imagine that the Russians left a simple calling card with names and personal addresses?

Here's CrowdStrikes explanation with all the actual technical details that the media leaves out:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - CrowdStrike Blog

And CrowdStrike isn't the only company that had the images and did forensics on the data. Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect all analysed the data and concluded that it was a Russian hack.

The conspiracy theory nonsesnse put out by the pro-Republican media and FaceBork pundits is fake news.

Even a redacted report from CrowdStrike clearly identified that the hackers were Russian. SecureWorks and the FBI both identified the IP address of one of the hacks and the fact that it physically came from a Moscow building that also housed exclusively, Russian government agencies.

a reply to: chr0naut

William Binney's claim: The files were copied to the USB drive, not transferred over the net. Straight from the horse's mouth, read here: www.informationclearinghouse.info.... The link points to another conspiracy site, but the article is from Binney himself.

Chr0naut's claim: The hacked data could have been copied up to Guccifer2.0's machine days earlier at a slow rate and then copied to a thumb drive. This would then save in the metadata the speed of copying to the thumb drive, and NOT the speed that the data was actually downloaded.

What we know so far:

1. Copying files under all three most popular operating systems, Windows, Linux and OSX, do not alter the file date and time. However, copying to a FAT formatted drive, the time stamp will be truncated to even seconds. Regardless of copying from the server or the hacker's computer, the time stamps would not be the write speed of the USB drive, because the time stamp is from the source files. However, if the files were created by a program directly written to a USB drive, the time stamp would be close to what Binney stated. The nuance here is important for my conclusion later.

2: Based on the time stamps being rounded to even seconds, Binney was right about the FAT file system being used. USB drives are often formatted with FAT. Hard drives do not use FAT due to the limitations.

3. 23 megabytes per second matches the transfer speed of a cheap USB 2.0 thumb drive, or the speed of a typical office WiFi system.

4. Files can definitely be transferred across the Atlantic with speed over 23 megabytes per second in 2016. Binney was wrong about the internet being too slow to produce the time stamps. Many years ago, probably around 2012, I had to rsync many large video files between two data centers in Dallas and London every night for replication. I was getting speed around 50 megabytes per second over the internet. The traffic was routed over Level 3's transatlantic network, which was not exactly the fastest out there.


Analysis:

I came up with six ways to transfer the files and produce the time stamps like the files released by Wikileaks.

First three methods, use a program to extract the files directly to the USB drive, from the server, or from a computer via the DNC LAN, or from the internet.

The fourth method, use a program to extract the already downloaded files from the hacker's computer into a USB drive. If you were the hacker with the information on your server, you normally would just copy the files, not using a program to extract the files. As stated earlier, copying of the files do not modify the time stamps. If you were the hacker with a backdoor to the DNC server via the internet, where would you extract the information to? Your hard drive, a USB thumb drive? You would extract the files to your hard drive, not a USB thumb drive. If you were a leaker siting at the server, or at a computer in the same LAN, you would not want any files touching any of the hard drives DNC owns. You would want to run the program from your USB drive and get the data directly to a USB drive.

The fifth method, use a program to extract the files from the server to a remote computer via an internet connection of greater than 250mbps, assuming the DNC office had a minimum of 250mbps of upload performance. It is possible, but not probable. Crowd Strike was supposed to be in charge of the network security. I would be surprised if they didn't pickup that much upload burst to a known Russian operated facility. If they are incompetent to the point of failing detection of such an obvious breach, none of their assessment of the breach can be trusted. Even a homemade pfsense router would have detected and stopped that upload dead in the track.

The last method, use a program to extract the files from the DNC server to a WiFi connected laptop, then copied to a FAT formatted thumb drive.

Conclusion: There is no conclusive evidence available to the public one way or another. Most likely, the files were extracted with a program directly to a USB drive from the server, or from a computer in the same LAN. Alternatively, a leaker extracted the files from the server to a laptop via a WiFi connection, then copied the files to a USB thumb drive. It is possible the files were extracted to a remote computer via the internet, but not likely.

About me: I made this account years ago, but I am not a regular here. I was here for the fun stuff, but this site has changed for sure. I came back to read up on COVID-19. Anyway, I am just a college dropout making $150/hr as an independent contractor, messing with servers, routers and network stuff. I also do some programming in LUA, Java, Javascript, C, PHP, Perl, powershell, bash, VB, SQL, awk, sed, and some other fun stuff.

originally posted by: nospam2014
a reply to: chr0naut

... snip (for brevity) ...

Thanks for the informative, detailed and as far as I can see, factual post.



Also, it has been my observation that on all OS's mentioned, the download of files via FTP client or a web browser, timestamps those files with their time of download and does not retain the time stamps from the source.

This is easily verified by downloading a file and looking at the timestamp.

a reply to: chr0naut

Wasn't CrowdStrike in charge with the network security to start with. They failed big time, but you still trust them 100%, more so than the FBI?

Tell me. If you paid a lot of money to a security expert for only one thing. Which is to not let anybody steal your stuff. Then you found some well known criminal selling your stuff on Craigslist before you and your expert even know your stuff got stolen. Do you still trust your security expert in anything he's got to say? Especially when that expert tells you, "Oh yeah, that well known criminal just walked right through the back door with your crap while we watched. And please trust us and not call the cops. We are the best."

Do you see how absurd that is? I am sure you are an intelligent person, but why do you want to hold back your mind by staying inside of that lefty bubble? You don't have to turn a sharp right. Please read Binney's article I posted earlier. He's got a few things right, but a few thing wrong too. Just getting out of that bubble once in a while will do you some good.

a reply to: nospam2014

I agree it's not conclusive either way - the timestamps or associated metadata needs to be taken with a heapspoon full of salt as metadata is either warped or scrubbed by standard journalists to avoid revealing source ID. Sunshine Press, the organisation who run Wikileaks, use a much higher standard than average journalists.

a reply to: chr0naut

Correct, ftp and http download do not retain the time stamp. See my analysis of method #5. Ftp and http would be one of the programs that could have been used to transfer the files. But see my post, the transfer speed would have to be greater than 250mbps, to a known Russian operated facility. How can the security system setup by CrowdStrike not able to catch that when they are paid big bucks to do just that kind of stuff.

There is more than what they tell us for sure.

originally posted by: alldaylong
Interesting story just breaking.

A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee

The White House have of course denied the claim is true.

Let's see what becomes of this.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Kind of an odd offer when Assange has already said Russia did not do it.
This is from 2017

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: alldaylong

A lawyer for Julian Assange has alleged that President Donald Trump offered to pardon the Wikileaks founder, if he said Russia was not involved in leaking emails during the 2016 US election.

The offer is said to have been conveyed by the former Republican Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.

Assange's barrister revealed the claim at Westminster Magistrates' Court ahead of an extradition hearing next wee


Magically comes out after a few pardons. I call BS by someone needing attention.

a reply to: mikell

Magically comes out after a few pardons. I call BS by someone needing attention.

The timing is suspicious, to say the least. However, Dana Rohrabacher admits to having made the "pardon" offer to Assange.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

That's not the same as "Russia didn't hack the DNC".

a reply to: chr0naut

In a previous post I had a link to the actual source files of the Wikileaks DNC Archive. I opened several of the files, which are compressed, and looked at the dates on those files which were timestamped when the files were compressed.

Yup, I saw the link. It takes you to an archived mirror of the wikileaksdotorg archive.

The problem with that can be found by simply pulling up the DNC emails at the real Wikileaks website. The files have two dates that are scripted into the web page itself, not the copied emails. The dates are used to catalogue when they were created, and when they were released by Wikileaks, and every email in the archives are dated in the headings as well.

When you compare the dates for when the file was created to the dates that are stamped within the email headings themselves they are a match.

The time stamps you are referring to are dates for when Wikileaks released them on their website. If you remember, Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th 2016. Most of the emails, particularly the ones that show them conspiring to take out Bernie, are dated for the last week of June 2016.

One thing you will not see when looking at the dates created/dates sent is any email dated to have been sent on or after July 10th 2016.

The DNC Convention was July 25th 2016 and that morning on the first day of the convention is when Assange released the first dump of DNC emails. Remember that Assange released the DNC emails in three waves, with the last drop being the night before the election in November.

Also released by Wikileaks two weeks prior on October 25th were the Podesta emails. Evidence from the emails themselves show that Podesta fell for the most basic phishing scam on the internet, not to mention he had lost his cell phone somewhere in DuPont Circle, DC.

Your smoke and mirrors aren’t holding up your facade too well. I would think that such a distinguished IT expert such as yourself would be able to differentiate the dates created/sent from the dates released. I did, and I’m not even an IT expert.

Do you always glow in the dark?

originally posted by: nospam2014
a reply to: chr0naut

Wasn't CrowdStrike in charge with the network security to start with.

No, they were called in after the hack.

They failed big time, but you still trust them 100%, more so than the FBI?

Tell me. If you paid a lot of money to a security expert for only one thing. Which is to not let anybody steal your stuff. Then you found some well known criminal selling your stuff on Craigslist before you and your expert even know your stuff got stolen. Do you still trust your security expert in anything he's got to say? Especially when that expert tells you, "Oh yeah, that well known criminal just walked right through the back door with your crap while we watched. And please trust us and not call the cops. We are the best."

Do you see how absurd that is? I am sure you are an intelligent person, but why do you want to hold back your mind by staying inside of that lefty bubble? You don't have to turn a sharp right. Please read Binney's article I posted earlier. He's got a few things right, but a few thing wrong too. Just getting out of that bubble once in a while will do you some good.

Your entire premise is wrong.

According to the article you posted, the hack was discovered by the DNC on 29 April 2016 and CrowdStrike detected evidence that a hacker had been there on the 6 May 2016, a week after the DNC realized that they were being hacked.

At the time, nothing was known about what the hackers had recovered. This was only a detection of the presence of a hacker in the system.

My guess is that the DNC and CrowdStrike were trying to gather more evidence by watching the hackers for a bit (a honeytrap). I also suspect that they were unaware of the non deletion of the .pst files by their admins and that there was recoverable data that could be easily compromised.

originally posted by: nospam2014
a reply to: chr0naut

Correct, ftp and http download do not retain the time stamp. See my analysis of method #5. Ftp and http would be one of the programs that could have been used to transfer the files. But see my post, the transfer speed would have to be greater than 250mbps, to a known Russian operated facility. How can the security system setup by CrowdStrike not able to catch that when they are paid big bucks to do just that kind of stuff.

There is more than what they tell us for sure.

The transfer of data in the hack took about a minute and a half (if the metadata is an indicator) and occurred on Sunday. My guess is that the Falcon AI identified the activity, but no human was there in time to react.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: chr0naut

In a previous post I had a link to the actual source files of the Wikileaks DNC Archive. I opened several of the files, which are compressed, and looked at the dates on those files which were timestamped when the files were compressed.

Yup, I saw the link. It takes you to an archived mirror of the wikileaksdotorg archive.

The problem with that can be found by simply pulling up the DNC emails at the real Wikileaks website. The files have two dates that are scripted into the web page itself, not the copied emails. The dates are used to catalogue when they were created, and when they were released by Wikileaks, and every email in the archives are dated in the headings as well.

When you compare the dates for when the file was created to the dates that are stamped within the email headings themselves they are a match.

The time stamps you are referring to are dates for when Wikileaks released them on their website. If you remember, Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th 2016. Most of the emails, particularly the ones that show them conspiring to take out Bernie, are dated for the last week of June 2016.

One thing you will not see when looking at the dates created/dates sent is any email dated to have been sent on or after July 10th 2016.

The DNC Convention was July 25th 2016 and that morning on the first day of the convention is when Assange released the first dump of DNC emails. Remember that Assange released the DNC emails in three waves, with the last drop being the night before the election in November.

Also released by Wikileaks two weeks prior on October 25th were the Podesta emails. Evidence from the emails themselves show that Podesta fell for the most basic phishing scam on the internet, not to mention he had lost his cell phone somewhere in DuPont Circle, DC.

Your smoke and mirrors aren’t holding up your facade too well. I would think that such a distinguished IT expert such as yourself would be able to differentiate the dates created/sent from the dates released. I did, and I’m not even an IT expert.

Do you always glow in the dark?

I don't think Wikileaks held on to the e-mails, doing nothing for more than two weeks, before releasing them. That's one thing notable about Wikileaks, it's use of IT is sophisticated and efficient.

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: m
I don't think Wikileaks held on to the e-mails, doing nothing for more than two weeks, before releasing them. That's one thing notable about Wikileaks, it's use of IT is sophisticated and efficient.

Why not? They knew that releasing them the on eve of the democratic national convention would get them maximum exposure, and they were right.

We know Assange was sitting on the vault 7 trove of CIA documents for months before Their

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

Also, if the DNC had been involved in the murder of Rich, then how did they know that he had leaked any data before it was released via Cuccifer2.0 or Wikileaks?

Hmmm. I wonder?

D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump

June 14, 2016

WASHINGTON — Two groups of Russian hackers, working for competing government intelligence agencies, penetrated computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to emails, chats and a trove of opposition research against Donald J. Trump, according to the party and a cybersecurity firm.

The New York Times article from June 14 2016 confirms the DNC did indeed know their server had been compromised.

You’re either piss poor at your own investigative reporting, or you’re a piss poor shill. Either way, the facts surrounding this case contradict your baseless assertions.

Wasn't it theorized that the DNC discovered the hack and attempted to retrieve the USB from Seth Rich? That his brother was the one who actually submitted it to Wikileaks? Thus why his family and Assange refused to say it was Seth Rich. Assange would only not state who sent it if the person was still alive. He could have easily said it was Seth, but he didn't. He did state it was not the Russians quite clearly though.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Why should anyone believe anything that Julian Assange says, unless he's under oath? Even then....I'd take it anything he says with a grain of salt and need something more solid than his word.