Proof! – DNC manufactured the Russian controversy in June 2016

Democrats manufactured the Russian interference story as a disinformation campaign all the way back in June 2016. 

And this post will prove this beyond reasonable doubt with evidence. Not just that, but there is great circumstantial evidence of illegal activity going all the way up to the Obama administration, and provides new motive for why Seth Rich was murdered.

The evidence is presented in this post.

Timeline

Understanding the order in which the events happened will be important to understand why it was the DNC and only the DNC could have manufactured the Russian campaign.

In bullet point form:

  1. DNC announces they’ve been hacked.
  2. The day after, a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claims to have taken credit for the hack and announces he will be giving his documents to Wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 vehemently denies being Russian, a façade he keeps up throughout his activity.
  3. Bolstered by Crowdstrike’s report and the metadata in Guccifer 2.0’s documents, media outlets immediately start screaming that Guccifer 2.0 must be Russian agents.
  4. Finally, Wikileaks releases the DNC documents a month after Guccifer 2.0 did.

This post unmasks Guccifer 2.0’s identity as none other than the DNC.

What did Guccifer 2.0 do?

Guccifer 2.0 hosted a WordPress site where the DNC documents could be publicly downloaded. June 15th was the date of the first Guccifer 2.0 leak; further leaks would continue thereafter. I focus only on the first leak, as they contain the metadata which are essential to proving it was a DNC operation.

What were in the leaked Guccifer documents?

Guccifer 2.0 leaked a total of 10 Office documents from the DNC in the first batch (many more would come, but none contain the same “mistakes” as the ones I shall detail).
All Microsoft Office documents have metadata entries which contain attributes about the document itself such as the user that created them, the user that modified them, and so on. This metadata is usually invisible to viewers but can be viewed with a raw text editor like Notepad, or on Mac OS, vim.
It would be unusual for a leaker to modify the metadata, but Guccifer 2.0 did, claiming that it was his “watermark.”
In Office, the metadata includes the owner of the Office application who created the file and the owner of the Office application who modified the file. I present a list of the document names having metadata values for original author & modified author:

So what… Warren Flood, Blake, and jbs836 were the original authors?

Short answer: No. Non-technical answer: For one thing, we can cross-reference the actual authors from the Wikileaks dump. 1.doc is in the “verified” Wikileaks release as the attachment which can be downloaded from here which has the original author of “Lauren Dillon.” So, wait, who is Warren Flood et al? Each of these documents had a creation date of June 15, and were modified by “?????? ??????????” a few minutes later.

In Office 2007 format specification, there is a certain stylesheet template which dictates overall formatting for the document. In three of the documents by Warren Flood, we find the identical metadata.

The above line appears across all three of Warren Flood’s documents. styrsid11758497 is an unique identifier that is author-associative. The fact that it does not appear in the other documents indicates it’s associated with Warren Flood and not “?????? ??????????”.

Why is this important? Well, the \langfe1049 portion is a setting saying that Russian language should be used as the default language for the document.

Had “?????? ??????????” been setting the “watermark,” it would be the same across all documents. But instead, distinct watermarks were created for each document creator, suggesting inconsistent application or three different creators applying their own watermark.

In other words, document creators set the document properties to use Russian language and created three distinct so-called ‘watermarks’ in doing so, not ‘?????? ??????????.’
Also, cross-reference to Wikileaks shows that Warren Flood did not author any of the documents. And given that the timestamps are all on June 15th, this is the sequence of events:

  • Warren Flood opens a DNC document, copies it, and pastes it as a new document to his computer.
  • Warren Flood sets the theme language to Russian in some way (this process is different for all authors).
  • Warren Flood modifies the document’s author to ?????? ??????????.
  • The modified document is then uploaded to the Guccifer website and publicly published a short time thereafter.

Who is Warren Flood?

Warren Flood is a high-ranking technology official for Democratic operatives, having worked for Obama for America, DNC, and Joe Biden.  It’s a unique name.

His name does not appear in any of the Wikileaks emails, meaning that he appears to be a third party as far as the DNC email leaks are concerned.

Other than his (professional Internet) profile, he is a social media ghost, never having made any Tweets nor any evidence of real social media activity.

The pertinent point is that: the metadata forensic proof is irrefutable that Warren Flood, or someone who owned a copy of Word registered to Warren Flood, shoehorned in obvious “Russian” fingerprints all over the documents.
Guccifer 2.0 is none other than a botched DNC creation to create a false flag for Russia.

Impact of Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC creation

The “Russian influenced the US election” campaign all started from the DNC leak.
Allegations of Russian influence was built on a completely fabricated foundation of lies.
In hindsight, we now know that Obama administration unmasking of US campaign officials on the pretext of “Russian interference” started in June 2016, same date as when Guccifer 2.0 began. The implications that the unmasking all was predicated on a DNC psy-ops is staggering.

Who cares why the DNC did it?

Because it proves that “Russian interference” started as a total DNC fabrication that persists to today. The whole Russian campaign started before Trump made his infamous joke about Russians getting Hillary’s emails.
Illegal unmasking of Trump campaign officials over Russian interference began June 2016. Was this predicated on Russian interference with the DNC hacks? If so, this means that the leaks not only implicate DNC and plague President Trump himself, but also implicates Obama administration officials and all the involved intelligence agencies.

Why did DNC leak their own documents?

It’s right in Guccifer 2.0’s blog. Pertinent quote: “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon.” TheDNC knew they were having their documents leaked to Wikileaks, and wanted to make sure a Russian hacker took credit for the leaks.

How did the DNC know Wikileaks was going to release the DNC emails?

Great question. It’s hard to imagine them knowing without assistance from intelligence agencies – and indeed unmasking of campaign officials started in June 2016.
This is, of course, highly illegal, and would mean that the Russian disinformation campaign wasn’t just a DNC operation, it was also created from collusion with the Obama administration using highly illegal means including violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Since Guccifer 2.0 was a botched operation, that might make the continued existence of the real leaker who might draw scrutiny that much more precarious…

What about Crowdstrike report?

The metadata I described above can be independently verified by a non-technical person with access to any text editor like vim (which is available on Mac OS terminal command line). It does not require special forsenic analysis to identify. There are only two explanations: staggering incompetence, or DNC collusion.
I cannot say if Crowdstrike is competent, but I can say that their co-founder and CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, a think tank whose policies could be termed as anti-protectionist.

Who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks?

In short, all circumstantial evidence points to Seth Rich.
Seth Rich was killed on July 10, after the Guccifer drops and before the Wikileaks release. Wikileaks offered a 20,000 reward for information on Seth Rich’s death.
Craig Murray, a British national connected with Wikileaks, claims a disgusted Democrat insider was the leaker and he personally flew overseas to make the drop.

Was Seth Rich murdered by the DNC?

We are getting in speculative territory here. The circumstances of his death are suspicious – there had never been a homicide prior or after in his area. The assailants did not steal any of his valuables.
Conspiracy theorists assume Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC to “set an example.”

 

Personally, I think that as long as Seth Rich existed, he could have spoken up as the leaker at any moment and drawn scrutiny to Guccifer 2.0 being a DNC operation. To our knowledge, the unmasking of Trump and related officials started in June 2016 using the DNC hacks as a pretext. Seth Rich’s continued existence could have lead to the fall of the White House and intelligence agencies.
Is that motive enough for a political hit? You tell me.

News sources say that the “documents contain DNC metadata” is disproven.

In addition to hosting them on the official WordPress website, DNC documents were sent directly by Guccifer 2.0 to media outlets such as The Hill (despite Guccifer 2.0 himself claiming hatred of these very same media outlets accusing him of being Russian).
What Guccifer 2.0 sent was not always the same as what was on the official Guccifer 2.0 website. My speculation is that Guccifer 2.0 revised the documents to remove the metadata, and sent those corrected documents to media outlets. He could not do the same on his WordPress site for without drawing intense scrutiny, so the botched documents remained.
Bottom line:it is unimpeachable that watermarked Russian metadata in Guccifer’s first document drop are associated with a DNC tech worker named Warren Flood who otherwise has nothing to do with the DNC emails.Any media outlet reporting otherwise are probably either working from their own “corrected” copy from Guccifer or spinning hard or both.

Appendix – Technical details

Microsoft Word 2007 format specification:https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/download/confirmation.aspx?id=10725

Much more detailed analysis of the Warren Flood documents –http://g-2.space/intent.html

(Spezzes are for formatting/proofreading)

Spez: Corrected ?????? ?????????? to say Felix Edmundovich . It’s been pointed out in the comments that it is not a legitimate Russian surname, but rather someone copied and pasted only the first & middle name of this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

ORIGINALLY FOUND ON R/THE_DONALD

Facebook Comments