Another nail in the coffin of the Mueller Investigation
trying to frame President Trump for working with the Russians to win Election
2016. Dems are lying AGAIN.
This should reawaken the rumors that murdered Seth Rich
stole the DNC files to expose Dem corruption. Here are some past titles from SlantRight 2.0 on Seth Rich exposing
Crooked Hillary/Dem corruption:
JRH 2/18/19
Your generosity is always appreciated:
*********************
Bombshell Report: The DNC Was Not Hacked by
the Russians
Author: Nwo Report (gronos)
February 17, 2019
The DNC emails published by Wikileaks in 2016 were not
obtained via a Russian hack, cyber-security and intelligence experts William
Binney and Larry Johnson claim.
According to forensic evidence, the files taken from the DNC
between 23 and 25 May 2016, were copied onto a file storage device.
Thegatewaypundit.com reports:
If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC
computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected
and stored by the National Security Agency.
The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in
place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was
irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC
hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community
Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:
“We also assess Putin and the
Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances
when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI
have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”
The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for
“we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with
certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC
emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using
robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for
this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the
internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they
traveled over the internet. This kind of data would allow the NSA to declare
without reservation or caveat that the Russians were guilty. The NSA could
admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising sources
and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the
judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to
support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as “full
confidence.”
We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major
embarrassment if he decides to pursue the indictment he filed–which accuses 12
Russian GRU military personnel and an entity identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for
the DNC hack—because the available forensic evidence indicates the emails were
copied onto a storage device.
According to a DOJ
press release on the indictment of the Russians, Mueller
declares that the emails were obtained via a “spearphishing” attack:
“In 2016, officials in Unit
26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign
of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process,
officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for
numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack
into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails
and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees,
and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and
maintain access to these networks.
The officials in Unit 26165
coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen
documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.
Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later
staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that
website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and
used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote
the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind
the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious
persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and
4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of
English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post
falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the
hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.”
Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the
Wikileaks DNC files do not support the claim that the emails were obtained via
spearphishing. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that the emails posted on the
Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such as a CD-ROM or thumb drive
before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks were saved
using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.
An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created
on 23, 25 and 26 May respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system
format indicates the data was transferred to a storage device, such as a thumb
drive.
How do we know? The truth lies in the “last modified” time
stamps on the Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in
even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT file system, you need to
understand that when a date is stored under this system the data rounds the
time to the nearest even numbered second.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and
all 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT
had been used, there would have been an equal probability of the time stamp
ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with the data stored on the
Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).
Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id
2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319
2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456
2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053
The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in
2 to the 500th power or approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power – in
other words, an infinitely high order.
This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied
at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by
Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumb drive, before Wikileaks
posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about
Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak
of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and
rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (E.g., USB
thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.
We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have
manipulated the files to produce the FAT result by comparing the DNC email
files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was released on 21
September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If
Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from
unknown sources we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match
the file structure of the Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.
There is further compelling technical evidence that
undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a
result of a spearphishing attack. Bill Binney, a former Technical Director of
the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence community
experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those
emails could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing
attack. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC
emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on
the public stage, claiming that “he” hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC
emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late June 2016 to publish documents as proof that
“he” had hacked from the DNC.
Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value—i.e., that his documents
were obtained via an internet attack—Bill Binney conducted a forensic
examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents based on internet
connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that the highest
transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible
from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with
the download rate for a thumb drive.
Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical
expertise, extended the examination and ran various tests forensic from the
Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate obtained — from a
data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK–was 12 megabytes per
second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data,
as it was listed from Guccifer 2.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data
and the Wikileaks data does not prove who copied the information to a thumb drive,
but it does provide and empirical alternative explanation that undermines the
Special Counsel’s claim that the DNC was hacked. According to the forensic
evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an
internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the
network.
There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the
conclusion that the data breach was a local effort that copied data.
First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward
Snowden. If the DNC emails had been hacked via spearphishing (as alleged by
Mueller) then the data would have been captured by the NSA by means of the
Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the forensic
evidence would not modify times – the data would be presented as sent.
Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and
Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.
It was 29 April 2016, when the DNC claims it became aware
its servers had been penetrated (see https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
No claim yet about who was responsible.
According to CrowdStrike founder, Dimitri Alperovitch, his
company first detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6
May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly
told Alperovitch that:
“Falcon had identified not one
but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike’s experts believed
was affiliated with the FSB, Russia’s answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which
they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.”
And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According
to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan
to avoid alerting the Russians that they had been “discovered.” This is
nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a house and stealing
its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in order
to avoid alerting the thief? Utter nonsense.
We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last
message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC
emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after that date.
CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps
to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire’s Vicky Ward that:
“Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.”
Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after
allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take
concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the
server? This makes no sense.
A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that
emails had been downloaded from the server and copied onto a device like a thumb
drive. But the culprit had not yet been identified. We know one thing for certain—CrowdStrike
did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after
the last email was copied from the server.
The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI
access to its servers in order for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a
thorough forensic examination. If this had been a genuine internet hack, it
would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was taken and
the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the
technical collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and
time of the messages. But that has not been done.
Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint
a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within
our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of
misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a pretty picture.
____________________
This Blog Editor utilized spellcheck on the NWO Report
post.
Published by Nwo Report
Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New
World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it
operates and how it affects the lives of everyone. View
all posts by Nwo Report
About NWO Report
This website will shake the very foundation of everything
you believe about the world and we prove every statement we make. It may sound
crazy but we prove every claim we make.
Once dismissed by cynics as a “conspiracy theory the New
World Order is rapidly becoming a reality. We look at its origins, how it
operates and how it affects the lives of everyone.
This website serves one purpose – to prove with
undeniable proof that there is a group of extremely rich “power mongers” who
want to rule the world in a slave state that makes the most extreme horror
movie seem pale by comparison. They call their plan the New World
Order. We want to “Wake Up” as many good people as possible to try to put
an end to this insanity. As crazy as this sounds everything on this
website is confirmed by multiple mainstream press news reports, reputable
encyclopedic references or websites of those making the claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment