THREAD: the first article on DNC hack was in WaPo, June 14, by Ellen Nakashima
web.archive.org/web/2016061415… It almost certainly stays close to script developed by DNC and Crowdstrike. So how does it stand up now that we know more? One expects disinformation, but form can be telling
web.archive.org/web/2016061415… It almost certainly stays close to script developed by DNC and Crowdstrike. So how does it stand up now that we know more? One expects disinformation, but form can be telling
2/ DNC admitted hack of "database of all opposition research" and "all email and chat traffic". Clinton said that, to her knowledge, Clinton campaign "has not been hacked into" and would be priority. 
3/ in fact, Clinton campaign (Podesta emails) had been hacked. Indeed, Podesta emails had been hacked and were hacked prior to the entry to DNC network by APT28 (described in Indictment). Did Clinton lie about knowledge of Podesta hack or were they that ignorant?
4/ interesting that they reported that "all email and chat traffic" had been hacked. As it turned out, the DNC emails delivered to Wikileaks were limited to emails to/from nine uninteresting DNC finance officials. Why these officials and not Debbie WS and other bigger fish?
5/ also: on Jun 8, DCLeaks had released documents in a Hillary archive: web.archive.org/web/2016120617… . All the documents had been attachments to Podesta emails, with narrow campaign distribution. Are we seriously to believe that Clinton campaign couldn't figure this out? Playing dumb?
6/ intel officials told WaPo (anonymously) that they knew that campaigns of Trump and Clinton had been targeted and some Republican PACs, but "details details on those cases were not available". Lots of time since then to make such details available. Why not?
7/ they said that hackers had been "expelled over the past weekend". This was more than a month since Crowdstrike arrived. ALL DNC hack emails were exfiltrated AFTER Crowdstrike took responsibility. Indeed, the damaging emails in DNC hack sent AFTER DNC knew of Russian hack
8/ they said that "no financial, donor or personal information" accessed or taken. But Mueller indictment reported keylogging of individual banking information, DCCC online banking information,
9/ in original narrative, possibility of ordinary criminal hacking (eg Russian Lurk banking hackers) dismissed due to supposed lack of hacker interest in finances. But why would Russian intel service try to embezzle donations to US political party? This part seems like criminals
10/ curiously, out of all domains associated with spearphishing and hacking, actblues[.com was the only one which was forthwith secured, By Aug 8, 2016, Microsoft got court order seizing domain (including it in Microsoft trademark lawsuit). A favor to Democrat Party??
11/ the WaPo article (reflecting Marc Elias' attitude here) was unconcerned about espionage. They noted that "American spies gather similar information on foreign candidates and leaders". In other words, nothing to see here, move along.
12/ Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry was similarly phlegmatic, saying that it was "job of every foreign intelligence service" to collect such information. No one then regarded attack as supposed effort to "undermine American democracy" or Pearl Harbor or Crystallnacht.
13/ DNC timeline: "late April" Amy Dacey told of traffic. She notified Perkins Coie "that evening", which, "soon after", called Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry, who installed software "within 24 hours". Later, we learned software installed on May 6. In fact, took 8-10 days to respond
14/ Crowdstrike reported hacking by two groups: APT28 (Fancy Bear) and APT29 (Cosy Bear). Only APT28 was charged in recent Indictment. Why?
