The Despicable Doxxing of Adam Carter — A Response
Originally published Jul 31, 2018
Today, Duncan Campbell of Sussex University has doxxed the brilliant pseudonymous cyberanalyst Adam Carter. Adam has made an extensive insightful analysis of the internet persona “Guccifer 2.0”, whom our Deep State has assured us is the Russian source of the Wikileaks DNC emails. Since Adam’s analysis knocks this theory into a cocked hat, the servants of the Deep State are at pains to smear him. You can read Campbell’s mean-spirited bilge here:
The total fraudulence of Campbell’s analysis is given away by the fact that Campbell states
Guccifer 2.0’s role was “falsely to undermine the allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion”, according to the indictment. US and European intelligence agencies identified “Guccifer 2.0” as a Russian deception operation before Americans went to vote. Detailed evidence had not been publicly available until the publication of the indictment.
without noting that, while claiming to be Romanian, G2.0 has gone out of his way to leave clues that he is Russian — purposely adding “Russian fingerprints” to his releases, using Russian smilies in his writings (“)))”), and choosing to use a Russian VPN service to mask his IP address. In addition, the linguistic analyses which Adam cites show that, although G2.0 occasionally uses fractured English to pretend to be Russian, he isn’t — the mistakes he makes are not those a native Russian speaker would make.
Furthermore, Campbell doesn’t mention that the Mueller indictment is an overt fraud, and that Mueller’s team has no idea how Wikileaks received their DNC emails. The indictment claims that G2.0 transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks OVER A MONTH AFTER Assange had publicly announced that Hillary-pertinent documents would soon be published — and not more than a week before Wikileaks published the emails (not nearly enough time to confirm the authenticity of each of the over 20K emails.) Since the whole crux of the “Russia interfered” allegation is the transfer of DNC emails to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, we now know that our Deep State has zero credible evidence to support this claim (as Obama himself more or less admitted in one of his last press conferences).
Campbell makes a big deal of the fact that the Forensicator analysis, while it likely shows that data subsequently published by G2.0 was transferred via thumbdrive from another device on July 5th, does not necessarily imply that this was a download from the DNC server. Scott Ritter (a brilliant, honest analyst who doesn’t buy the Russiagate hoax for a minute) pointed this out when the pertinent VIPS article was published; I added this info to my own big Russiagate article last year. The Forensicator analysis is consistent with possibility that the July 5th transfer represented a thumbdrive download from the DNC server — the straightforward explanation which I find most likely — but doesn’t by itself prove that G2.0 is an affiliate of the DNC. There are numerous other reasons to believe this, as Adam Carter sets forth in his magnificent G2.0 website (http://g-2.space/), and I summarize in my own writings. In particular, everything about this story makes sense if you view G2.0 as a creation of Crowdstrike/DNC, the purpose of which was to deceive people into believing that Assange was publishing material purloined by the vile Russkies — thereby distracting attention from the incriminating content of the Wikileaks releases. If Russian intelligence professionals had been responsible, you can bet that they would have simply laid low, with no need to create the ridiculous G2.0 persona.
Here’s an excerpt from my previous paper (https://caucus99percent.com/content/what%E2%80%99s-left-russiagate%E2%80...):
With respect to the Guccifer 2.0 data transfer event discussed here, Scott Ritter has pointed out that forensic analysis cannot prove that the computer from which these data were transferred was a DNC computer; in other words it is theoretically possible that the data involved had been transferred from the DNC earlier, and that the transfer analyzed reflected subsequent transfer of these data from one storage device to another. If this rather dubious (but possible) scenario were true, it would evidently negate the importance of the data transfer speed. However, the conclusion stands that this transfer occurred on the East Coast of the US, and hence did not involve Russian hackers. If we assume that Russian hackers had accessed this data at an earlier date, why would this data subsequently be transferred between two devices on the US East Coast, prior to its ultimate publication? And the counterargument that Guccifer 2.0 might have altered time zone settings on his computer to mask Russian involvement, is impossible to square with the fact that, in June, he was falsifying clues to point to Russia.
Indeed, it is more likely that G2.0 simply forgot to change the time zone setting to the Moscow time found on most of his releases. (In that regard, Adam and Stephen McIntyre have noted that the times at which G2.0 posted documents online — not something that he could fake — reveal him to be operating at times typical of someone in the Western hemisphere — unless he’s a Russian vampire.)
It must be emphasized that the July 5th data transfer by G2.0 involved files that were wholly unrelated to those published by Wikileaks. Which is why the Forensicator analysis has never been pertinent to the question of how Wikileaks got their DNC emails. I have had to point this out repeatedly to well meaning people who think that the Forensicator analysis proves that the DNC emails were leaked — it doesn’t. But much other evidence points in that direction, as summarized in my writings. The Forensicator analysis is only pertinent to the identity and activities of G2.0 — whom I think had no association whatever with the Wikileaks releases. But such analysis is nonetheless important, because our Deep State alleges that G2.0 was the Russian hacker responsible for the DNC Wikileaks releases — debunking this claim drives a stake through the heart of the Deep State narrative.
In regard to the leak vs hack controversy, aside from compelling statements by Assange, Craig Murray, Kim Dotcom, and Sy Hersh’s source inside the FBI, there is this curious fact — the last DNC email published by Wikileaks was written on May 25th — 3 weeks after Crowdstrike had installed its supposedly state-of-the-art Falcon anti-hacking software on the DNC server. Of course, such software can’t prevent leaks. Care to comment, Campbell?
Campbell also regurgitates the idiot notion that the Internet Research Agency’s U.S. operation was an attempt “to interfere with US political and electoral processes” — when in fact it was an effort to make money by selling advertising on their diverse websites and driving eyeballs to those sites with small ads on Facebook. As Facebook’s own VP noted, the ads placed showed no clear pattern to favor one candidate over this other — not to mention that most of them appeared after the election — which is why the imbecilic “sowing chaos” theme was subsequently invented.
Campbell claims that Adam was part of a conspiracy to finger Seth Rich as the source of the DNC leaks. In fact, if you actually read Adam’s published work, it has virtually nothing to say about Rich or the ultimate source of the Wikileaks releases —like a true scholar, he focuses almost monomaniacally on analyzing the G2.0 persona.
Campbell states that Carter’s “g-2.space site then complained to 100 US senators that they had ignored his finding that the hacking could not have been done by Russians.” Rubbish — Carter has never stated a conclusion as to who planted “Fancy Bear-like” malware on the DNC server in April/May 2016. However, he recently has noted Stephen McIntyre’s discovery that the compilation dates of some of the the implanted X-agent malware post-date Crowdstrike’s entry into the server — raising the intriguing possibility that Crowdstrike might have been a party to the hacking. It has been noted recently by George Eliason that neo-Nazi Ukrainian hackers affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence, the Atlantic Council, and Crowdstrike have access to “Fancy Bear” software; indeed, Eliason has reasons to conclude that Fancy Bear is Ukrainian intelligence, and that it is hacking to incriminate Russia.
In any case, even if Russian intelligence did hack the DNC, this tells us nothing about how Wikileaks acquired the DNC emails; the Mueller indictment makes it is clear that our Deep State doesn’t have a clue. Plus, you can bet that our spooks are hacking everything of interest in Russia. Hacking for informational purposes is routine for the intelligence services of major states, and does not in itself constitute an act of cyberwarfare or an attempt to “interfere in democracy”.
Campbell is upset that, in his social media output, Adam “posted attacks on Clinton, following the same messaging at the same time as known Russian trolls.” Even worse, he “posed as a US-based Democrat supporter of Bernie Sanders, publishing hate messages targeted at Clinton.” Yup, criticizing the mega-grifting, serial lying, war criminal neolib sociopath who enabled the election of Trump, while exalting the most honorable American politician of our lifetime, really shows what a Russian stooge he is.
As far as I can see, Campbell has not rebutted a single one of Adam’s conclusions, as catalogued on his website. Adam has never contended that the Forensicator analysis represented definitive proof that G2.0 is a DNC affiliate — though it is quite consistent with that interpretation. Indeed, that is why Adam needed to build an entire website to feature his in-depth analysis of G2.0 — the bulk of which Campbell wholly ignores. My impression of Adam is that he is a very careful and thoughtful analyst — which is why his own writings have never had much popular currency — far from the propagandist that Campbell alleges him to be.
And Campbell’s doxxing of Adam is truly despicable. I now presume that the neocon Russophobes driving Russiagate will go out of their way to make his life hell, and will revel in ad hominem attacks while ignoring the bulk of the evidence that Adam has marshalled.
I hope that William Binney — whose photo and comments are featured in the Campbell article — gives this jerk the swift kick that he deserves. And I’m sure that Adam’s response will be choice.
As a coda: Just noticed Adam’s latest tweet: