Proof that DNC manufactured the Russian controversy in June 2016

Reddit ^ | 5/25/17 | byecomey

[Ms Mable]

Motive, Means, Opportunity are all present.

Who ordered the hit is now more important then who pulled the trigger.
_______________________________________________

Who knows....maybe he was droned or sniped while running away after being beat up....

[EQAndyBuzz]

If the media doesn’t report it that way, it never happened. This is the way they operate. You can catch Clinton with a dead midget lesbian hooker in her bed and there could be pictures and all. But if WAPO or the Slimes doesn’t report it, it never happened.

[Dustoff45]

FBI: "We need to examine your servers as part of a criminal investigation".

Joe Nobody: "I've got my own IT guy. He'll take a look."

FBI: "Oh, OK. No problem."

Someone at the DNC got away of telling Comey's FBI to take a hike.

More proof that Comey treated anything Clinton with kid gloves.

[Cboldt]

-- The fact the FBI allowed Crowdstrike to examine the DNC servers is a giant red flag. --

I've been rooting around some old articles. The FBI sends mixed signals ...

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers - TheHill - January 10, 2017

Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday ... "We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.

The subject of "server access" invites confusion, and all the parties involved have an interest in increasing the level of confusion. At any rate, a more accurate and generic description of FBI Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) appears in this article:

FBI, Dems bicker over investigation of hacked servers | TheHill | January 5, 2017

But a former FBI official told The Hill it's not unusual for the bureau to bypass a direct examination of a hacked server.

"In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure]," Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI's New York office, told The Hill.

"It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient."

Asking for direct access to a server wouldn't be necessary, Taddeo said, "unless there was a reason to think the victim was going to alter the evidence in some way."

"Images" is a jargon reference to an EXACT copy of a hard drive, or part of a hard drive, for example a "partition" on a hard drive. Think of it as an exact duplicate - not a backup of the files, but an exact bit-for-bit copy of the infected hard drive.

My questions are: Did the FBI request logs and images? Did the DNC deliver the logs and images?

All the evidence cited in the CrowdStrike report relates to material that would exist in logs and images.

Some hacking techniques leave scant or even ZERO tracks in the hard drive, and are transient in memory and network traffic. For those sorts of attack, access to the server -while it is running- is necessary to see the attack while it is underway. Also, some servers have crappy logging, so intrusions are not logged.

Maybe this is a case of Keystone Cops meet victim who has something to hide. Both sides prefer the investigation be botched, and to be able to blame it on the other.

[SkyPilot]

I won't do anything about this....I recuse myself and apologize..........

[Interesting Times]

Ping to some actual investigative journalism.

[z3n]

This is going almost exactly no where. I've gone full pessimist on Seth Rich. I don't think anything will come out of it. It's too important. The fact that no law enforcement inside the government, nor any oversight entity, will do the simple data forensics above, let alone the hard job of challenging those whose duty it is to investigate these things, LET ALONE the time worn hard cold truth that the media wont trust it and thus it is all happening in a void where the alternate media is aware but everyone else blissfully believes Russia hacked the elections per CNN's 24/7 wall to wall propaganda feed...

Keep beating the drum. I admire the fact that there are people who ask questions. The powers involved will tell you that you don't have a right to ask questions, but you do. But we live this the world of the ministry of truth wearing a journalist's mask. This will die and the prevailing narrative will prevail.

[Cboldt]

One other thought. It is possible (and I think likely) that the DNC servers were compromised by independent actors. Seth Rich or anybody else with access could obtain and leak e-mails, and the servers could ALSO have a virus that Seth Rich did not plant.

Beware stories that rely on "must be one or the other" logic, or that conclude "if there is a virus reporting back to a hacker in Russia, then the material at Wikileaks did not come from a leaker."

[stonehouse01]

“...When the DNC discovered that someone from inside their group had leaked their emails to Wikileaks, they concocted the Russian meme to cover it up?...”

Absolutely correct. This has been my hypothesis as well.

For months now this has been my conclusion. It is really no more complicated than that - Rush’s theory (although well meaning) yesterday that it was concocted at the time the then candidate Trump made the joke about Russia releasing the rest didn’t resonate with me at all because your statement above is almost certainly correct.

To reiterate how this almost certainly happened here: the “Russians hacked the election” narrative was 100% fabricated as a cover story for the Seth Rich murder - that is the reason for it and this had better all come out and be aggressively investigated by a special prosecutor sooner rather than later.

Also - I am not convinced at all that the current White House leakers are flesh and blood people close to Trump - I think the President is still being surveilled by the deep state using the same methods that they employed to monitor Trump during the campaign. More than likely, the deep state holdovers are surveilling Trump to this day and leaking their eavesdropped findings.

[Cboldt]

I think you are correct. This one is small potatoes in the scheme of things. Obama being unqualified, and presenting a forgery as evidence of being born in Hawaii (combined with ZERO curiosity about dual citizens being qualified) is a bigger deal, and even THAT is probably not the biggest charade perpetrated by the dark side.

If the bad guys have about 15% of the population, a small fraction, they can maintain control even if the vast bulk of the public is vaguely aware that something is wrong. "Big Brother" doesn't have to be liked, just feared. Plus, it is trivially easy to mislead the masses. "Stupid" is too kind.

[z3n]

'“Russians hacked the election” narrative was 100% fabricated as a cover story for the Seth Rich murder'

I tend to disagree with you however I think you are closer to correct in the fact that you used the word 'hacked' rather than influenced. There are a lot of people and entities in this world that try to influence US presidential elections. The fact that there may be some in Russua from Putin on down to some kid with a social media bot farm does change the fact that it happens in China and it happens in Bogata. But there is evidence that "hacking" is not just a rouse or a cover, but it is now a political football picked up by the absolute masters at influencing elections and politics in the U.S., and that is those hypocrites in the DNC and the MSM.

What ever happened with those Chinese attempts to donate money to the Clinton's many years ago? Someone refresh my memory. Didn't they just make some peon a fall guy for it?

[Flick Lives]

Some hacking techniques leave scant or even ZERO tracks in the hard drive, and are transient in memory and network traffic. For those sorts of attack, access to the server -while it is running- is necessary to see the attack while it is underway. Also, some servers have crappy logging, so intrusions are not logged.

---

...and if it wasn’t a hack, but an insider who snagged a copy of the emails on the server from a backup, there would be nothing on the log. The dog that didn’t bark, so to speak.

[seastay]

DNC manufactured phony evidence on a handful of MS word files by altering the invisible header information to imply the documents were viewed on a Russian computer, But the author claims , some of the files had altered fingerprints differently, were altered by a DNC staff computer planting the evidence , and that he can dhow the Russian data in them is fake. The documents were then leaked on purpose so that they could point the fingers at Russia to use as a way to wiretap trumps team, when they had no proof Trump was doing was doing any thing illegal, but wanted to create the narrative he was so they could wiretap
The wiretapping and false flag had to therefore involved the DNC , FBI and Obama's intellegence authority ,

Seth Rich later leak documents too, probably heard on the news of this first fake leak by guccifer 2 , a madeup name ( not to confused with the real guccifer) . The DNC , and or Obamas deep state people would realized Seths documents did not have the fake Russian finger prints, blowing their wiretapping cover in addition to the leaks were damaging to Hillary, so he became a problem.

This is the summary if I'm reading this correctly .

[Red Badger]

Yes.
All the above..................

[Freemeorkillme]

Pull on the string marked Seth Rich, and the whole DNC/Obama Administration comes undone.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Agreed. I first heard the name Warren T. Flood yesterday (in the George Webb stuff, IIRC)

[z3n]

Server log files get massive. But almost all servers have archiving and backups. These days, if security isn’t critical, backups are often cloud based. Otherwise they are local. You know someone is covering something up if logs and backups get erased or ‘disappear’.... or “beached”. heh.

[KSCITYBOY]

follow

[Cboldt]

-- ... ...and if it wasn't a hack, but an insider who snagged a copy of the emails on the server from a backup, there would be nothing on the log. --

Another good point. Assume there are two machines, a server, and a machine used to archive and backup. If the theft happens on the machine containing the backup, any logging would originate from that machine.

That said, and complicating things, it is possible for logging to be remote too. I administer a small network, and SOME activities are logged in two places - on the machine where the activity took place, and on a remote machine. Without remote logging, even if the backup machine logged somebody taking a copy, the server would have ZERO evidence of a person taking a copy from the backup machine.

At any rate, my general point was that most of the forensic work the FBI or anybody else would do (regarding intrusions) would use a disk image. Without more detail and questions, arguing over access to the server is a smokescreen/distraction. Ok, FBI didn't ask to access the server. Did it ask for a disk image and logs? I see no reporting that gets to the bottom of that.

Plus, as you see from my later remark, resolving the source of a hack does not rule out the INDEPENDENT taking of a copy by a leaker.

[Cboldt]

-- There are a lot of people and entities in this world that try to influence US presidential elections. --

Carlos Slim's substantial financial interest in NYT for example. Global media holding company News Corporation for another.

The Obama campaign deliberately avoiding the tracking of nationality for donations made by CC, for another example.

[InterceptPoint]

If this summary is what the author is saying, then the Wikileaks documents will have different metadata than those released by Guccifer.
++++
The question of the day for certain by Freeper dontreadthis.

SO, ARE THEY DIFFERENT OR NOT?

Does anyone know?