WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a clear sign the “Russia Collusion” narrative is losing steam, the Daily Beast made yet another convoluted attempt to breathe life into the excuse advanced by Hillary Clinton and her supporters for losing in 2016 by reviving the repeatedly debunked notion that Roger Stone is the operative tying Trump to the theft of DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks.
Somehow, the Daily Beast has concluded that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence officer, as asserted by yet another unnamed “source” and some stretched logic deriving from the conclusion of CrowdStrike, a firm Hillary’s top outside adviser on voting data, Google’s Eric Schmidt, funded to the tune of $100 million, based on “Fancy Bear” metadata that Julian Assange proved the CIA could plant in a file to make the hack look like a Russian cyber attack.
A fundamental flaw in this analysis is that there is no evidence Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC and Podesta emails, in that from June 15, 2015, through Oct. 18, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 published only files hacked from the DNC’s VAN computers in Massachusetts and the NPG computers in Washington.
What was missing in the Guccifer 2.0 publication of DNC hacked documents were emails, suggesting Guccifer 2.0 had not penetrated the DNC email server or the private email archives of John Podesta and other Clinton campaign officials.
The claim Guccifer 2.0 also hacked the DNC email server reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how Hillary’s 2016 and the DNC organized their IT system.
It appears the Daily Beast may have recycled the “Stone did it” story just to create a new mainstream media news cycle diverting attention away from Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians that the DOJ says did not affect the election, affirming the posting on Internet social media done by these agents in Russia was not coordinated with Trump or the Trump campaign.
If all Mueller has after months of investigation is this relatively lame indictment of 13 Russians who will never be extradited from Russia to face criminal charges in the United States, it appears Mueller has failed on his mission to find indictable crimes in the Democrat’s much parroted “Russian Collison” narrative.
“A Putin time machine?”
To date, no documentary evidence has been produced by Stone’s detractors that disprove Stone’s claim he has published the record of his complete communications with Guccifer 2.0 establishing a timeline that proves Stone contacted Guccifer 2.0 after WikiLeaks had begun publishing the DNC and Podesta emails, not before.
“All contact I had with the entity known as Guccifer 2.0 came after I had written an article that was published on August 5th, 2016 by Breitbart News and vetted by their lead investigative reporter Lee Stranahan,” Stone wrote in his StoneColdTruth.com blog on March 10, 2017:
“That article came after the DNC and DCCC material had been released and identified the role of a hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2 based on our own sources,” Stone continued. “Therefore, any such “collaboration” would’ve also involved a time machine – something that I think Putin has not perfected yet.”
The strongest evidence Seth Rich leaked the DNC and Podesta emails
Finally, Assange has stated repeatedly he obtained the DNC and Podesta emails not from Russia, or from any operative associated with Russia, strongly suggesting DNC employee Seth Rich was the source who stole the DNC and Podesta emails as an inside job, in other words, a leak, not a hack.
The strongest indication that Seth Rich leaked the DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks comes from Julian Assange himself.
In an interview broadcast on Dutch television on Aug. 9, 2016, the host Eelco van Rosenthal asked Assange, “The stuff that your sitting on, is an, ‘October Surprise’ in there?”
Assange insisted, “WikiLeaks never sits on material,” even though Assange had previously said WikiLeaks yet has more material related to the Hillary Clinton campaign that had yet to be published.
Then, on his own initiative, without being specifically asked, Assange began talking about Seth Rich.
“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks,” Assange volunteered.
“There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons, as he was walking down the streets in Washington,” Assange continued.
Van Rosenthal objected that the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich was a robbery.
“No, there are no findings,” Assange answered.
“What are you suggesting?” Van Rosenthal interjected.
“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks – and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange responded.
There was no reason for Assange to have spontaneously brought up Seth Rich in the context of the risks his leakers take if Rich were not the leaker involved in the DNC and Podesta emails that WikiLeaks published.
On Aug. 9, 2016, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward “for information leading to the conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”
Again, why would WikiLeaks do this if Seth Rich were not the leaker in question?
Repeatedly, Assange has denied that the Russians “or any state party” supplied WikiLeaks with the DNC and/or Podesta emails.
The attempt to distinguish is disingenuous, suggesting the Russians may have been responsible for the hack, turning the information to a third party, not the Russians or a state actor, who handed WikiLeaks the emails and thus became “the source.”
Speaking plainly, Assange – a political operative with an established reputation of telling the truth – has denied the Russians or any state actor was involved, knowing he was leaving the clear impression the DNC and Podesta emails traced back to a leaker internal to the DNC – the same conclusion President Obama suggested in his final press conference.