Also Guccifer 2 is a Russian intel cutout. Why should I believe any of this nonsense? They didn't have this evidence last year? Seriously, they just discovered this? Ridiculous.
Not sure what you mean. Assange all but confirmed it was Seth, Assange offered an award for the capture of the Rich's killer, Wikileaks up to this point has been 100% accurate in transmissions released and they released this one, and now Guccifer is using the name "Seth" to indicate his source.
"Wikileaks has been 100% accurate in document it has released" (which is debateable) does not equals Wikileaks has been 100% honest in its statements or Assange has been 100% honest in his statements.
If fact, the Wikileaks method is to release a real document and then lie about what it means.
If you think Assange is 100% honest, you may want to look into why all the early people who joined Wikileaks don't want to work with him again.
In fact, I would say that they have been willing to spin, decieve or outright lie from the at least the release of the Collateral Murder video. In that case, they were deliberately emotionally manipulative how they presented the video. They framed the footage as murder before anyone saw it and framed the pilots as wanting to murder civilians. The truth was that 2007 footage was taking place in an extremely hot urban warzone where battles were taking place all over a neighborhood were US forces were hit by a few IEDs in recent days. Just before that video there were a few firefights involving RPGs and sniper fire. Wikileaks doesn't tell you that. In fact, they go in the opposite direction, describinb a group of men with weapons as "relaxed" as if to indicate there was no threat. In fact, that area was so hot the soliders who came later and helped rescue the two kids had just engaged in a firefight and starting taking sniper fire right after he got the kids out of there. Wikileaks also implied the pilots were cleared to fire before there was a threat. The Reuters cameraman was in a group that did have weapons, he was not wearing anything that identified him as press and the US Army didn't know he was in the area. That incident was an example of horrible things that can happen in a warzone including civilains getting killed. It was not an example of deliberate murder. The fact that the pilots followed the rules of engagement shows that, as the rules are there as a safeguard.
In this particular case, Wikileaks has claimed on several occassions that there submission system is completely anonymous and thus they can't reveal the names of their sources since they don't know them. So either that is true and they were up to something else when when they implied Rich was their source or they were lying about their setup because they were able to determine Rich was their source.
So anyway, the nonsense theory that their source was Seth Rich was already floating about for weeks by the time this actress began talking with the hacker cutout for Russian Intelligence. This is why these DMs have zero evidentiary value. They confirm nothing. Especially when we know Gufficifer2 was not even a single person.
Anyway, there's is a ton of public information as to why we known Russian Intelligence and not a lone Romanian hacker is behind this leak.
The forensic investigation by initially down CrowdStrike was then verified by many other groups including
Fidelis Cybersecurity,
Mandiant,
SecureWorks,
ThreatConnect,
Ars Technica,
When interviewed by Vice we found out that Guccifer2 can't speak Romanian. His English comes and goes aw well. The leaked DNC docs have a ton of evidence in the metadata: they are from a Russian language version of Word and the "last modified" and error messages are in the Cyrillic alphabet, the username refers founder of the Soviet secret police....
And saving the biggest for last: control servers were the same one used when the Russians hacked the German government, the Polish government, the Hungarian government, the Georgian government, NATO and organizations. They also hacked many other entities beyond the DNC in the US. They tried to get the voting rolls of 20 states and succeeded in 4 states.
Also just before releasing this material, Wikileaks moved their servers to Russia.
“Crowdstrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official told BuzzFeed.
Yup! In other words, we've shown you what's under shell number one, so why go looking under shell 2 or 3 to get the real story that might refute the false narrative?
But thanks for the oral fandango. It's always fun to take a turn on the dance floor.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Also Guccifer 2 is a Russian intel cutout. Why should I believe any of this nonsense? They didn't have this evidence last year? Seriously, they just discovered this? Ridiculous.
quantokitty ago
Not sure where you're getting that from. They did have it. Check out Posobiec's tweet asking why this one wasn't being used.
Are_we_sure ago
In all seriousness, can you talk about how you think these "confirm" seth rich as whistleblower?
quantokitty ago
Not sure what you mean. Assange all but confirmed it was Seth, Assange offered an award for the capture of the Rich's killer, Wikileaks up to this point has been 100% accurate in transmissions released and they released this one, and now Guccifer is using the name "Seth" to indicate his source.
Are_we_sure ago
"Wikileaks has been 100% accurate in document it has released" (which is debateable) does not equals Wikileaks has been 100% honest in its statements or Assange has been 100% honest in his statements.
If fact, the Wikileaks method is to release a real document and then lie about what it means.
If you think Assange is 100% honest, you may want to look into why all the early people who joined Wikileaks don't want to work with him again.
In fact, I would say that they have been willing to spin, decieve or outright lie from the at least the release of the Collateral Murder video. In that case, they were deliberately emotionally manipulative how they presented the video. They framed the footage as murder before anyone saw it and framed the pilots as wanting to murder civilians. The truth was that 2007 footage was taking place in an extremely hot urban warzone where battles were taking place all over a neighborhood were US forces were hit by a few IEDs in recent days. Just before that video there were a few firefights involving RPGs and sniper fire. Wikileaks doesn't tell you that. In fact, they go in the opposite direction, describinb a group of men with weapons as "relaxed" as if to indicate there was no threat. In fact, that area was so hot the soliders who came later and helped rescue the two kids had just engaged in a firefight and starting taking sniper fire right after he got the kids out of there. Wikileaks also implied the pilots were cleared to fire before there was a threat. The Reuters cameraman was in a group that did have weapons, he was not wearing anything that identified him as press and the US Army didn't know he was in the area. That incident was an example of horrible things that can happen in a warzone including civilains getting killed. It was not an example of deliberate murder. The fact that the pilots followed the rules of engagement shows that, as the rules are there as a safeguard.
In this particular case, Wikileaks has claimed on several occassions that there submission system is completely anonymous and thus they can't reveal the names of their sources since they don't know them. So either that is true and they were up to something else when when they implied Rich was their source or they were lying about their setup because they were able to determine Rich was their source.
So anyway, the nonsense theory that their source was Seth Rich was already floating about for weeks by the time this actress began talking with the hacker cutout for Russian Intelligence. This is why these DMs have zero evidentiary value. They confirm nothing. Especially when we know Gufficifer2 was not even a single person.
Anyway, there's is a ton of public information as to why we known Russian Intelligence and not a lone Romanian hacker is behind this leak.
The forensic investigation by initially down CrowdStrike was then verified by many other groups including Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Ars Technica,
When interviewed by Vice we found out that Guccifer2 can't speak Romanian. His English comes and goes aw well. The leaked DNC docs have a ton of evidence in the metadata: they are from a Russian language version of Word and the "last modified" and error messages are in the Cyrillic alphabet, the username refers founder of the Soviet secret police....
And saving the biggest for last: control servers were the same one used when the Russians hacked the German government, the Polish government, the Hungarian government, the Georgian government, NATO and organizations. They also hacked many other entities beyond the DNC in the US. They tried to get the voting rolls of 20 states and succeeded in 4 states.
Also just before releasing this material, Wikileaks moved their servers to Russia.
quantokitty ago
Spoken like a true shill. Congrats. You've stacked the BS high. As if difficulty working with someone translates into anything other than difficult working with someone. As for Crowdstrike, they've already retracted key points: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-28/something-stinks-here-crowdstrike-revises-retracts-parts-explosive-russian-hacking-r so you might want to update your false narrative. And, of course, the DNC screamed hacking and then refused to let the FBI examine the servers. Yeah, let's just rely on one opinion because the other security experts you named only opined on Crowdstrike's evidenciary report, not from examination of the servers. Makes a huge difference. Massive. Then there's this that sums it all up: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312767-fbi-never-examined-hacked-dnc-servers-report
Yup! In other words, we've shown you what's under shell number one, so why go looking under shell 2 or 3 to get the real story that might refute the false narrative?
But thanks for the oral fandango. It's always fun to take a turn on the dance floor.