G2.0 later made a point of contacting Wikileaks to offer allegedly hacked documents - the intent being to leave an evidence trail that subsequent investigators (i.e. G2.0 then posted several allegedly purloined documents – including the Trump Oppo Research document mentioned by Crowdstrike (albeit this document subsequently was shown to have been obtained from Podesta’s emails, not the DNC!) – to which he intentionally added “Russian fingerprints”, so that cyberanalysts would conclude that he was Russian. The next day the persona Guccifer 2.0 – an evident creation of Crowdstrike – pops up for the first time, proclaiming that he has hacked the DNC and furnished the contents to Wikileaks – referring to Assange’s statement 3 days earlier. So two days later, Crowdstrike publicly announced that the DNC had been hacked – likely by Russian intelligence – and that the hackers had taken, among other things, a Trump Oppo Research document.
When Assange subsequently announced, on June 12, 2016, that Wikileaks would soon be releasing “material related to Hillary”, DNC/Crowdstrike then reasonably concluded that these would be DNC emails. Crowdstrike then faked evidence of a late spring hack of the DNC by APT28/Fancy Bear by implanting malware on the DNC server. This narrative would enable the media to focus on the evil Russkies and their partner-in-crime Assange, while ignoring the incriminating content of the emails. They then hit on the stratagem of blaming the Russian government for a hack of the DNC, such that “the Russians” could be blamed as the source of the DNC emails that they expected that Wikileaks would be publishing.
My contention is that US intelligence tipped off the DNC that one of their employees was planning to leak their emails to Wikileaks, and that the DNC then brought in their computer consultants Crowdstrike to manage the situation.
0 kommentar(er)
