is Guccifer 2.0 the DNC？.mp3

00:00:00 By now, you've heard about Seth Rich, the DNC staffer that was gunned down in the early hours of July.
00:00:04 10th, 2016.
00:00:06 You've probably also heard of Gooser for 2.0, the so-called Russian hacker that the DNC claims hacked into their servers and gave WikiLeaks the emails that would later reveal the DNC had conspired against Bernie Sanders to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton.
00:00:20 And that it wasn't Seth Rich and that he was just.
00:00:23 A victim of a botched robbery.
00:00:24 A botched robbery. Botched robbery.
00:00:26 That was that was.
00:00:26 Just a robbery, I believe it.
00:00:28 Isn't it? No.
00:00:29 Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the DNC maintains that Seth Rich had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
00:00:35 Problem is, there's evidence that suggests that Goosen, for 2.0 isn't a Russian hacker, as the DNC claims, but rather an invention of someone using software registered to the DNC. A staffer named Warren Flood.
00:00:49 According to his social media accounts, Warren Flood is a tech worker that worked for Obama for America, the DNC and the White House.
00:00:56 Whoever created the file claiming to be goose offer did so using a copy of Microsoft Office registered to Warren Flood.
00:01:03 It's important to understand.
00:01:05 The FBI has never inspected the DNC servers.
00:01:08 Unlike other cases that you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked, or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
00:01:22 In the case of the DNC and I believe the D triple C, But I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
00:01:29 Every claim that the DNC servers were infiltrated by Russian hackers comes from a private company. The DNC paid nearly $170,000 by the name.
00:01:38 Of crowd strike.
00:01:39 A company that has blamed Russia for other hacks that were later debunked to this day, nobody from the FBI or any intelligence agency has ever inspected the DNC servers.
00:01:49 Let's look at a timeline of event.
00:01:52 On July 14th, the DNC announced it had been hacked and the Washington Post dutifully suggested the Russians the very next day, June 15th, crowd strike, the company paid by the DNC, came out and blamed the breach on the Russians.
00:02:06 The same day, Gustafer 2.0 conveniently appeared on the Internet, claiming responsibility, and the first thing he releases.
00:02:13 This so-called Russian hacker, who is supposedly conspiring with Trump besides the first thing to release, is opposition research on Donald.
00:02:20 Trump and then.
00:02:21 In case people didn't hear about it.
00:02:23 Vice Motherboard does an.
00:02:25 Article about Guccifer 2.0 calling.
00:02:27 Him a Russian and linking to the Trump opposition.
00:02:30 Research was this damage control. Did the DNC know WikiLeaks have their data? Was it getting ahead of the story and setting the stage for the Russian narrative? The problem with the documents released by Goose for 2.0 is they're not the same.
00:02:44 Files released by WikiLeaks. If you compare the files released by WikiLeaks and the files posted by Geoserver 2.0, there's a few revealing differences. If you've ever tried to open up a Microsoft Word document using notepad or some other text editor.
00:02:58 You might have seen a bunch of characters that look like garbage.
00:03:01 Nothing like your document.
00:03:03 This is the data that tells Microsoft Word.
00:03:05 Things like which fonts to be used or which language the document is in, but it also includes who the author of the document is.
00:03:13 It gets that information from the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft.
00:03:18 Office inside the original Trump opposition research, the document that was later released by WikiLeaks, the author of the document, is listed as Lauren Dillon, the DNC research director.
00:03:28 Which makes sense because her copy of Microsoft Office was used to create the original file, but in the goose.
00:03:34 Of her two point.
00:03:34 0 document the author is listed as DNC staffer.
00:03:38 War and flood could gustafer 2.0 be an invention to cover up who the real leaker was, and at the same time start the Russian hacking narrative that persists today immediately after Julian Assange implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leaks on Dutch television.
00:03:54 But was he one of your sources then?
00:03:56 I mean.
00:03:58 And then WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of his killers, a conversation between actress Robin Young and Guccifer 2 point O appeared on the Internet.
00:04:09 In that chat, Guccifer 2.0 now claims his source was Seth Gustafer. 2.0 explained that while Seth was his source.
00:04:17 It was now Julian Assange, who was in cahoots with the Russians.
00:04:21 These chants appear to have been manufactured.
00:04:24 The icon to block someone would never appear on the message that you send.
00:04:28 What further cast doubt on their validity is the fact that Robin Young would later claim that all of her direct messages had vanished.
00:04:36 The evidence that software installed by the tech worker who worked at the White House was used to create the copies that goose for 2.0 and later released, further illustrates how baseless the Russian conspiracy theory is and cast suspicion on none other than the DNC and possibly even the White House.