• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

The Mysterious "Organization 1" - WikiLeaks role

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
Obviously the hot news is the indictment right now, but right now I want to focus on an unnamed entity in the Mueller indictment.

Organization 1 - better known as WikiLeaks.
The significance: Direct and intentional collusion between the Russian government and WikiLeaks. (Not random hackers)

First the Indictment: In PDF form https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Actions/Mentions of Organization 1:
Page 3.
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization (“Organization 1”), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government.

Page 4
In or around May 2016, YERMAKOV also participated in hacking the DNC email server and stealing DNC emails that were later released through Organization 1.

Page 17- 19
Use of Organization 1 47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1.
The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S.presidential election.

a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to “end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

b. After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.” The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”

48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25, 2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.

49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released Case 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 29 19 approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

Next steps:

The connections between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks.
Specifically this Tweet.

"Wednesday H Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks," Stone tweeted.

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 2, 2016

When combined with point:
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released Case 1:18-cr-00215-ABJ Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 29 19 approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

Who is Roger Stone?
Roger Stone was fired from the Trump Campaign in 2015. While I think Roger Stone is aware of and supports illegal activities by WikiLeaks, which he himself does not seem to deny apart from denying having direct and advanced knowledge of their work. We do see he has communicated directly with WikiLeaks and has the contacts available to create back channel communications.

Personally, I think Roger Stone may have been aware and encouraging some of these shadow activities but likely did not cross into the realm of a prosecutable offense.
But the 2015 departure is where it gets interesting. As this subsequent is when we also the accusations of back-channel communications developing.

Exactly who or what or how communications occurred will have to be disclosed further. However we see that this is real and distinct link in passing of stolen information from Russia actors to various channels.
 
Last edited:
Jun 11, 2004
9,310
250
1,400
You're asserting that organization 1 is wikileaks?

Good Game.

---

To add a little more.

We know what wikileaks did. We know the timeline. That does not mean that wikileaks is the main organization referenced.


Unrelated, this is how trumps companies are setup:





https://graphcommons.com/graphs/ee4a43a2-3189-4f82-879c-960344332ea6
 
Last edited:

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
You're asserting that organization 1 is wikileaks?

Good Game.

---

To add a little more.

We know what wikileaks did. We know the timeline. That does not mean that wikileaks is the main organization referenced.


Unrelated, this is how trumps companies are setup:





https://graphcommons.com/graphs/ee4a43a2-3189-4f82-879c-960344332ea6

Yes, Organization 1’s timeline fits with the dates and narratives. If you google each date referenced you’ll see they were the dates Wikileaks specifically did those actions described in the indictments.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
Yes.

That doesn't mean that WL is Organization 1.

It’s incredibly transparent and it’s the same conclusion news outlets came to:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics/roger-stone-russia-investigation-wikileaks/index.html


Additionally, the indictment alleges that "organization 1" released more than "20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators" on or about July 22, 2016, just before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Though not named in the indictment, the organization appears to be WikiLeaks, which released thousands of DNC emails on July 22, 2016. The indictment also alleges that organization 1 released the first set off emails from the chairman of the Clinton campaign on October 7, 2016, which is the same day WikiLeaks released the first batch of John Podesta's emails.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics/read-mueller-indictment-dnc-hacking/index.html
The indictment lays out how the Russian intelligence officers, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed how to release the stolen documents to "heighten their impact" on the election with organization 1 providing guidance on timing.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
12,753
22,914
1,885
So what? Even if they communicated with Stone, he has no obligation to try to stop them. Wikileaks had been contacting people who could get up hype about the upcoming document releases or had relevance to them for years.

The idea that someone would reveal their part in a grand conspiracy through Twitter rather than hinting about rumors is hard to buy.

This is continuing to dramatize what we already knew happened at that no one really gives a shit about anymore. It's stale.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
So what? Even if they communicated with Stone, he has no obligation to try to stop them. Wikileaks had been contacting people who could get up hype about the upcoming document releases or had relevance to them for years.

The idea that someone would reveal their part in a grand conspiracy through Twitter rather than hinting about rumors is hard to buy.

This is continuing to dramatize what we already knew happened at that no one really gives a shit about anymore. It's stale.

Huh? so we knew Russia military officers were in direct contact with Wikileaks for transfer of stolen information and not just “some random hackers in NJ”

The point is that it was a concerted military operation by the Russian government using Wikileaks as a proxy. I wouldn’t expect Roger Stone to do anything, not even call the FBI, because he’s simply not that kind of guy.

The indictment shows the first portion of the investigation.

Proving Russian involvement in hacks and interference which has been one of the most contested points. This isn’t a “so what” this is the first leg of building blocks showing the direct path of Russian involvement in interference. That’s what this entire investigation is about!
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
The main organization referenced....

Yes Organization 1. Wikileaks, virtually everyone in the news and intelligence agency agrees that’s who it references in the indictment. I’m trying to understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying you disagree with them that organization 1 is likely Wikileaks despite them doing the exact things listed in the exact days?

I’m not sure how many other organizations released stolen DNC emails on July 22nd, 2016 but I can’t imagine it was very many.
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,310
250
1,400
Yes Organization 1. Wikileaks, virtually everyone in the news and intelligence agency agrees that’s who it references in the indictment. I’m trying to understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying you disagree with them that organization 1 is likely Wikileaks despite them doing the exact things listed in the exact days?

I’m not sure how many other organizations released stolen DNC emails on July 22nd, 2016 but I can’t imagine it was very many.

The indictment never says that Organization1 is wikileaks. They literally mask it.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
The indictment never says that Organization1 is wikileaks. They literally mask it.
Yes that’s the point. Indictments generally do not name individuals who are not being indicted in the indictment. The same way Roger Stone was referenced and not named and Roger Stone even confirms they’re referencing him.
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,310
250
1,400
Yes that’s the point. Indictments generally do not name individuals who are not being indicted in the indictment. The same way Roger Stone was referenced and not named and Roger Stone even confirms they’re referencing him.

You said:
Organization 1 - better known as WikiLeaks.

Stop spreading bullshit then?


Today's word of the day is obfuscation.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,946
1,900
885
Stop spreading bullshit then?


Today's word of the day is obfuscation.

Nah. Today’s word of the day is “denial” despite you trying your hardest to obfuscate the relevance of repeatedly matching timeline dates between “Org 1” and Wikileaks.
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,310
250
1,400
Nah. Today’s word of the day is “denial” despite you trying your hardest to obfuscate the relevance of repeatedly matching timeline dates between “Org 1” and Wikileaks.

Um, I never did that.

wikileaks is part of organization 1, but not the organization 1
 

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,946
1,900
885
Um, I never did that.

wikileaks is part of organization 1, but not the organization 1

"Organization" is singular. I seems you're saying wikileaks is a kind of subsidiary for a bigger organization. What, then, is this bigger umbrella organization?