Roger Stone confirms “ad nauseam” he did not collude with the Russians

(INTELLIHUB) — CNN’s Chris Cuomo grilled author and political pundit Roger Stone on Monday over fake news claims that the pundit was colluding with the Russians by having advance knowledge of the widely purported Democratic National Committee ‘hack,’ forcing Stone to defend himself once again.

A footer graphic on the CNN broadcast read: “Is Roger Stone a target of the Mueller probe?”

On the show, Stone repeatedly denied claims that he had any foreknowledge of the alleged DNC hack and admitted his tweets which appeared to give an advance warning were only fired out because he is a “political animal.”

Additionally, the author and pundit also explained to Cuomo that he made his texts to Guccifer 2.0 available for the House Intelligence Committee six weeks after the hacking and has nothing to hide.

“How can I be involved in collusion of the hacking material after the fact?” Stone asked. “You need a time machine, it’s chronologically impossible?”

Stone admitted to the 24-word exchange with Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter but said the exchange was defiantly “after the fact.”

“There’s no evidence of collusion,” Stone reiterated.

Stone went on to point out: “It’s ironic that we have a movie right now, The Post, praising the Washington Post for publishing the Pentagon Papers, classified information, [but] at the same time we are criticizing Julian Assange and Wikileaks for publishing classified information and calling it a crime.”

Featured Image: Screenshot via CNN/YouTube

©2018. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars and Natural News. Read more from Shep’s World. Follow Shep on Facebook. Subscribe to Shep’s YouTube channel.

Follow @ShepardAmbellas

The post Roger Stone confirms “ad nauseam” he did not collude with the Russians appeared first on Intellihub.

Deconstructing The Almighty Russian Hackers Myth

Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Sometimes things can be made more complicated than they really are.

And such is the case with the story that the Russian government hacked the Democratic National Committee so as to help Trump become president.

In July 2016 Wikileaks released a number of documents showing that the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president had been rigged. A month earlier the DNC had announced it had been "hacked" and the cybersecurity company it hired announced that the Russians had done it – one of the reasons they gave was that the hackers had helpfully left the name of the Polish founder of the Soviet security forces as a clue.

Since then, this story has been broadly accepted and it has spun on and on for eighteen months. But it doesn"t really make any sense.

Let us pretend that Moscow wanted Trump to win. Let us further pretend that Moscow thought that there was a chance that he could win despite the fact that almost all news outlets, pollsters and pundits were completely confident that he could not. And let us pretend that Moscow thought that, with its thumb on the scale, Trump could make it. And, the fourth if, let us pretend that Moscow decided to put its thumb on the scale.

How to do it? Let us pretend (number five) that the strategy was to try and discredit Clinton. Let us further assume (this assumption is the one that"s probably true) that Moscow has very good electronic intelligence capacities. So, we imagine the scene in headquarters as they look for an approach; they quickly find one that is very good, a second that is pretty good and a third area that is worth digging around in.

The Russians would know all about the Uranium One matter where, as even the Clinton-friendly NYT admitted, "a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation". It would be very easy for them to package this as a case of Secretary of State Clinton selling US policy for personal profit. Russian intelligence organisations would have a great deal of true information and would find it easy to manufacture material to fill in any gaps in the story. Presented as a case of corruption and near treason, the story could have done a great deal of damage to her. And, given that it had happened six years earlier, all the details would have been known and ready to be used. It would have been a very powerful attack that even the complaint media would have had difficulty ignoring.

We know, and it"s very likely that the Russians did too, that she ran a private e-mail server on which there were thousands and thousands of official communications. The server was very insecure and we can assume that Russia"s signals intelligence (and everyone else"s, for that matter) had penetrated it. Think of all the real material from that source that could be revealed or twisted to make a scandal. That would make quite a campaign. Further, it is a reasonable assumption that Russian intelligence would have some of the thousands of e-mails that were "bleached". There would be enough material for a months-long campaign of leaks.

Finally, Hillary Clinton has been in public life for many years and there would have been ample opportunities, and, many would say, ample material in her scandal-plagued career, for the construction of many campaigns to weaken her appeal.

So, a preliminary look would suggest that there were several angles of attack of which Uranium One would be the easiest and most effective.

But, failing that, or as a supplement to that, there was plenty of embarrassing and incriminating material in her illicit private server.

Now we have to pretend (number six), contrary to the universal practice of security organs in all times and places, that the (always assumed in the story to be implacably hostile) Russians would decide to forgo the chance of compromising a future POTUS in favour of a harebrained scheme to get another elected.

But we"re supposed to believe that they did. The Russians, the story goes, with all this potential material, with a solid hit with Uranium One, decide instead to expose the finagling inside the Democratic Party structure. And to expose it too late to make any difference. As I said at the beginning, sometimes things are easier to understand when you, as it were, turn them upside down.

In the middle of June 2016 the DNC admits that its documents have been obtained – a "hack" they insist – and almost immediately, "Guccifer 2.0" pops up to claim responsibility and the DNC"s experts (Crowdstrike) claim Russia was behind it. A month passes before Wikileaks releases the first batch of DNC documents showing the extent of the manipulation of the process by Clinton – who had, according to most counts – already secured the nomination about two weeks before. A couple of days before the release, Trump gets the Republican nomination and a couple of days after that Clinton easily wins the Democratic nomination by a thousand-vote majority.

So, the first thing that should have occurred to the observer (but didn"t) was, if the Russians had had this incriminating evidence that the Democratic Party nomination had been fixed in Clinton"s favour, wouldn"t it have been more useful to put it out at a time when Sanders who was, after all, the swindled one, might have been able to do something about it? Instead those supposedly clever Russian state hackers dropped the news out at a time when it made very little difference. No difference in fact: Clinton got the nomination and there was no comeback from Sanders" people.

So, the "Russian hackers" made their arrow, shot it, hit the target and... no one cared. The people who devoutly believe in the Russian hacking story now have to explain (but don"t) why the Russian state, apparently so determined to bring Clinton down, didn"t immediately hit her with the Uranium One documents and anything else they had that could feed the flames of scandal.

But, as we all know, they didn"t. While long rumoured, and even briefly reported on, we only learned of Uranium One in a big way in October 2017 and the fact that her server contained Special Access material (the very highest classified secrets) was confirmed authoritatively only in November 2017. If the Russian had really had this sort of information and the hostility to Clinton that we"re incessantly told that they had, two years earlier would have been the time.

So, on the one hand we are supposed to believe that the Russian government is so clever that it can hack anything, has innumerable social media trolls that influence elections and referendums around the world ("control the American mind"), drives a "fake news" campaign at a fraction of the cost but with far greater effectiveness than the massed legions of the Western media, is a threat to practically everything we hold sacred... but is too stupid to get it right. Possessing great and powerful secrets and a stunningly powerful machine to spread them, it chooses to fire a damp squib too late to make any difference and passes up the chance to have a compromised US president for it to control.

In other words, it"s nonsense: we don"t really need the forensics of VIPS; we don"t need to argue with people who say it"s fake news about Seth Rich, or that Assange is a Putinbot, or carefully ignore Murray. Those efforts are useful enough but they"re not necessary. In any case, the Russia story is a Gish gallop and a whole academy of wise men and women couldn"t keep up with the latest. (Robert Parry bravely attempts to list the most prominent ones from the Vermont power facility, through all 17 agencies to 14^th not 4^th.)

Just common sense will do it: if the Russians had wanted to bring Hillary Clinton down, they had far more powerful charges which they could have detonated much earlier. It is not plausible that all they had was the rigging evidence and that they then deployed it too late to have an effect.

Or, maybe they"re not so all-competent in which case all the other stuff we"ve had shoved down our throats for months about "Russian information warfare" is even bigger nonsense.

Assange Blasts Clinton's "Constant Lying" Over Claim Wikileaks Is "Subsidiary Of Russian Intelligence"

Julian Assange accused Hillary Clinton of “constant lying” and displaying a “cold creepiness” after the former US presidential candidate accused Wikileaks of being a front for Russian intelligence during interviews with British and Australian media last week, Russia Today reported.

Clinton, who has sat for interviews with media outlets in several different countries over the past week as the global leg of her book tour for “What Happened” began, described the organization that Assange founded as part of a “concerted operation” between Russia, Wikileaks and “people in the United States” – likely an oblique reference to the Trump campaign.

“It is not just her constant lying,” Assange tweeted on Monday. “It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.”

“Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”

WikiLeaks has a pristine record for accuracy. HRC is not a credible person. The primary cause of her downfall was her own Machiavellian scheme to elevate Mr. Trump ("Pied Piper").

Our last Russian expose was three weeks ago. https://t.co/MGa1z99vVU https://t.co/He4vgLIKBW

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

Hillary Clinton claimed in an interview with one Australian news program that Assange colluded with the Russian government to obtain and publish emails stolen from the DNC in the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election.

“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said.

“WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

“I think that their intention, coming from the very top with Putin, was to hurt me and to help [then-presidential hopeful Donald] Trump,” she said.

“Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism,” Clinton said.

“If he’s such a martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia? You don’t see damaging, negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks,” she added.

According to Clinton, Assange was motivated by a personal dislike of her stemming from her role as secretary of state, when the Obama administration cracked down on Wikileaks after it published sensitive government cables. Of course, Clinton has made similar accusations about Putin, whom she claims developed a hatred for her after she encouraged anti-Putin protests in 2009.  

“I had a lot of history with him because I was secretary of state when WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive information from our State Department and our Defense Department,” she said.

For what it’s worth, Assange has repeatedly denied having any connection with Russia, and has even offered to turn over conclusive evidence that Russia wasn’t Wikileaks’ source for the hacked DNC emails – in exchange for a presidential pardon. However, nobody in the administration has considered his offer, according to a member of Congress who’s tried to help broker the deal.

Assange has been in hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2011. Even though Sweden dropped sex crime charges against Assange earlier this year, he has remained in the embassy for fear of being arrested by the US for publishing classified material through Wikileaks.  
 

Jailed hacker Guccifer says U.S. government fabricated Guccifer 2.0 to frame Russia

During his plane ride extradition from Romania to the United States, Guccifer told Fox News’Pamela Browne that one of his handlers mentioned: “what would your opinion be if another Guccifer showed up?” He then went on to say that “Guccifer 2.0 is an inside job” by U.S. government agencies.

Marcel Lehel Lazar, 45, known by his infamous online moniker “Guccifer,” is serving a 7-year sentence in Romania his home country for hacking local politicians.

Last year, Lazar was extradited to the U.S. during the 2016 election. He claims that his handler assigned to the State Department slyly mentioned creating another Guccifer.

“Ok, so now, now I think that it is maybe Guccifer two-zero, the State Department, or this guy from the State Department, who is handling my case,” he said. “I think it was more like they were planning this. I mean they, this guy from the State Department.”

“So I think Guccifer two-zero is an inside job,” Lazar added. “I think Guccifer two-zero is something made from some guys at the State Department. Some guys from the cyber command of the NSA, and some guys from the Vault, Vault 7 of the CIA. So there are these guys, you know Pam, I’m in this business for sort of 15 years now, this is my take on this whole. They were setting up something of Guccifer two-zero. Because the State Department guy was asking me, ‘What is your opinion,’ or something like this, ‘what do you say if another Guccifer is showing up?’

“And I said, ‘You know something, I expect that not one, but one hundred Guccifers will show up.’”

Interestingly enough, Guccifer 2.0 documents have been analyzed and its meta data has proven to show fakery from using the language of Russian locale inside a word processor just as Guccifer alluded.

Additionally, the malware sample given which suggests the DNC was hacked has been proven to be a public Ukrainian PHP Shell called Grizzly Steppe ;the malware was outdated and not even private malicious code according to Word Fence which analyzed the sample DHS/FBI provided.

“The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes. The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website,” Word Fence wrote.

It has since been proved through meta-data that the files Guccifer 2.0 uploaded “NGP-VAN” were copied locally not hacked, Disobedient Media reported.

Guccifer also expanded on his breach of Clinton’s server stating “everyone was inside it.”

“Look, about the server in Chappaqua, in New York state,” he said. “That server was scanned well before me. It was scanned 2012, from IP numbers in Serbia, Belgrade, it was scanned again in 2013 from IPs in Ukraine and Russia. The point is, somebody had mirrored, had copied, mirrored the whole server of Hillary Clinton, the question is how many countries. One, two or three? At one point, it was the whole server. I just think, I’m sure some people, I can say some people, I’m sure some people have the server contents.”

“It’s not the case that it was or it was not mirrored, her server,” he said. “The case is how many people did this. How many countries?

FBI Director James Comey denies that Guccifer ever hacked Clinton’s server despite outdated software and that the server was open to RDP and VNC connections which wouldn’t have even required any actual hacking, according to the Register.

“He did not. He admitted that was a lie,” Comey said. “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

This reporter was handed a leak link dump of Clinton’s email case information from an FBI source a few days ago that documented the entire case against Clinton, including that her emails were for sale on the darkweb for several years for $500K. The author of the hacked emails then pulled them and handed them to the FBI. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees also claimed they possessed the so-called “Russian files” consisting of Clinton emails that ended up on ‘Deep Web’ allegedly by hacking a server setup by Guccifer in Romania. The FBI later confirmed the existence of this server and the files contained on it in the fourth part of its report on Clinton’s email scandal.

Is that the mirror of the server that Guccifer is talking about as his own?

Guccifer plans to ask to remain in Romanian prison and not be returned to America to serve his 52-month sentence for U.S. computer hacking crimes including unauthorized access to a protected computer and aggravated identity theft.

Guccifer was the first to reveal to the world that Clinton used a non-secure private email address while serving as secretary of state when he posted Sidney Blumenthal’s emails revealing her insecure private address hdr22@clintonemail.com instead of a .gov domain.

Via Activist Post

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post and is Director of Content for Coinivore. Follow Aaron at Twitter and Steemit.

Shock: Intelligence community veterans release report showing Russia DID NOT hack the DNC

Note: This explosive information has so far been completely ignored by the mainstream media because it directly exposes the fact that they have been pushing a false narrative for over a year and, at this point, have absolutely zero credibility. Please share far and wide.

(INTELLIHUB) — A groundbreaking report released by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has revealed that the much talked about hack of the Democratic National Party by “Guccifer 2.0” was conducted by an inside source and then “doctored” to incriminate Russia.

The group, (VIPS) consists of former intelligence community operatives who have taken it upon themselves to dig into the actual evidence and what they have found is shocking to say the least.

“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,” reads the memorandum.

“After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” 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 “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.”

The memorandum goes on to reveal that the DNC data was actually copied onto a storage device at a speed that “far exceeds” the capability for a remote hack.

“Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].”

The key event listed in the memorandum sent to the President provides direct evidence of what actually happened.

In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.

The entire report is an absolute must-read as it conclusively destroys the deep state, mainstream media fueled, obsession with “Russian hacking” while also eliminating the narrative that Donald Trump “worked” with Russia.

Keep in mind that a large number of the former intelligence officials who signed the memorandum have in the past been considered hero’s by those on the anti-war left. In other words, this is not some report from “right-wing” conspiracy theorists that can be ignored by the left.

Alex Thomas is an opinion journalist and editor for Intellihub News. He was a founding member of what later became Intellihub.com and an integral part of the team that destroyed the mainstream media blockade of Bilderberg in 2012. You can contact him here.

Featured Image: Katy Levinson/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Paul Craig Roberts On "The Conspiracy To Remove Trump From The Presidency"

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

US intelligence services, the Democratic Party, some Republicans including members of President Trump’s own government, and the presstitute US media are conspiring against American democracy and the President of the United States.

We know this from a public letter to Trump published today, July 24, 2017, on consortiumnews.com by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Executive Summary

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.

After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” 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 “telltale signs” 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. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. 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 “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” 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. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. 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 Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’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 “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. 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) – 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 “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

*  *  *

Unlike the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the veteran intelligence professionals performed forensic investigations. They found conclusive evidence that the alleged “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server [these are the emails that show the DNC working for Hillary against Sanders] was not hacked but leaked.

The leaked documents were copied onto an external storage device and doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia as having hacked the documents.

In other words, the alleged hack was instead a copy from the inside that was subsequently doctored to reflect Russian origin.

The veteran intelligence professionals surmise that this was done in order to focus attention away from the embarrassing content of the emails, placing attention instead on “Russian interference in the US presidential election.”

As I see it, the success of this false and orchestrated story of Russian hacking, for which not a scrap of evidence exists, revealed to the military/security complex the opportunity to remove Trump and thus protect the oversized budget and power of the military/security complex that is threatened by Trump’s intention to normalize relations with Russia.

It revealed to the Hillary forces the opportunity to vindicate themselves with the argument that Russia stole the election for Trump.

It revealed to Israel the opportunity to put an end to Trump’s withdrawal of US interference in the Middle East, thus enabling Israel to continue to use the US military to clear away obstacles to Israeli expansion.

It provided the presstitutes, who hate Trump and “the deplorables” who elected him, with a headline story for months and months to be followed in their expectations with the story of Trump’s removal from the presidency.

The retired intelligence professionals are too circumspect to tell President Trump outright that a conspiracy is underway to remove him from office whether by impeachment or assassination by a right-wing “lone nut” enraged at the traitorous president, but this does seem to be the message between the lines. As I have provided the link to the letter, you can read it and come to your own conclusion.

New Information Suggests Guccifer 2.0 Leak was a DNC Ruse Fabricated by “Warren Flood”

(image: grover_net/Flickr)

By: Shepard Ambellas, Intellihub | 

Whoever created the files from Guccifer 2.0 did it using a version of Microsoft Office registered to “Warren Flood”.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) claims that it was the so-called Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 and not the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich who hacked into the DNC servers and gave Wikileaks the emails which later revealed how the DNC rigged the Primary against Senator Bernie Sanders to thrust Hillary Clinton into the forefront.

Now, new evidence has emerged which proves that either:

a. That Guccifer 2.0 is not the Russian hacker as the DNC claims
b. That Guccifer 2.0 was set up by the DNC to be a patsy and may be a legitimate hacker

According to a new video posted to the Mike Cerovich YouTube channel, narrated by Devon Stack: “There’s evidence to suggest that Guccifer 2.0 isn’t a Russian hacker as the DNC claims but rather an invention of someone using software registered to the DNC, a staffer named Warren Flood.”

The videos narrator goes on to point out how Warren Flood is a “tech worker” who has previously worked for organizations such as Obama For America, the DNC, and even the White House. But even more shocking is the fact that whoever created the files from Guccifer 2.0 did it using a version of Microsoft Office registered to “Warren Flood.”

The metadata embedded within the Wikileaks emails, when compared to the metadata released by ‘Guccifer 2.0,’ doesn’t match up and is not the same (i.e. the files released by Guccifer 2.0 are not the same files released by Wikileaks). What the metadata actually shows is that the Wikileaks files clearly were taken from DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon’s computer and not Warren Floods who used Microsoft Office to create the document.

So how does all of this tie in?

Keep in mind that, still, to this day, the FBI has never inspected the DNC’s servers. This fact was admitted by Fmr. FBI Director James Comey in his recent hearing.

“In the case of the DNC and I believe the D-triple-C, but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devises themselves,” Comey testified, proving that nobody has ever inspected the DNC servers.

A timeline of events according to the video, as follows:

• June 14, 2016: The DNC announced that it had been hacked, the Washington Post suggested “the Russians” did it


• June 15, 2016: Crowdstrike, the company paid by the DNC to maintain its servers, also blamed the attack on the Russians


• June 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the Internet claiming responsibility for the DNC hack, releases opposition research on Trump


• June 15, 2016: Vice releases opposition research on Trump


• Aug. 9, 2016: Wikileaks offered a “$20K reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich”


• Aug. 25, 2016: A chat between Guccifer 2.0 and actress Robin Young appeared on the internet in which Guccifer 2.0 admits he got the info from Seth Rich and that Wikileaks Julian Assange is in cahoots with the Russians. Robin Young later claimed that all of her direct messages were missing.

As pointed out by Stack, the new evidence “further illustrates how baseless the Russian conspiracy theory is and casts suspicion on none other than the DNC and possibly even the [Obama] White House.”

#SethRich

Via Intellihub

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

---

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

New information suggests Guccifer 2.0 leak was a DNC ruse fabricated by “Warren Flood”

Whoever created the files from Guccifer 2.0 did it using a version of Microsoft Office registered to "Warren Flood"

(INTELLIHUB) — The Democratic National Committee (DNC) claims that it was the so-called Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 and not the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich who hacked into the DNC servers and gave Wikileaks the emails which later revealed how the DNC rigged the Primary against Senator Bernie Sanders to thrust Hillary Clinton into the forefront.

Now, new evidence has emerged which proves that either:

a. That Guccifer 2.0 is not the Russian hacker as the DNC claims
b. That Guccifer 2.0 was set up by the DNC to be a patsy and may be a legitimate hacker

According to a new video posted to the Mike Cerovich YouTube channel, narrated by Devon Stack: “There’s evidence to suggest that Guccifer 2.0 isn’t a Russian hacker as the DNC claims but rather an invention of someone using software registered to the DNC, a staffer named Warren Flood.”

The videos narrator goes on to point out how Warren Flood is a “tech worker” who has previously worked for organizations such as Obama For America, the DNC, and even the White House. But even more shocking is the fact that whoever created the files from Guccifer 2.0 did it using a version of Microsoft Office registered to “Warren Flood.”

The metadata embedded within the Wikileaks emails, when compared to the metadata released by ‘Guccifer 2.0,’ doesn’t match up and is not the same (i.e. the files released by Guccifer 2.0 are not the same files released by Wikileaks). What the metadata actually shows is that the Wikileaks files clearly were taken from DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon’s computer and not Warren Floods who used Microsoft Office to create the document.

So how does all of this tie in?

Keep in mind that, still, to this day, the FBI has never inspected the DNC’s servers. This fact was admitted by Fmr. FBI Director James Comey in his recent hearing.

“In the case of the DNC and I believe the D-triple-C, but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devises themselves,” Comey testified, proving that nobody has ever inspected the DNC servers.

A timeline of events according to the video, as follows:

• June 14, 2016: The DNC announced that it had been hacked, the Washington Post suggested “the Russians” did it


• June 15, 2016: Crowdstrike, the company paid by the DNC to maintain its servers, also blamed the attack on the Russians


• June 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the Internet claiming responsibility for the DNC hack, releases opposition research on Trump


• June 15, 2016: Vice releases opposition research on Trump


• Aug. 9, 2016: Wikileaks offered a “$20K reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich”


• Aug. 25, 2016: A chat between Guccifer 2.0 and actress Robin Young appeared on the internet in which Guccifer 2.0 admits he got the info from Seth Rich and that Wikileaks Julian Assange is in cahoots with the Russians. Robin Young later claimed that all of her direct messages were missing.

As pointed out by Stack, the new evidence “further illustrates how baseless the Russian conspiracy theory is and casts suspicion on none other than the DNC and possibly even the [Obama] White House.”

#SethRich

Via Intellihub

Featured Image: grover_net/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

---

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

---

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC – Forgets To Disable Caller ID

(image: AP/Ross D. Franklin)

By: zeropointnow, ibankcoin.com | 

Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck’s office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual who was apparently using a ‘robotic and genderless’ voice changing device, sniffing around with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit – based on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ‘to perpetrate a fraud on the public.’ (see more here)

After a brief chat with the law firm’s secretary, the ‘mysterious’ voice-masking caller concluded the call with an ‘Okey dokey.’

And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Aventura office!

Caller ID:

See filing here.

Democratic Operative Says Hillary Clinton's DNC Claims Are "F***ing Bulls***"

Angry Democrats are pushing back against criticisms that Hillary Clinton levied against the party during an interview earlier this week, saying Clinton “mischaracterized” the DNC’s work and the quality of its data operation while “needlessly stoking internal divisions,” according to the Hill.

During an interview with Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg at the Recode "Code" conference earlier this week, Clinton blamed the FBI, DNC, Russian agents – everyone but herself – for her stunning election loss in November. RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said Clinton’s comments were completely lacking in self-awareness.

Clinton has repeatedly blamed the DNC even though leaked emails have shown that the committee favored her during her primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton blasted the committee as having “mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong” data operation, the Hill reported. The remarks were also seen as a rebuke of President Obama, who chose the leaders of the DNC during his tenure.

This is all about the last campaign. And really, what Democrats should be focusing on, and what I think Hillary Clinton should be figuring out, is how do we empower the DNC to have the best data resources to win races this year, in 2018 and 2020,” a former DNC aide said.

“Having hard feelings about the data that you may or may not have received in 2016 ultimately is not the reason why we lost.”

The former secretary of state blamed the party’s polling data for failing to predict how close the race was in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – the three battleground states that ultimately handed the election to Trump. But at least one former DNCer vehemently pushed back against Clinton"s allegations, saying that she was trying to blame the DNC for her own lapse in judgment.

Andrew Therriault, who served as the DNC"s director of data science until last June, said Clinton’s claims were “f---ing bulls---” in a series of tweets that have since been deleted.

Therriault accused Clinton’s team of ignoring DNC data that warned of a close race in the three states that, by narrow margins, ultimately handed Trump his Electoral College victory: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

“All that said, irony of her bashing DNC data: *our* models never had mi/wi/pa looking even close to safe. Her team thought they knew better,” Therriault wrote.

As the Hill reports, Clinton made several appearances in Pennsylvania during the final months of the campaign, including on the eve of the election. But she spent little time campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin. Ultimately, both states flipped from the Democrats to the GOP column for the first time in decades.

Another Democratic operative – identified as a “strong Clinton supporter - noted that North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper used the same data that Clinton had access to, but managed to win in a battleground state that went for Trump.

John Hagner, a Democratic consultant who tapped the same DNC database while working on congressional and gubernatorial races last cycle, said Clinton misfired in criticizing the data in lieu of the campaign operatives entrusted to use it effectively.

The data are merely the “raw ingredients,” he said, while the targeting operation is “the chef that decides what to do with them.” The chef, in this case, was Clinton’s campaign team.

"Roy Cooper used the same data in North Carolina and won,” Hagner said Thursday by phone, referring to the state’s newly elected Democratic governor. “So it’s not that the data didn’t work, it’s that you have to make different decisions with it.

"Singling out the DNC, which does the best that they can do with a system that’s hard to work with, blaming them and not the decisions that got made with that data — which is definitely her campaign’s responsibility — just seemed really off-key.”

The Republicans, for their part, quickly capitalized on Hillary’s contentious remarks, highlighting her comments in press releases sent to reporters with subject lines like “We Finally Agree With Hillary” the Hill reported.

For reasons that we’ll probably never understand, the DNC decided not to hit back against Hillary. Instead, the organization sent the Hill a statement highlighting new DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s efforts to improve party infrastructure.

“Tom has said before that the DNC was not firing on all cylinders and that’s why he did a top-to-bottom review that included technology,” DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said.

“Tom is already deeply engaged with the outpouring of support from Democrats across the country, from Silicon Valley to suburban Georgia, who want to help improve the data and tech, get it in the hands of more organizers everywhere, and build the grassroots funding stream required to support those efforts.”

Unsurprisingly, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz didn’t return a call for comment – despite, as the Hill noted, serving as DNC Chair for nearly all of the Clinton primary campaign.

Man In Hiding After Confessing To Illegal Fundraising For The Clintons: "Fears Untimely Death"

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

The pattern continues…

Those who are connected to the crimes and misdemeanors of the Clinton cartel live in hiding for fear of their lives.

Of course there was funneling of money going on. The Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 hacks went along way in documenting the quid pro quo nature of Clinton diplomacy.

Back in the 90s, it was selling nuclear secrets to China, and schmoozing with high powered Chinese individuals, caught up in real estate deals, fundraising schemes and the like.

So it is little surprising, though certainly alarming, that this story has surfaced of a Chinese-American businessman who is living in hiding and who felt compelled to make an ‘insurance policy’ video detailing his involvement in the Clinton admin’s “Chinagate” which involved laundered funds from high powered Chinese businessmen:

via Daily Mail:

A Chinese-American businessman at the center of a Clinton campaign finance scandal secretly filmed a tell-all video as an ‘insurance policy’ – because he feared being murdered.

[…] Johnny Chung spills details on how he illegally funneled money from Chinese officials to Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election bid.

The Chinese-American Clinton fundraiser recorded the ‘elaborate videotaped testimony’ while in hiding in 2000.

He smuggled it to trusted friends and family with instructions to release it to the media in the event of his untimely death because he believed he was at risk of being assassinated.

Chung is believed to still be alive and living in China.

It seems that there were some implicit threats being made against him from within the system just ahead of his testimony. His FBI protection was lifted and he was tauntingly instructed to ‘call 911’ if he felt his life was in danger.

Here are the highlight excerpts of his confession video:

If one reads between the lines, and it seems clear that a threat was made against Chung to coerce him into keeping his mouth shut and saying nothing that could indict the sitting President, the First Lady or their network of operatives.

Chung described on the tape how Democrats on the House Committee on Government Reform tried to dissuade him from testifying publicly before the committee by sending his attorney a letter telling him he could plead the Fifth Amendment.

[…]

The FBI in Los Angeles began providing around-the-clock protection for him. But just a few days before Chung was scheduled to testify before a grand jury, the FBI headquarters in Washington called off the protection detail and told Chung he would have to make the trip alone.

[…]

‘I called the FBI office and offered to [speak with] the US assistant attorney again on the phone,’ said Chung. ‘And he said ‘Mr. Chung your case is over. As a normal American citizen what do you do if you feel your life is in danger? You just call 911.’

Chung’s connections to elite Chinese businessmen apparently went all the way to the top of the chain. It is evident that a foreign power influenced the iconic American president to the point of buying him out.

This is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

US Intel Chief Cites Phantom Evidence on ‘Russian Hacking’

January 8, 2017   |   admintam

(ANTIWAR) The new, and apparently seminal report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on putative Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election has finally been released, providing a 25-page glimpse into the thinking that underpins an allegation which remains the sum total of US electoral politics in recent months.

This appears to be the report that the Obama Administration was heavily pressured to proffer by Congressional Democrats as a way to end public skepticism of the allegations, and attempts to do so, as officials have been for weeks, by declaring Russian intervention, hacking, and what have you as an absolute confirmed fact.

But like the previous reports, evidence to substantiate the claims is wholly lacking. The big difference in the new report is an acknowledgement that they aren’t providing any evidence of what they are alleging, complete with a disclaimer at the top of every page that as a declassified report it “does not include the full supporting information” that some secret other report might.

The evidence-free version was still sufficient to get ample media coverage once again echoing the claims unquestioned, declaring that Putin was driven by “hatred” and warned to “denigrate Secretary Clinton.” The report’s claims largely amount to a collection of the myriad allegations in an easy-to-follow form, but break no new ground.

Once again, the report claims the DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 was actually the Russian military, providing no evidence for this, and claims DCLeaks.com was the military as well. They claimed the military directly gave WikiLeaks the documents because Putin thought WikiLeaks’ history of accuracy was valuable. No evidence for any of this, but the report did at the very least note that all the WikiLeaks documents appear to have been authentic.

Beyond a very brief rehash of the narrative, and a claim that Putin was bent on destroying the Western liberal order simply to spite Hillary Clinton, the report then gets into by far the deepest section, alleging state-funding media outlet RT America “disparaged” Clinton and wanted Trump to win.

Interestingly in that it’s the part with the most meat, this “propaganda” section is also the part with the most glaring contradiction, arguing on the one hand that Putin was just anti-Clinton and warmed to Trump relatively late in the campaign while at the same time arguing that Russia had hired a bunch of “social media trolls” and that they were all pro-Trump from before the primaries began.

The report also faults RT for covering the Clinton email leaks so extensively, presenting that as proof of their “consistently negative” attitude toward the candidate. US media outlets, of course, largely focused on Clinton’s allegations of Russian plots above the actual email releases.

As has often been the case in previous reports, this one begins with its conclusion and then figures out ways in which the facts could conceivably fit  that conclusion. For example, the report notes that Putin did not publicly praise Trump ahead of the election, and then concludes this was a savvy move on the part of the Kremlin because they thought it would “backfire” and hurt Trump’s election chances.

With no existing publicly available evidence for the allegations, and no new evidence emerging from today’s report, it’s not clear that anyone new will be convinced, and President-elect Donald Trump appears to have the same doubts he always did. Ultimately, the only ones likely to be happy with the report are those who were already sold on the allegations before.

---

This article (US Intel Chief Cites Phantom Evidence on ‘Russian Hacking’) by Jason Ditz, originally appeared on AntiWar.com and was used with permission. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

How NOT to hack an election: Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax

For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian "hack" of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by "disgusted" whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. "The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence. 

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise.  As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters).  The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with.  No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population.  But how big is the "threat" of "Russian" propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final "hail mary" attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process.  The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their "think tank" website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of "politics" are again being fooled, this election wasn"t about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn"t win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).  

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political "analyst" partner, Juan Jose Rendon.  To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda’s career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small—mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents’ donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn’t cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico’s PRI and the campaign of Guatemala’s National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points.  One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this.  The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better.  The age of "spies" has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population.  Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda’s efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. “My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors—the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia’s attorney general’s office. He’s serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia’s 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he’s rehabilitated—and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who’s been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. “If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web,” he says. “I don’t do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don’t like it—OK. But if it’s legal, I’m gonna do it. I’m not a saint, but I’m not a criminal.” While Sepúlveda’s policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret “insurance policy.”

We don"t need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign.  Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.  

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe’s turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard—or, as he puts it, “When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything.”

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto’s plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he’d read it in the candidate’s own internal staff memos.

While there"s no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election.  There"s not even false evidence.  There isn"t a hint of it.  There isn"t a witness, there isn"t a document, there"s nothing - it"s a conspiracy theory!  And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there"s a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service.  You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be "from" - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.  

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda.  But none of this shows up anywhere.  If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies.  To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Hacker Guccifer 2.0 Says Election Could Be Rigged, Promises to Monitor ‘from Inside’

November 5, 2016   |   admintam

(ZHE) Before the recent torrent of daily Podesta email dumps brought renewed attention to Wikileaks (and accusations Julian Assange was working with the Kremlin despite his recent denial, which ultimately cost him his internet access), the media’s attention was closely focused on the recently emerged hacker known as Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be behind the hacking of the nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails and other documents distributed over the summer by WikiLeaks, and who likewise was accused of cooperating with Russia.

Earlier today, after a two week silence, Guccifer 2.0 reemerged, with a post on his blog, in which he alleges that he has information from inside the Federal Election Commission, according to which “democrats may rig the elections.” He then adds “this may be possible because of the software installed in the FEC networks by the large IT companies.”

“INFO FROM INSIDE THE FEC: THE DEMOCRATS MAY RIG THE ELECTIONS

“I’d like to warn you that the Democrats may rig the elections on November 8. This may be possible because of the software installed in the FEC networks by the large IT companies.

“As I’ve already said, their software is of poor quality, with many holes and vulnerabilities.

“I have registered in the FEC electronic system as an independent election observer; so I will monitor that the elections are held honestly.

“I also call on other hackers to join me, monitor the elections from inside and inform the U.S. society about the facts of electoral fraud.”

It is unclear what FEC information the hacker was in possession of, or was referring to, and how he intends to observe the elections. A recent video by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting provided a real-time demo of the GEMS vote-fraud system, “fraction magic,” an election theft mechanism with context and explanation. There is much more detail on the BlackBoxVoting website.

The demonstration below used a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be converted to  the hands of a few anonymous subcontractors. It’s a product. It’s scaleable. It learns its environment and can adjust to any political environment, any demographic. It runs silently, invisibly, and can produce plausible results that really pass for the real thing.

It is possible that this is the process that Guccifer is referring to, although we are merely speculating. We are confident he will provide more detail shortly.

While we wait, watch the following video explaining how elections can be (and perhaps are) rigged.

---

This article (Hacker Guccifer 2.0 Says Election Could Be Rigged, Promises to Monitor ‘from Inside’) by Tyler Durden originally appeared on ZeroHedge.com and was used with permission. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.