Summary: (let me see if I’ve got this right)
1. IC alerts DNC that they’ve been hacked
2. DNC, via Warren Flood and his Guccifer 2.0 creation, alters the metadata of hacked documents to appear as is they’ve passed through Russian hands.
3. DNC hires Crowdstrike to examine hacked documents to confirm Russian intervention.
4. Seth Rich is murdered
5. Wikileaks releases original? hacked documents
If this summary is what the author is saying, then the Wikileaks documents will have different metadata than those released by Guccifer.
Bingo!
The fact the FBI allowed Crowdstrike to examine the DNC servers is a giant red flag. Since when does the FBI allow 3rd parties to do forensic examination of a server when that 3rd party was hired by the DNC?
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."
The point is that they were not “hacked”. The emails were released by a whistle blower - Seth Rich - and that is what the DNC is trying to obfuscate by blaming it on “Russia”. As the article said, Seth Rich was the only one who could step forward at any time and reveal the lie. Strangely, he was never given the opportunity. Wikileaks never reveals its sources but they did say, several times, that the source was NOT Russia but internal.
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?