Identity of Guccifer 2.0: Ties to the Those Who Investigated the DNC Hack (pizzagate)

submitted ago by migratorypatterns

Relevancy: Guccifer 2.0 was connected to the original DNC alleged hack of John Pedosta so Guccifer 2.0 is central to investigation of how the emails and DNC servers were compromised. Without the leak, no pizzagate.

Ran across this rather cogent investigation into the identity of who Guccifer 2.0 is. Adam Carter, the investigator, ties it to a hack done in 2011 by a group named Lulzsec. It was right after financial services engaged in denial of services to Wikileaks. Very interesting take on things. Even alleges WaPo's involvement in constructing a false cover.

http://g-2.space/henrysabug2/

Lulzsec & Sabu

Back in 2011, soon after financial service providers engaged in what were tantamount to economic sanctions against WikiLeaks (denial of service by banks and payment service providers, blocking donations and freezing the funds of WikiLeaks) a group of hacktivists formed operating under the name of "Lulzsec". The timing may have been coincidental but one of the first tasks they took on was dubbed "Operation Payback", an operation targeting one of those payment providers, PayPal.

...

They exposed shadowy tech firms such as HB Gary, Palantir & Berico and the social media sockpuppet management tools they were pitching at that time exposing business dealings relating to the US Air Force, US Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America. They also acquired emails from Stratfor too.

It was also reported that some of the above firms had proposed systematic attacks against WikiLeaks.

....

After a couple of months of the opposite occurring, I felt my suspicions had been reinforced enough that I was prepared to make an "interim attribution", which I did, naming Shawn Henry (President of CrowdStrike Services and its Chief Security Officer) and Dmitri Alperovitch (Co-founder and Chief Technical Officer of CrowdStrike) as being those most likely behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

I wrote an article explaining how they had effectively set the scene up via a Washington Post article for Guccifer 2.0, the day prior to his emergence. I even publicly tried querying CrowdStrike's claims (following failed attempts at discreetly communicating with them, of course).

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Lovethelight ago

"I wrote an article explaining how they had effectively set the scene up via a Washington Post article for Guccifer 2.0, the day prior to his emergence. " Is this article available ? Do you have a link? Thanks.

migratorypatterns ago

It's most likely this one dated June 14, 20016:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.7d3d4c49e3a0

June 14, 2016 Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

This would establish the alleged hack and lay groundwork for the creation of the dossier. Gotta love Russia's response:

[Russia denies DNC hack and says maybe someone ‘forgot the password’]
Then on June 15 -- KABOOM!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guccifer-20-claims-credit-for-dnc-hack/2016/06/15/abdcdf48-3366-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.6f2221a1f2e8

June 15, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guccifer-20-claims-credit-for-dnc-hack/2016/06/15/abdcdf48-3366-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.94ba47af4bcf

‘Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack

On Wednesday, an individual going by the handle Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s network, though a cybersecurity firm investigating the breach stood by its conclusion that Russia was behind the breach.

“Guccifer 2.0” posted to a website some of the allegedly stolen documents. They included a file titled “Donald Trump Report,” dated Dec. 19, 2015, and a list of what was purported to be million-dollar-plus donors to the Democratic Party.

The DNC acknowledged the intrusion Tuesday.

And CrowdStrike, the firm that investigated the breach, said Wednesday that it had no reason to change its assessment.

“CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike.

So in the June 14th, they establish that a hack is committed at the DNC and that opposition intel on Trump is stolen. One day later on the 15th, they take control by establishing CrowdStrike as the authority over what occurred even though it's alleged and looking pretty much like CrrowdStrike was organization behind the purported breach.

That's how these scumballs do it.

Are_we__sure ago

Your entire premise makes no sense.

Guffiifer2.0 was a quickly thrown together character who WAS a REACTION to Crowdstrike going public. He pretended the be Roumanian, but couldn't speak the language.

What do you mean lays' the groundwork for the dossier?

The dossier was commission by Republicans back in 2015. They needed opposition research for the upcoming primaries. Steele was hired his April, his first update was in June 16 and doesn't mention hacking at all

from wikipedia.

In October 2015, during the Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.[1] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[21][22][23]

In April 2016, the investigation contract and funding were taken over by Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. Elias was the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign.[6] In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, and used by them to produce the dossier.[24] Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS has stated that Steele did not pay any of his sources.[25]

In June 2016, it was revealed that the DNC website had been hacked by Russian sources, so Fusion GPS hired Orbis to look into any Russian connections.[21] The investigation was undertaken by Orbis co-founder Christopher Steele, a retired British MI6 officer with expertise in Russian matters.[21] He later told Mother Jones that he soon found "troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, 'there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.'" He described the finding as "an extraordinary situation" and that it was "sufficiently serious" enough for him to share it with the FBI. He did this in July, without the permission of Fusion GPS.[26]

Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December. He continued his investigation even after the Democratic client stopped paying for it following Trump's election.[21] After the election, Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS "reportedly spent his own money to continue the investigation".[7]

Lovethelight ago

I can follow this (with effort!) up until : 'they take control by establishing Crowdstrike as the authority over what occurred even though.'...its looking like Crowdstrike was behind the breach. ?are you thinking that DNC paid Crowdstrike to say it was the Russians?

migratorypatterns ago

What's being alleged is CrowdStrike helped the DNC by carrying out the strategy. The payments prove that there was a connection. As to what the payment is for is anyone's guess and conjecture. But in order to ascertain what connection was struck, you have to look at what transpired at the time. You also have to take into account that no other accredited security firm came to the same conclusion. And WaPo just coincidentally published the narrative?