A year ago a team
of intelligence professionals
produced the first hard evidence that
eMails from the Democrat National
Committee were stolen by an insider,
not hacked.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity published its report
on July 24, 2017.
I published
the following article
the following article
on the subject:
http://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-nation-left-wing-magazine-agrees.html
http://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-nation-left-wing-magazine-agrees.html
There have been
many failed attempts
to discredit "VIPS50",
as the group’s document
was called.
VIPS, and forensic scientists
working with it, have continued
their investigations.
Their primary claim stands:
No one “hacked”
No one “hacked”
the Democrat Party’s mail
in the summer of 2016.
It was done internally to expose
the party leadership’s efforts
to sink Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
Key members of the VIPS group,
include William Binney,
the National Security Agency’s
former technical director
for global analysis,
and designer of programs
the agency still uses
to monitor internet traffic.
The most fundamental
evidence of a leak,
not a hack,
evidence of a leak,
not a hack,
was the transfer rate
—the speed at which
data were copied.
The speed proven then was
an average of 22.7 megabytes
per second.
That speed matches what is standard
when someone with physical access
uses an external storage device
to copy data from a computer
or server and is much faster
than a remote hack.
The fastest internet
transfer speed achieved,
during a New Jersey
–to–Britain test,
–to–Britain test,
was only 12.0 megabytes
of data per second.
Since last year, it has emerged
from metadata that the detected
average speed—the 22.7 megabytes
per second—included peak speeds
that ran as high as 49.1 megabytes
per second, impossible speed for
over the internet.
“No one—including the FBI, the CIA,
and the NSA—has come out
against this finding,” Binney said.
The identity of Guccifer 2.0,
who claimed to be
a Romanian hacker
a Romanian hacker
but the Mueller indictment
claims G-2.0 is a construct
of the GRU, or Russian military
intelligence -- a claim that has
of the GRU, or Russian military
intelligence -- a claim that has
never been proven.
They examined all the metadata
associated with the files hacker
Guccifer 2.0 has made public.
The question is what G–2.0
did with, or to, the data in question.
did with, or to, the data in question.
G–2.0 changed all the dates
on all the files,
and the hours stamped
on each file.
These are called
“range changes”
among the professionals.
The G–2.0 entity had
inserted Russian “fingerprints”
into the document known
inserted Russian “fingerprints”
into the document known
as the “Trump Opposition Report,”
which G-2.0 had published
on June 15, 2016.
The indictments
against 12 Russian
intelligence officers
announced in mid–July
by Rod Rosenstein,
the deputy attorney-general,
comes into question.
The indictments rest
in considerable part
in considerable part
on evidence derived
from G–2.0 and DCLeaks,
another online persona.
from G–2.0 and DCLeaks,
another online persona.
Binney said:
"The intrusion into
the Democratic
National Committee mail
was a local download
—wherever ‘local’ is.
That doesn’t change.
As to Rosenstein,
he’ll have a lot to prove.”
