We have been bombarded with propaganda for the last year and much of what we are told is massively exaggerated and in some cases, based on outright lies. Below are a few examples that seem to be particular pervasive on social media networks
1. DNC Emails Allegedly Hacked by Russia
2. Aaron Nevins / DCCC Documents / etc
3. Stone Communicating "16 Times" With Guccifer 2.0
4. 3 US Intelligence Agencies Can't Be Wrong
5. Guccifer 2.0 Allegedly Hacking the DNC
There is no proof that the DNC's emails were stolen by Russia hackers. The 3 intelligence agencies that actually did provide assessments on this did so on the basis of CrowdStrike's reporting, a private firm hired by the DNC that has been far from transparent, who have had to retract their claims previously in relation to blaming Russia for things and whose reporting didn't actually cite incidents nor identify how emails had managed to get out from the DNC's network.
The FBI & DHS both confirmed they have not seen the server and the FBI's offers to provide assistance were rebutted. It's now getting to a point that we have more reasons to believe that CrowdStrike lied and are covering something up.
While many have made a big deal out of the files released by Guccifer 2.0 to HelloFLA (a blog Aaron Nevins ran under the pseudonym "Mark Miewurd", as in mark-my-word) - there are factors which are very often overlooked.
First of all, Guccifer 2.0 was not connected to the Kremlin, this flawed theory (which even gained the backing of US intelligence agencies through their assessments) was discredited in February when deliberately placed 'fingerprints' were discovered on files and 3 files were apparently created using a copy of MS-Word registered to Warren Flood (a former White House staffer). After considerable independent investigation by multiple parties, it now appears Guccifer 2.0 was an entity created with the purpose of trying to preemptively undermine Wikileaks and distract from the genuine leaks that were being published.
Secondly, the data released to Nevins was almost entirely based on data that was available to both parties (specifically: spending by both Dem/GOP congressional campaigns, demographics for different areas, vote totals from previous elections and calculated percentages of the vote from different demographic groups required to win the state along with other information already on public record about district history and considerations about voting procedures, cost of political advertising, etc)
No confidential strategies or internal planning was divulged, just calculated targets/goals. It also looks like some of the documents were likely to have been generated through document templates to create a large volume of content from a single data-set. - While both Nevins and Guccifer 2.0 claimed this was worth millions, it does seem like a considerable embellishment. The data would also only be of any real use to congressional campaigns.
So, as is typical with everything Guccifer 2.0 released, the documents released were of little value (except, perhaps, to a few congressional campaigns that were too lazy to figure this out for themselves), it ultimately did nothing to harm the reputations of the DNC's leadership and Clinton campaign and were of no consequence to the general election.
If you count every Tweet and DM individually this may be true, however, the implication is that there were sixteen different sessions of communication and it's the implication that is deceptive.
It's as valid as saying that the BBC's Mike Wendling communicated with Guccifer 2.0 ten times.
It's also as valid as saying Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai of VICE News communicated with the fake Russian hacker at least thirty times (without divulging that it was all within a single interview).
Their assessments were based on flawed intel from private cyber-security firms, one of which I managed to debunk by simply contacting a VPN provider by email and asking a few questions and another that has a questionable reputation, was hired by the DNC and appears to have been covering up how emails released by Wikileaks were really collected. - They had no hard evidence that the DNC was hacked by Russia.
Also, since the JAR report was released (on December 29th 2016), evidence has been discovered that discredits the FBI, CIA & NSA assessments relating to the DNC and the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
It's not a question of believing one side or the other, it's a question of believing assessments that are not supported with evidence (and rely on flawed intel) versus accepting verifiable evidence that raises major doubts about the quality and accuracy of the assessments that agencies have given.
Guccifer 2.0's hacking claims could never be verified and his key claims about hacking the DNC were discredited by ThreatConnect.
Yes, Guccifer 2.0 did release files that the public hadn't previously seen, however, the leaks were almost entirely out-dated junk, much of it from 2009-2010, NONE of it was intended or likely to harm the DNC's leadership or the Clinton campaign - and much of it did little more than generate negative headlines admonishing leaks and leakers.
Not only did his leaks have no impact on the general election, Guccifer 2.0 never cited, in advance, any of the real controversies that were discovered in the emails that Wikileaks released - suggesting he wasn't even sure of what Wikileaks had in their possession. (So much for him being Wikileaks source!)
There are many anomalies and questions about Guccifer 2.0 that remain unanswered, for example: