(National Sentinel)Â Conspiracy: Earlier this month we reported that “a meta-analysis independent researcher” said files belonging to the Democratic National Committee which were summarily published by Guccifer 2.0 most likely were downloaded locally and were not hacked, especially by someone from Russia.
Now comes yet another forensic analysis, this one fromÂ former U.S. intelligence professionals, who are also challenging the Deep State narrative that Russia “hacked” the Democratic National Committee’s emails last year, then summarily turned them over to Wikileaks.
“Forensic studies of ‘Russian hacking’ into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia,” says an executive summary of the group’s letter.
The letter states further:
After examining metadata from the â€œGuccifer 2.0â€ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that â€œtelltale signsâ€ implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.Â Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East Coast of the U.S.Â Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled â€œCyber-Forensic Investigation of â€˜Russian Hackâ€™ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,â€ and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General.Â VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA â€œalumniâ€ in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap.Â Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original â€œGuccifer 2.0â€ material remains a mystery â€“ as does the lack of any sign that the â€œhand-picked analystsâ€ from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the â€œIntelligence Community Assessmentâ€ dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum.Â We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 â€œhackâ€ of the DNC server.Â In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the RussiansÂ [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described â€œthe conclusions of the intelligence communityâ€ as â€œnot conclusive,â€ even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed â€œhigh confidenceâ€ that Russian intelligence â€œrelayed material it acquired from the DNC â€¦ to WikiLeaks.â€
Obamaâ€™s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a â€œRussian hackâ€ to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer.Â Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) â€“ the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by â€œshowingâ€ it came from a â€œRussian hack.â€
The intel pros go on to tell Trump in their letter that blaming the “hack” on “Russia” was the perfect cover because Moscow was “the ideal culprit.”
And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, â€œWe have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,â€ her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own â€œforensic factsâ€ and prime the media pump to put the blame on â€œRussian meddling.â€Â Mrs. Clintonâ€™s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention.Â She wrote that her â€œmission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.â€
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do.Â Oddly, the â€œhand-pickedâ€ intelligence analysts contented themselves with â€œassessingâ€ this and â€œassessingâ€ that.Â In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported â€œhackâ€ of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else.Â Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device â€“ a thumb drive, for example) by an insider.Â The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia.Â We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Deep State’s “Russia” narrative continues to fall apart under closer scrutiny. The fact that the so-called “mainstream media” isn’t reporting any of this proves they are complicit the perpetuating the false narrative as well as the ensuing cover-up.
In accordance with Federal Trade Commission regulations, we are disclosing that our site earns a commission off of items we advertise and sell, as an affiliate.Â