Guccifer 2.0’s Chats with BBC Reporter Newly Discovered

Mike Wendling of BBC News released a chat between him and Guccifer 2.0 in January 2017 that didn’t obtain much coverage. The chat has also not been archived or analyzed on, the Guccifer 2.0 research project. Here it is:

AP News recently cited this aforementioned BBC article and the DM attached above in its recent report from November 2017. That report noted that Guccifer 2.0 in the DM was thrilled that WikiLeaks had finally followed through, quoting Guccifer 2.0 as saying that “Together with Assange we’ll make america great again.”

The AP News article also notably made the following claim: “But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

The official said the word “CONFIDENTIAL” was not in the original document .

Guccifer 2.0 had airbrushed it to catch reporters’ attention.” can respond to the new point about the first document and whether they believe it to be true or not. Keep reading RightSideNews for the latest updates.

Sen. Feinstein Wants Wikileaks’ Lawyer Chats in Violation Attorney-Client Privilege

 In a new McCarthyite low, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the leading Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to have the Twitter messages between a Wikileaks lawyer from the U.S. and her client. Feinstein has been demanding more information from Facebook and Twitter about Russian users on their sites. For that reason, in Feinstein’s recent letter to Twitter, she has asked for “All content of each Direct Messages greater than 180 days old between each Requested Account” and she lists “@granmarga” as a Twitter account for which messages should be revealed. 

However, the Twitter account @granmarga belongs to Wikileaks lawyer Margaret Kunstler, who posted this message identifying herself as a Wikileaks lawyer. Her identity can be confirmed because the article that she tweeted out identifies herself as an attorney for Wikileaks who is writing in support of that organization, in an article entitled, “Wikileaks Attorneys Blast Citizen Four Maker Poitras.” It should be noted that Kunstler is a New York civil rights attorney with the law firm HRBEK Law, according to their website. The site notes that Kunstler “has spent her career providing movement support and protecting the rights of activists.”

It is unclear why Kunstler and not the other lawyers for Wikileaks are being targeted, but it seems to be yet a new low in the descent to unfair investigatory and accusatory methods that the committees “investigating” Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential campaign have gone to. Such methods may also be found in the McCarthyism of the investigations made by Senator McCarthy himself up to 1954, and the hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in the same era.

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Florida Journalist Has More DMs with Guccifer 2.0

Aaron Nevins Chat, from the New York Times.

Aaron Nevins recently divulged DMs with Guccifer 2.0 that do not appear on the Guccifer 2.0 research page, or in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article that first outed Nevins in May 2017 as the owner of Nevins runs the gossip site HelloFLA! and participated in an interview on the Viceland show CYBERWAR.

Nevins is videotaped sharing his DM messages with the host of the program on Season 2, Episode 2 of the program, entitled Who Hacked the DNC. While this alternative link does not have the resolution to show every word of the chat, the actual program in High Definition shows the unpublished chat, and is available on cable television still. The images that appears on the broadcast has a timestamp of 2:09 AM, even though the interview takes place during the day on a beach. However, a chat with identical words was published by the New York Times on December 13, 2016, also with the time stamp of 2:09 AM. It is likely then that Nevins did not actually login to his Twitter to present the show’s host his messages, and instead showed the aforementioned images, some of which were released by the Times.

The chat that Nevins presents simply features Nevins offering a Dropbox for Guccifer 2 to drop his files into. Guccifer 2.0 took 14 minutes, between 8/22/16 at 2:25pm and 8/22/16 at 2:39, to upload an as yet unknown amount of files, which would also fit into 6 emails of unknown size. Unlike the WSJ and archive, the chat also features timestamps, that correspond to a Monday, August 22nd afternoon.

The Nevins chat was also the target of Hannibal Moot of BullTruth Magazine, which noted the supposed anomalies of the WSJ published Nevins chat, in the same way he attacked Robbin Young’s DMs. Clearly now that Nevins has gone on record to show his chats on camera, and now that those chats clearly have timestamps unlike the ones released by the WSJ, some say it is clear that the BullTruth report contained more bull than truth. There is no word on whether BullTruth will publish a retraction.

In May 2017, the Wall Street Journal released several images of Nevins’ chats, like here, here and here. These were later republished by here.

HelloFLA is a site that considers itselfthe most sensational source for political gossip, rumors and news from insiders of the nation’s most infamous state!” Nevins has been labelled by the mainstream media as a “GOP operative” yet he does not appear to label himself such. Nevins publishes the website with the pseudonym Mark Miewurd (mark my word).

Newly Discovered Guccifer 2 Chat Shows He Was Wikileaks’ Source

An Associated Press (AP) journalist has released a chat with Guccifer 2.0. 

Raphael Satter released a previously unpublished chat he had with Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 stated, in reply to a question about why Guccifer 2.0 is sending documents directly to a journalist instead of waiting for Wikileaks to publish them, that “I don’t know when or if they gonna publish them.” According to Satter, “@raffiwriter argues @Guccifer _2’s handlers were impatient with @Wikileaks as summer wore on. My 8/22 convo with G2 seems to support that.”  

Satter is referencing an article in the New Yorker magazine by journalist Raffi Khatchadourian, which was reviewed extensively by RightSideNews in the article, Did Wikileaks Directly Receive Information from Guccifer 2.0? The New Yorker article lists three important interactions that display Guccifer 2.0 being impatient with Wikileaks, including:

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” An article by Joe Uchill from July 13 quotes Guccifer 2.0: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) On July 17, Assange “originally planned” to publish the files, but did not. Instead, Guccifer 2.0 leaked a batch of documents to Uchill on that very day.

4) On July 22nd, Wikileaks published the documents, and on that same day Guccifer 2.0 wrote, “At last!”

5) On August 22nd, exactly one month later, Guccifer 2.0 in his chat with the AP’s Raphael Satter expresses impatience with Wikileaks’ release of files.

According to Uchill’s July 22 article, “The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack.”

The implication of Guccifer 2.0 directly working together with Wikileaks is that Guccifer 2.0 had in his possession the documents that Wikileaks later leaked, which contradicts the narrative put forward on the Guccifer 2.0 research website,, that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source for Wikileaks. Raphael Satter is encouraged to release screenshots of his entire chat with Guccifer 2.0.

BREAKING: New Report Suggests DNC Hacker Was Collecting Opposition Research on Donald Trump

A newly discovered report from the firm that was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC breach says that the hackers were looking for information that would hurt Donald Trump and other GOP candidates. The report says

“Based on the data exfiltrated from the DNC, one of FANCY BEAR’s goals appears to have been to collect opposition research the DNC’s research staff had gathered on President Elect (then Republican primary candidate) Donald Trump and other Republican (GOP) presidential candidates.” (page 11). 

According to the Crowdstrike, Fancy Bear is the alleged hacking entity that stole data from the DNC and leaked it to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike’s findings have been used by the DNC and the US Intelligence Community to claim that Russian was involved in the election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The newly revealed information appears to contradict that narrative by showing Fancy Bear was allegedly helping Clinton by hurting Trump and the GOP. 

According to Palo Alto Networks, a spear fishing attack on May 26, 2016 “to a U.S. government entity” was successful, while Crowdstrike says the virus was in the DNC system in April 2016. The attack was allegedly passed on to targets through infected RTF files. Crowdstrike appears to contradict the report of Palo Alto Networks on the timeline of when the DNC was breached.

Contact: [email protected]

Did Wikileaks directly receive information from Guccifer 2.0?

Regarding the DNC’s secrets being spilled in the last election, the question is, as the American Thinker’s Mike Razar has put it, whether Wikileaks “received the information from the Russian government or from some non-Russian hacker source or even an inside leak rather than a hacker.” The question has become, did Guccifer 2.0 directly leak information to Wikileaks?

In order to assess this, we need to look at all of the facts. A recent front cover article of the New Yorker magazine, entitled Julian Assange, a Man Without a Country, reveals some previously unknown, unreported or unpublished interactions of Guccifer 2.0 with others, and other new information that does not even appear on the timeline of Guccifer 2.0 interactions on the “Guccifer 2.0: Game Over” website. One set of information, as extracted from the aforementioned New Yorker article, relates to how Guccifer 2.0 apparently knew that Wikileaks is delayed in releasing the files that Guccifer 2.0 allegedly sent them, and that this knowledge shows that Guccifer 2.0 is supplying Wikileaks with information, or simply colluding with Wikileaks.

There are three examples of such interactions as described in the New Yorker article, in the author Raffi Khatchadourian‘s own words (and arranged chronologically, with boldface added):

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, for example, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” (Indeed, the article by Joe Uchill from July 13 contains these sentences from electronic chats: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) According to Uchill’s July 22 article, The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack. “At last!” he wrote. 

Also, Khatchadourian notes other interactions that have not been documented by others so far, including his apparent attempt at interaction in mid-August 2016 with Emma Best, a journalist and a specialist in archival research who, according to her Twitter handle, is suing the FBI for 2.1 million documents. Khatchadourian seems to think that Guccifer 2.0 was considering sending his documents to Khatchadourian instead of Wikileaks in this time period. However, why would Guccifer 2.0 have written “at last!” on July 22nd to Uchill, and seemed to be happy with Wikileaks’ progress in releasing documents, but then attempted to find a different entity or individual to release the documents only a few weeks later in mid-August? It would make more sense if, between June 17 and July 22nd, the dates of the first and third aforementioned interactions, Guccifer 2.0 would have expressed a desire to send the DNC documents elsewhere. Regardless, Emma Best later commented on Twitter regarding the article, stating that “This is accurate.”

The question for American Thinker readers, researchers and the community ought to be, do you agree with the New Yorker article when it claims that Guccifer 2.0 knew that Wikileaks is delayed in releasing the files in July 2016, as per the New Yorker article, the editor of the Smoking Gun and the Uchill articles from July 13 and July 22nd? It would be helpful if full transcripts of interactions with Guccifer 2.0 would be released by these entities for publication and analysis.

Seth Rich: Fox News’ Article Removal Doesn’t Address Investigator’s Confirmation of Rich-Wikileaks Connection

Fox News on May 23rd removed its article on Seth Rich, after criticism of Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was contracted by the Rich family to conduct an investigation. It is unclear if the article removal is to address the Rich’s family criticism of Wheeler, or the most important claim in the article, that a federal investigator in the case sees a connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks, as explained by the now removed original article here, and archived here:

           “I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

            The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.

            The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.

Wheeler had released his findings on the Rich case, but according to the Rich family statement, “contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family.” After the family expressed its disapproval, applying legal pressure on Wheeler with the happy assistance of DNC apparatchik Brad Bauman, the liberal media began making it look like Wheeler is backtracking. For instance, Wheeler told Buzzfeed on the evening of May 16 that he had no personal knowledge of whether Rich sent email to a contact at Wikileaks. Yet on the morning of May 16, Wheeler told Fox 5 that he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and Wikileaks. However, saying you have sources that tell you about some evidence, doesn’t mean you have personally seen this evidence, and thus, the morning statement of May 16 doesn’t contradict the statement in the evening. 

The only thing that Wheeler had stated was inaccurate about the Fox 5 story is that he “doesn’t know where the computers are,” while in the original story, he stated about the computer, that “I believe (it) is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.” Even when the subsequent Fox News story that is archived here stated that “the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police,” that statement did not contradict Wheeler’s statement, because Fox News didn’t state where the computer itself was.

The fundamental point here is that Wheeler has not retracted his claim that there is a federal investigator who says that Rich sent email to Wikileaks. Also, Fox News has not retracted its own claim that it spoke to the federal investigator and confirmed this information.   

Meanwhile, Kim Dotcom has released his much-awaited statement on his connection to Seth Rich and how he knows Rich was involved in leaking information to Wikileaks. His statement reads:

            I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak. 

            I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.

             Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful. I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics. “He wanted to change that from the inside.”

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Fox News Says Federal Investigator is Source for Seth Rich-Wikileaks Claims

As the Gateway Pundit reported on March 16, the issue of Seth Rich and his connection to Wikileaks has been caught media attention again. However, the new bombshell information reported by Fox News, that a federal investigator has spoken with Fox News anonymously and confirmed that Seth Rich sent 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments to Wikileaks, has been overshadowed in the same article by the headline that the “Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link.”

The man who first announced a link between Rich and Wikileaks, Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor, was blasted by the family for having announced his findings without the family’s consent, potentially violating a non-disclosure clause in their contract. Subsequently, he echoed the Fox News claim regarding the federal investigator during an appearance on Hannity, stating that the “federal investigator that was involved on the inside of the case, that is very credible… he said he laid eyes on the computer and laid eyes on the case file”  

Then to CNN, he said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke for the story, presumably, Malia Zimmerman. The mainstream media jumped on this, claiming that Wheeler “recanted” his story. As well, some FBI officials have responded since by telling both Newsweek and NBC News that the bureau is not involved in the Rich case.

However, the question remains, when will these media outlets reach out to the federal investigator who claimed to Fox News that a connection exists between Seth Rich and Wikileaks? Will they reach out to him and confirm the Fox News claim that Seth Rich was emailing Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time? 

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Roger Stone Did Not Know Guccifer 2 Was Male

Robbin Young, a Bond Girl according to her biography, has shared the romantic twitter direct messages she had been having with Guccifer 2.0, the infamous individual that leaked DNC documents during the 2016 Presidential election. However, Twitter has been ablaze recently with critics of Roger Stone pointing out to his supposed use of the term “Her” in describing Guccifer 2.0, which supposedly means that Stone knows who Guccifer 2.0 is. However, Guccifer 2.0 replied to a romantic poem that Young sent him by saying, “it made me hard.”

Therefore, Guccifer 2.0 is either a man, a transgendered man, or a woman with an elaborate desire to come across as a lovestruck man. If Stone did refer to Guccifer 2.0 as a woman, he must not know her in the same deep way that Robbin Young does, as Young refers to her “friendship” with Guccifer 2.0, a man she “respects and admires.”

The recently released Twitter exchange between Guccifer 2.0 and Robbin Young also shows his use of language, which may provide clues as to his origins. The exchange has been uploaded to Twitter in over 14 minutes of footage, with Guccifer replying to Young between August 15 and August 30, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 also refers to a story about a “whistleblower friend of of mine and my assistant,” but it is unclear to whom he is talking about. He also claims that Julian Assange may be connected to the Russians, and that he doesn’t trust him because of that. Guccifer 2.0 also makes reference to Seth Rich, “my whistleblower“, who was of murdered in July of that year. 

Contact Steve at [email protected]

Evidence Suggests Guccifer 2.0 is a DNC Operative

Rep. Adam Schiff stated on March 20 to the House Intelligence Committee that Guccifer 2.0 was an “intermediary” used by Russian intelligence service to leak hacked information from the DNC. However, according to Adam Carter, a Twitter user and an individual investigating Guccifer 2.0, information has been uncovered that shows a DNC Staffer edited Guccifer 2.0 released files only 30 minutes before they were released, and that Russian fingerprints were intentionally added to the releases. 

According to Carter’s website, Guccifer 2.0: Game Over,  “Metadata suggests it took only 30 minutes to go from a DNC tech/data strategy consultant creating documents to Guccifer2.0 tainting them – all occurring on a date that Guccifer2.0 claimed to be after he was locked out of the DNC Network – occurring on the same day that Guccifer2.0 emerged. Furthermore, “Data found deeper in files now also demonstrates there was a misdirection effort, that, in it’s larger scope – seems to have been intended to discredit leaks by having leaks blamed on Russian hackers.”

Specifically, four files from the June 15 release were created by DNC Staffer Warren Flood approximately 30 minutes before being modified by Guccifer, including 2.doc, which was created at 1:38pm and modified by “Феликс Эдмундович” at 2:11, 3.doc, created at 1:38pm and modified at 2:12pm, and 5.doc, created and modified at the same time, 2:13pm! This could suggest they were created and modified by Warren Flood or his computer at the same time they were being edited with a new Russian “modified by” name added to it. 

Furthermore, Carter alleges that Guccifer 2.0 engaged in “misdirection” by making it appear he was Russian, when he was not, by naming his computer account after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Guccifer 2.0 also created/opened and then saved documents so the Russian name was written to metadata, used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address and used public web-based email services that would forward his cloaked IP. He then contacted various media outlets using all of this, so that any simpleton will think he is a Russian, although outwardly denying he is a Russian.

The real reason for all of this, according to Carter, is that the DNC was desperate to portray information that was sent to Wikileaks as a Russian hack in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents and to make the conversation about Russian meddling in the election. Carter says that “The campaign was in a desperate position and really needed something similar to a Russian hacker narrative and one where they would be fortunate to have a seemingly clumsy hacker that leaves lots of ‘fingerprints’ tainting files and bringing the reputation of leaks iinto question… Sure enough, 2-3 days later, Guccifer2.0 – the world’s weirdest hacker – was spawned and started telling lies in an effort to attribute himself to the malware discoveries, etc.”

Guccifer 2.0 Appears To Be One Person

At the Hearing of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on March 30, Thomas Rid, Professor Department of War Studies, King’s College London, made the following statement:

  • “Guccifer 2 is certainly not just one individual because in private interaction with journalists we can literally see different types of humans at play. Some use consistently at a specific time lots of smilies and very informal, and there’s more a formal, all communicating through the same channels.”

Therefore, I attempted to fine examples of these “lots of smilies and very informal” communications, and the formal communications, in order to prove or disprove this theory. 

Some examples of these “very informal” private twitter messages is his chat with the BBC in October 2016, where he uses smileys on October 18 and the term “u” instead of “you” on October 7th and October 18; his chat with on July 21, where he uses the term “u” 10 different times, while explaining the high-tech way in which he hacked the DNC, when he used a “0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft then I installed shell-code into the DNC server” (is this considered an informal or formal chat?); and his chat with former Playboy model Robbin Young between August 15 and August 30th, where he uses a multitude of smilies to express his affection for her, while at the same time, stating “ur soul’s so pure and unspoiled – it beckons me“, using a formal word like “beckons” in a sentence that also has an informal “u”. He also claimed to her on August 25 that murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich was his whistleblower, implying that his data was obtained by a DNC leak, in direct contradiction of his aforementioned July 21st claim to that he was a hacker that broke into the DNC server. Therefore, Guccifer 2.0 also contradicts himself even when he is in this “very informal” state of smilies and using the word “u”.

An arguable example of formal private twitter messages includes his chat with Roger Stone between August 15 and September 9, where he uses the term “u” with him 5 times on August 17th, but on September 9th, writes the intelligent statement, that “the basic premise of winning an election is turnout your base (marked turnout) and target the marginal folks with persuadable advertising (marked persuadable),” in explaining the documents he is releasing. However, because in the past the “informal” version of Guccifer 2.0 has shown he can be both informal and formal, it is possible that this statement was written by the same person sending the informal messages. We can see that Guccifer 2.0 is an intelligent individual capable of both informal and formal chats, of limitless use of the word “u” and smilies when chatting with allies, while capable of making intelligent statements to explain the utility of the documents he is releasing.  

Would the CIA frame Russia in DNC attack, yet wiretap Trump Tower?

The recent Wikileaks contains hacking tools for the CIA that are used to “avoid fingerprints implicating the CIA and the US government” in its hacking. Indeed, according to Wikileaks’ analysis, the UMBRAGE and these related projects can “misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.” Since the security company Crowdstrike, funded by the DNC, has identified “two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016,” by the name of COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR, and the Obama-led intelligence community (or “band of leakers”) “confirmed” this in their report in the dying days of their administration, many have thought it was Russia behind the DNC attack. Since we can assume, based on the recent wikileak, that the CIA can replicate a Cozy Bear and fancy Bear attack, the question we ought to ask is, would the CIA frame Russia and hack the DNC?

Certainly, the case can be made that the CIA, at least outwardly, has been Pro-Obama and Anti-Trump. Take into account the many leaks from the Trump administration, to which President Trump tweeted on Feb. 14, asking, “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? President Trump went further and claimed that the CIA obtained the leak-worthy information through illegal monitoring, when he tweeted on Mar. 4 that he “just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory.” Mr. Trump also said in a Fox News interview, regarding the leaks, that “I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it.” The question remains, how can the CIA be so obviously against Trump, yet potentially have helped him so much with the DNC leaks?

The answer is that there could be rogue Pro-Trump individuals within the CIA agency doing the hacking behind the back of their Pro-Obama superiors. That would be the only way to explain the discrepancy, if it is true that the CIA framed Russia in the DNC attack. According to the Wikileaks trove of CIA files, these cover-up tools are contained in the documents entitled Development Tradecract Dos and Don’ts, use of encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communicationdescribing targets & exfiltrated data as well as executing payloads and persisting in the target’s machines over time. Since the CIA has this cover-up capability, does Russia have it too?

According to John McAfee, the internationally-renowned information security pioneer and founder of global computer security software company McAfee, “Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their tracks. If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into organizations. (…) He continued, “If it looks like the Russians did it, than I can guarantee you, it was not the Russians.”  The question is, why would Russia leave its fingerprints in the hacking job, if it was them, since they could have deleted those tracks?

Either the Russians wanted everyone to know it was them when they hacked the DNC, or it wasn’t them at all. It could also have been another country or group that replicated Russia’s fingerprints, including rogue individuals in the CIA, or it really could have been a Romanian hacker utilizing Russian hacking tools, as Guccifer 2.0 has claimed he is Romanian all along.

More needs to be done to find if there any Pro-Trump elements in the intelligence community in the run up to the 2016 Presidential Election, if Russia has in the past covered its tracks when it uses established hacking tools, and how easy it is for another country or group to replicate a Fancy Bear or Cozy Bear attack.

“We cannot connect dots to Guccifer 2.0” Senate Intel Hearing Cyber Analyst Says

Kevin Mandia, chief executive officer of FireEye Inc., listens during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, March 30, 2017. Leaders of the committee promised a thorough and impartial investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election at the hearing, held as a House probe remained mired in partisan disputes. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

There is No Evidence to Connect Russia to Guccifer 2.0 – Senate Intel Hearing Cyber Analyst Says

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 30, during testimony from experts, Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer of the security technology company FireEye, said the following in response to Senator Lankford asking if there is any connection between Guccifer 2 and the alleged Russian breach of the DNC server: “We cannot connect all the dots from the breach, at least with the observables available to my company and our investigators. We can’t go from breach, and leaked data, to suddenly Guccifer 2.0, we just don’t have the means to do that.” 

The Intelligence Committee has been holding hearings over the past few weeks regarding alleged Russian interference in the election. However, new information has surfaced that the Committee hasn’t reviewed yet, including In the last few days, which was released by Wikileaks regarding Guccifer 2.0, with the tweet, “Direct Messages from U.S. alleged Russian spy @GUCCIFER_2 to actress-model @robbin_young (according to the latter).” 

The Wikileaks direct messages release have echoed in social media, with news sites pointing to Guccifer 2.0 claiming Seth Rich was his whistleblower, which is in contradiction to his previous claims of hacking the DNC directly. Guccifer 2.0 states that “His name is Seth, he is my whistleblower” and that “I’d like to find a journalist who can do an investigation and teel [sic] the real story of his life and death.” The new articles have generated thousands of views and shares on the matter. 

An ‘Open, Democratic Process’ Needs Wikileaks Help

John Lewis recently said that “I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open, democratic process.” Putting aside questions of whether or not Russia hacked at all, and the claim of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that his “source is not a state party,” there is nothing wrong with a foreign entity helping to disclose truth about public officials. 

Investigative reporting is one of the most important contributions that the press makes to democracy, according to Silvio Waisbord, author of Watchdog Journalism in South America: News, Accountability, and Democracy. “It provides a valuable mechanism for monitoring the performance of democratic institutions as they are most broadly defined to include governmental bodies, civic organizations and publicly held corporations,” says Waisbord. But when media organizations fail to properly investigate these institutions, can the public get help from a foreign entity? 

In this instance, Wikileaks disclosed specific examples of corruption of the DNC by hacking the emails of the DNC. That corruption is firstly expressed in Hillary Clinton having a different position personally than the one she says publicly, or in her words, “you need both a public and a private position.” Such private positions that she didn’t disclose publicly, is her private support for fracking, and her private opposition to gay marriage despite her public reversal.

Other examples include those of institutional corruption, such as how the DNC, which should be neutral in a democracy, helped Hillary Clinton win the primary when DNC surrogate Donna Brazile on two occasions, leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton, as well as leaking a private email on African-American Outreach from a Sanders press representative to the Clinton campaign. 

However, the deepest corruption exposed as a result of the paid speeches that the Clinton would make before, during and after Hillary Clinton was in office. One such example is how a corporate donor got access to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when he requested it. Another example of is Bill Clinton used Clinton Foundation staff to reach out to donors to the Clinton Foundation, in order for them to funnel their dollars to him through private speaking fees. This is the most clear example of corruption, of privately benefitting from public office. Of putting money in your pocket as a result of the position that you hold in the government. 

Yet all of this information was found by Wikileaks, and not through the dogged investigations of the mainstream media. If it wasn’t for Wikileaks, we would think Hillary Clinton’s public position were here private position; that the DNC was perfectly neutral and that Hillary Clinton won her nomination fair and square; and that the sole purpose of the Clinton Foundation was AIDS research. If anything, Wikileaks saved the election from the lies and deception of the Clinton campaign. So what if a foreign entity intervened? 

There is a stark difference between foreign propaganda, and foreign intervention that leads to more truth being exposed. The difference is that the first one is founded on a lie, and the second one is founded on the truth. There can never be enough truth in a democracy, unless getting to that truth involves the violation of rights. Yet acts of civil disobedience in terms of hacking are necessary at times when so much truth has become obfuscated. We cannot say how much hacking is too much hacking, only when the rights of individuals have become so impugned that it outweighs the value of the hacking. Yet in this instance, so much truth was revealed, so as to outweigh the rights to privacy and other rights of the DNC members. If the foreign intervention did not rely on hacking, but on disseminating fake news like CNN does, then it would be foreign propaganda.

Foreign propaganda depends on a “subconscious manipulation of psychological symbols to accomplish secret objectives,” according to Kenneth Osgoode. It has been described as “the use of communication skills of all kinds to achieve attitudinal or behavioural changes among one group by another,” by historian Oliver Thomson. In other words, how to emotionally effect you so that you will hold a position that is not necessarily grounded in fact. An example of foreign propaganda would be if a foreign entity would say, “The Democrats are Weak, America is Corrupt, Your Democracy is losing,” etc. These would be baseless claims, or be grounded in inadequate sources that would inaccurate. 

In this example, the truth is exposed by hackers, and no additional emotional matter is added to the information, nor is the information taken out of context. This is because as the Wikileaks shows, Hillary Clinton is indeed corrupt. The reply of Americans if the Russian hacking allegations are true to help find the truth internationally as well, such as, for instance, researching the alleged examples of money laundering that Vladimir Putin was engaged in, as exposed by the Panama Papers, and any human rights violations, foreign and domestic. Democracy is not infallible, and needs to be preserved by those willing to find the truth, no matter who they are.