{"174272":{"id":"174272","parent":"0","time":"1590165705","url":"http:\/\/www.strategic-culture.org\/news\/2020\/05\/22\/guccifer-2-hidden-agenda\/","category":"documentaires","title":"Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda","lead_image_url":"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/img\/newsnet_174272_6c4820.png","hub":"newsnet","url-explicit":"guccifer-20-s-hidden-agenda","admin":"newsnet","views":"27","priority":"3","length":"31004","lang":"en","content":"\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003EWhy would an alleged GRU officer supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability suggest that Assange \"may be connected with Russians?\", asks Tim Leonard.\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003ETim LEONARD\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn December, I \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\"\u003Ereported on digital forensics evidence relating to Guccifer 2.0\u003C\/a\u003E and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cul\u003E\u003Cli\u003EGuccifer 2.0 \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s8\"\u003Efabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003E(using files that were really Podesta attachments)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EGuccifer 2.0's Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/did-guccifer-2-plant-his-russian-fingerprints\"\u003Edeliberate processes\u003C\/a\u003E & \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs\"\u003Eneedless editing of documents\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EGuccifer 2.0's Russian communications signals came from the persona \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s4\"\u003Echoosing to use a proxy server in Moscow\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s5\"\u003Echoosing to use a Russian VPN service\u003C\/a\u003E as end-points \u003Ci\u003E(and they \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/Ckwgr#selection-877.0-907.220\"\u003Eused an email service that forwards the sender's IP address\u003C\/a\u003E, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\"\u003Econsiderable volume of evidence\u003C\/a\u003E pointed at Guccifer 2.0's activities being in American timezones \u003Ci\u003E(twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0's activities being in American timezones than anywhere else).\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EThe American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. \u003Ci\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/g2tweettimes\"\u003Eblogging\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/g2tweettimes\"\u003Esocial media\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/climateaudit.org\/2017\/09\/19\/guccifer-2-emails\"\u003Eemailing a journalist\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/gist.github.com\/brl\/666ade004b7dc59c82824ed7cbd60f1d\"\u003Earchiving files\u003C\/a\u003E, etc)\u003C\/i\u003E and some of these were recorded independently by service providers.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EA couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\"\u003Eaccompanying locale indicators that contradicted this\u003C\/a\u003E which suggested the devices used hadn't been properly set up for use in Russia \u003Ci\u003E(or Romania)\u003C\/i\u003E but may have been suitable for other countries \u003Ci\u003E(including America)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ul\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThis article questions what Guccifer 2.0's intentions were in relation to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E in the context of what has been discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ETiming\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn June 12, 2016, in an \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.itv.com\/news\/update\/2016-06-12\/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come\"\u003Einterview with ITV's Robert Peston\u003C\/a\u003E, Julian Assange confirmed that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 \u003Ci\u003E(or with DCLeaks)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn June 14, 2016, an article was \u003Ca href=\"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\"\u003Epublished in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives\u003C\/a\u003E alleging that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties coordinate their releases of leaks. \u003Ci\u003E(It doesn't appear that\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Eresponded until September 2016)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 appeared for the first time. He \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/guccifer2.wordpress.com\/2016\/06\/15\/dnc\"\u003Efabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003E(using material that wasn't from the DNC),\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s4\"\u003Eused a proxy in Moscow to carry out searches\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003E(for mostly English language terms including a grammatically incorrect and uncommon phrase that the persona would use in its first blog post)\u003C\/i\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s5\"\u003Eused a Russian VPN service\u003C\/a\u003E to \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/media-mishaps-early-guccifer-2-coverage\"\u003Eshare the fabricated evidence with reporters\u003C\/a\u003E. All of this combined conveniently to provide false corroboration for several claims made by CrowdStrike executives that were published just one day earlier in \u003Ci\u003EThe Washington Post.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E(CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/consortiumnews.com\/2020\/05\/09\/ray-mcgovern-new-house-documents-sow-further-doubt-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc\"\u003Etestified\u003C\/a\u003E under oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net\/static\/2020\/05\/sh21.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Ereleased\u003C\/a\u003E earlier this month.)\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EFirst Claim Versus First Contact\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn the day it emerged, the Guccifer 2.0 operation \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/guccifer2.wordpress.com\/2016\/06\/15\/dnc\"\u003Estated that it had given material to WikiLeaks\u003C\/a\u003E and asserted that the organization would publish that material soon:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_1ce8d9.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBy stating that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E would \"publish them soon\" the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received confirmation of intent to publish.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHowever, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E didn't occur until a week later \u003Ci\u003E(June 22, 2016)\u003C\/i\u003E when \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them rather than doing what it was doing:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_c4fc76.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E(Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller's report. Note: \"stolen from the DNC\" is an editorial insert by the special counsel.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIf \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would they then suggest what they did when they did? \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ENeeding To Know What \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E Had\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFortunately, information that gives more insight into communications on June 22, 2016 was made available on April 29, 2020 via a \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1U-qCUtwEFXycM4VeGqh5JeO0eko7QCGS\/view\"\u003Erelease of the Roger Stone arrest warrant application\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHere is the full conversation on that date \u003Ci\u003E(according to the \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1U-qCUtwEFXycM4VeGqh5JeO0eko7QCGS\/view\"\u003Eapplication\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003C\/i\u003E:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Do you have secure communications?\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing. No other media will release the full material.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I'm ready to cooperate with you, but I need to know what's in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs? If it's not secret when you are going to release it?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E You can send us a message in a.txt file here (link redacted)\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E do you have GPG?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhy would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0 had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn't have had reason to inquire.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFurther communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Yes, we have everything. We've been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted message to [office@wikileaks.org.] They key is here.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003Eand June 27, 2016:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E Hi, i've just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Thanks.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB 'insurance' archive that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had posted on June 16, 2016 and it's clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties \u003Ci\u003E(which would seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0's initial claims about\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Eeven more doubtful)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EClaims DCLeaks Is A Sub-Project Of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn June 27, 2016, in an email chain to the Smoking Gun \u003Ci\u003E(exposing \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s16\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 apparently being in the Central US timezone\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003C\/i\u003E, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that DCLeaks was a \"sub-project\" of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks.\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_5e5276.png\" \/\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/threatconnect.com\/blog\/does-a-bear-leak-in-the-woods\"\u003EThere's no evidence to support this\u003C\/a\u003E. \"Envoy le\" is also a mistake as standard French emails read: \"\u003Ci\u003EEnvoye le\u003C\/i\u003E.\" Claims allegedly \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/storage\/report.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"\u003Emade by Guccifer 2.0 in a Twitter DM to DCLeaks on September 15, 2016\u003C\/a\u003E suggest that he knew this was nonsense:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_6a4bc9.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThere was no evidence of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E couldn't just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E and then, over two months later, was seen trying to encourage DCLeaks to communicate with \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E by relaying an alleged request from \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E that there is no record of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E ever making \u003Ci\u003E(and which\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Ecould have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted to)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe 'About 1GB' \/ '1Gb or So' Archive\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn July 4, 2016, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1U-qCUtwEFXycM4VeGqh5JeO0eko7QCGS\/view\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 contacted WikiLeaks\u003C\/a\u003E:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThis was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E have you received my parcel?\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Not unless it was very recent. (we haven' t checked in 24h).\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via (website link). and check your email.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Wil(l) check, thanks.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E let me know the results.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Please don't make anything you send to us public. It's a lot of work to go through it and the impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E agreed. How much time will it take?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E likely sometime today.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E I don't believe we received them. Nothing on 'Brexit' for example.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E wow. have you checked ur mail?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E At least not as of 4 days ago.... For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some hours.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just ask for custom fast upload point in an email.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E will u be able to check ur email?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E We're best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they're too big to fake.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E to be safe, send via (web link)\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E can u confirm u received dnc emails?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E for security reasons we can' t confirm what we've received here. e.g., in case your account has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E then send me an encrypted email.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some hours.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E what do you think about the FBl' s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails\/docs from there. She set up quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E ok, i'll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or else I don't know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E She's too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill, because he's a target in that investigation.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E do you have any info about marcel lazar? There've been a lot of rumors of late.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E the death? (A) fake story.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal's inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the FBI.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E what about tor submission? (W)ill u receive a doc now?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E We will get everything sent on (weblink).\" (A)s long as you see \"upload succseful\" at the end. (I)f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo (sic) days prefable (sic) because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E ok. I see.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E (W)e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc anyhow?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. (S)o he can push for concessions (positions\/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the nomination. (T)he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). (O)r will they dis(s)olve into hillary' s camp? (P)resently many of them are looking to damage hilary (sic) inorder (sic) to increase their unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. (I)t seems many of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E sent brexit docs successfully.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E :))).\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E so it is.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E also, it' s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E(Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the results of that. It also doesn't appear that\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Ereleased any Brexit content around this time.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E, this was covered in the Mueller report:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_f6a9e8.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIt should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn't and both the email contents and name of the file were readable.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E great, thanks; can't check until tomorrow though.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn July 17, 2016, the persona contacted \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E again:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E what bout now?\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn July 18, 2016, \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E responded and more was discussed:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E have the 1 Gb or so archive.\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E have u managed to extract the files?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. (O)therwise all ready(.)\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E so when r u about to make a release?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E this week. (D)o you have any bigger datasets? (D)id you get our fast transfer details?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E i'll check it. did u send it via email?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E yes.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E to (web link). (I) got nothing.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E check your other mail? this was over a week ago.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003Eoh, that one, yeah, (I) got it.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E great. (D)id it work?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E(I) haven' t tried yet.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E let's move step by step, u have released nothing of what (I) sent u yet.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@WikiLeaks:\u003C\/b\u003E How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. (T)hen when you are happy, you give us the decrypt key. (T)his way we can move much faster. (A)lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then there is no point in trying to shut you up.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003E@GUCCIFER_2:\u003C\/b\u003E ok, i'll ponder it\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAgain, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0's \"so when r u about to make a release?\" seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been inferred as generally relating to what \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had or even material relating to the \"Turkey Coup\" that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day \u003Ci\u003E(July 19, 2016)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known \u003Ci\u003E(by not citing the exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFour days later, \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E published the DNC emails.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELater that same day, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/dr4k4\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 tweeted\u003C\/a\u003E: [\"@wikileaks] published #DNCHack docs I'd given them!!!\".\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E to confirm receipt of \"DNC emails\" on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E did confirm receipt of a \"1gb or so\" archive on July 18, 2016.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0's emails to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E were also sent insecurely.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWe cannot be certain that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0's material and there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E on July 19, 2016.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EUlterior Motives?\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhile the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cul\u003E\u003Cli\u003EThere is a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\"\u003Econsiderable volume of evidence that contradicts the premise of Guccifer 2.0 being a GRU operation\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EThe persona \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/pOgnV#selection-1359.0-1359.94\"\u003Elied about WikiLeaks\u003C\/a\u003E and even \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/sr\/dms.html\"\u003Estated that Assange \"may be connected with Russians\"\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EGuccifer 2.0's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/TsA4F#selection-465.0-465.108\"\u003Einitial claim about sending WikiLeaks material\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ci\u003E(and that they would publish it soon)\u003C\/i\u003E appears to have been made without justification and seems to be contradicted by subsequent communications from \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EIf the archive was \"about 1GB\" \u003Ci\u003E(as Guccifer 2.0 describes it)\u003C\/i\u003E then it would be too small to have been all of the DNC's emails \u003Ci\u003E(as these, compressed, came to 1.8GB-2GB depending on compression method used, which, regardless, would be \"about 2GB\" not \"about 1GB\")\u003C\/i\u003E. If we assume that these were DNC emails, where did the rest of them come from?\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAssange has \u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('popup_app__3_twit_call_1230245388025815040_tweet');\" class=\"txtx\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-tw\" style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E maintained that WikiLeaks didn't publish the material that Guccifer 2.0 had sent to them\u003C\/a\u003E. Of course, Assange could just be lying about that but there are some other possibilities to consider. If true, there is always a possibility that Guccifer 2.0 could have sent them material they had already received from another source or other emails from the DNC that they didn't release \u003Ci\u003E(Guccifer 2.0 had access to a lot of content relating to the DNC and Democratic party and the persona also offered emails of Democratic staffers to Emma Best, a self-described journalist, activist and ex-hacker, the month after\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Epublished the DNC emails, which, logically, must have been different emails to still have any value at that point in time)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EOn July 6, 2016, the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was trying to get \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E to confirm receipt of DNC emails \u003Ci\u003E(and on which Guccifer 2.0 agreed not to publish material he had sent them)\u003C\/i\u003E, the persona posted a series of files to his blog that were exclusively DNC email attachments.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EIt doesn't appear any further communications were reported between the parties following the July 18, 2016 communications despite \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/OhkSr\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 tweeting on August 12, 2016\u003C\/a\u003E: \"I'll send the major trove of the #DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks keep following...\" and, apparently, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/business-a-lobbying\/291334-dnc-hacker-leaks-docs-top-dem-donors\"\u003Estating this to The Hill too\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAs there are no further communications reported beyond this point it's fair to question whether getting confirmation of receipt of the archive was the primary objective for Guccifer 2.0 here.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EEven though \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E offered Guccifer 2.0 a fast server for large uploads, the persona later suggested he needed to find a resource for publishing a large amount of data.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EDespite later claiming he would send \u003Ci\u003E(or had sent)\u003C\/i\u003E DCCC content to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks, WikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E never published such content and there doesn't appear to be any record of any attempt to send this material to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EDigital forensics evidence places \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/2018\/12\/18\/guccifer-2-returns-to-the-east-coast\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 in the Eastern (US) timezone on July 6, 2016\u003C\/a\u003E, the day on which he was trying to get \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E to confirm receipt of DNC emails.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ul\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EConsidering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in \"Made In Russia\" labels \u003Ci\u003E(by \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/did-guccifer-2-plant-his-russian-fingerprints\"\u003Eplastering files in Russian metadata\u003C\/a\u003E and choosing to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s5\"\u003Euse a Russian VPN service\u003C\/a\u003E and a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/guccifer2-evidence-versus-gru-attribution\/#s4\"\u003Eproxy in Moscow\u003C\/a\u003E for it's activities)\u003C\/i\u003E on the same day it first attributed itself to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E, it's fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had malicious intent towards \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E from the outset.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIf this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first started publishing attachments from those emails.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_e5ae90.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003Esource: \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/theforensicator.wordpress.com\/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs\"\u003Etheforensicator.wordpress.com\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ESeth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E Offers Reward\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn August 9, 2016, \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E tweeted:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"twit track\" id=\"763041804652539904\"\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"nbp\"\u003E\u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('popup_app__3_twit_card_wikileaks_');\" class=\"popbt\" title=\"@wikileaks\"\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/a\u003E \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/wikileaks\/status\/763041804652539904\" class=\"small\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-chain\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E 09\/08\/2016 17:58:37\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('popup_app__3_twit_call_763041804652539904_rpl');\" title=\"answers\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-dialog\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"fav763041804652539904\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-heart\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E9888\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan id=\"rtw763041804652539904\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-repost\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E9552\u003C\/span\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-users\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E 5502374\/7616\u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('763041804652539904_app___twit_recache_763041804652539904');\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-reload\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Ca onclick=\"tog_jb('yndtwt52539904_yandex,calltw___763041804652539904_fr-en','yndtwt52539904_twit,playtxt___763041804652539904','bt298499')\" id=\"bt298499\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-language\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Ca href=\"plug\/twit\/763041804652539904\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-url\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\"panel\"\u003E\u003Cdiv id=\"yndtwt52539904\"\u003EANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn an \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/youtube.com\/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg\" target=\"_blank\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-chain\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E interview with Nieuwsuur\u003C\/a\u003E that was posted the same day, Julian Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been \"shot in the back, murdered\". When the interviewer suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhen the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, \"We don't comment on who our sources are\".\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhen pressed to explain \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E' sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E were investigating.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESpeculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E soon propagated to several sites and across social media.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EGuccifer 2.0 Claims Seth Rich As His Source\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn August 25, 2016, approximately three weeks after the reward was offered, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/archive.is\/dxH15\"\u003EJulian Assange was due to be interviewed on Fox News on the topic of Seth Rich\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOn that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source \u003Ci\u003E(despite previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_930b0f.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhy did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ci\u003E(Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0's effort to attribute itself to Seth Rich following the propagation of Rich-\u003C\/i\u003EWikiLeaks \u003Ci\u003Eassociation theories online.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ESpecial Counsel Claims\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general election, delivered his final report.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIt claimed:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_807960.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News \u003Ci\u003E(in relation to Seth Rich)\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENo communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003ESuggesting Assange Connected To Russians\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EIn the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich's name is mentioned \u003Ci\u003E(on August 25, 2016),\u003C\/i\u003E the persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning \"Julian\" (in reference to Julian Assange):\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cimg src=\"http:\/\/newsnet.fr\/\/img\/newsnet_174272_6c4820.png\" \/\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange \"may be connected with Russians\".\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cb\u003EGuccifer 2.0's Mentions of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E and Assange\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 mentioned \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E or associated himself with their output on several occasions:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Col\u003E\u003Cli\u003EJune 15, 2016: \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/guccifer2.wordpress.com\/2016\/06\/15\/dnc\"\u003Eclaiming to have sent WikiLeaks material on his blog\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EJune 27, 2016: when he claimed DCLeaks was a sub-project of \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EJuly 13, 2016: Joe Uchill of \u003Ci\u003EThe Hill\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/policy\/cybersecurity\/287558-guccifer-20-drops-new-dnc-docs\"\u003Ereported that Guccifer 2.0 had contacted the publication\u003C\/a\u003E and stated: \"The press gradually forget about me, (W)ikileaks is playing for time and have some more docs.\"\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EJuly 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E published the DNC leaks.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAugust 12, 2016: It was reported in \u003Ci\u003EThe Hill\u003C\/i\u003E that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/business-a-lobbying\/291334-dnc-hacker-leaks-docs-top-dem-donors\"\u003EThey reported\u003C\/a\u003E: \u003Ci\u003E\"The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker said, will be released on\u003C\/i\u003E WikiLeaks\u003Ci\u003E.\"\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAugust 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would \"send the major trove of the \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/hashtag\/DCCC?src=hash\"\u003E#DCCC\u003C\/a\u003E materials and emails to \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/hashtag\/wikileaks?src=hash\"\u003E#wikileaks\u003C\/a\u003E\".\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003ESeptember 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E wanted to get in contact with them.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EOctober 4, 2016: Congratulating \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E on their 10th anniversary \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/guccifer2.wordpress.com\/2016\/10\/04\/clinton-foundation\"\u003Evia its blog\u003C\/a\u003E. Also states: \"Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!\". \u003Ci\u003E(This was the same day on which Guccifer 2.0 published his \"Clinton Foundation\" files that were \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.wired.com\/2016\/10\/even-fake-clinton-foundation-hack-can-serious-damage\"\u003Eclearly not\u003C\/a\u003E from the Clinton Foundation.)\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EOctober 17, 2016: \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/iFtU7\"\u003Evia Twitter, stating\u003C\/a\u003E \"i'm here and ready for new releases. already changed my location thanks \u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('popup_app__3_twit_call_@wikileaks_ban');\" class=\"txtx\"\u003E@wikileaks\u003C\/a\u003E for a good job!\"\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ol\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E or Assange being mentioned:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Col\u003E\u003Cli\u003EJune 17, 2016: in response to \u003Ci\u003EThe Smoking Gun\u003C\/i\u003E asking if Assange would publish the same material it was publishing, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/archive.is\/QsC6J#selection-3803.337-3803.543\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 stated\u003C\/a\u003E: \"I gave \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,\"\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAugust 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks,\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ca onclick=\"SaveJ('popup_app__3_twit_call_897235872554389505_tweet');\" class=\"txtx\"\u003E\u003Cspan class=\"philum ic-tw\" style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E the persona stated\u003C\/a\u003E: \"I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs\".\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAugust 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange's name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/g-2.space\/sr\/dms.html\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 stated\u003C\/a\u003E: \"he may be connected with Russians\".\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EOctober 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E had \"stole his thunder\" and \"do you still support Assange?\". \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/blogs-trending-38610402\"\u003EGuccifer 2.0 responded\u003C\/a\u003E: \"i'm glad, together we'll make America great again.\".\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ol\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of \"Made In Russia\" labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGuccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich and even alleged that Julian Assange \"may be connected with Russians\".\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EWhile we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0's efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0's intentions towards \u003Ci\u003EWikiLeaks\u003C\/i\u003E may have instead been malicious.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/consortiumnews.com\/2020\/05\/21\/guccifer-2-0s-hidden-agenda\"\u003Econsortiumnews.com\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.strategic-culture.org\/news\/2020\/05\/22\/guccifer-2-hidden-agenda\/\"\u003Estrategic-culture.org\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E"}}