Here I am Again, My Friends!

I really hope you’ve missed me a lot. Though I see they didn’t let you forget my name. The U.S. intelligence agencies have published several reports of late claiming I have ties with Russia.

I’d like to make it clear enough that these accusations are unfounded. I have totally no relation to the Russian government. I’d like to tell you once again I was acting in accordance with my personal political views and beliefs.

The technical evidence contained in the reports doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. This is a crude fake.

Any IT professional can see that a malware sample mentioned in the Joint Analysis Report was taken from the web and was commonly available. A lot of hackers use it. I think it was inserted in the report to make it look a bit more plausible.

I already explained at The Future of Cyber Security Europe conference that took place in London in last September, I had used a different way to breach into the DNC network. I found a vulnerability in the NGP VAN software installed in the DNC system.

It’s obvious that the intelligence agencies are deliberately falsifying evidence. In my opinion, they’re playing into the hands of the Democrats who are trying to blame foreign actors for their failure.

The Obama administration has a week left in office and I believe we’ll see some more fakes during this period.

I guess you have a lot of questions for me. So, feel free to send them via DM.

217 thoughts on “Here I am Again, My Friends!

  1. What do you perceive the reasoning to be for the CIA and NSA to blame Russia? What profit is there in those accusations? Do you you believe they may be trying to orchestrate a cyberwar initiative similar to the Patriot Act?


  2. I am no longer on Twitter but I definitely have some questions…many, in fact… I want to start a YouTube Channel and I cannot think of a better person to talk about than you. Will you entertain me with a Q&A? They’re going to be tough questions, so I’m not sure if you are up for it. I won’t submit my questions here. You can contact me.


  3. It’s a pleasure to here from you. I believe most Americans believed the story put out by Obama’s administration. Once a liar always a liar. I appreciate you coming out with the truth. This whole administration is a bunch of criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Welcome back!  I missed you!!

    From: GUCCIFER 2.0 To: Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 5:12 PM Subject: [New post] Here I am Again, My Friends! #yiv7986753203 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv7986753203 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv7986753203 a.yiv7986753203primaryactionlink:link, #yiv7986753203 a.yiv7986753203primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv7986753203 a.yiv7986753203primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv7986753203 a.yiv7986753203primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv7986753203 | guccifer2 posted: “I really hope you’ve missed me a lot. Though I see they didn’t let you forget my name. The U.S. intelligence agencies have published several reports of late claiming I have ties with Russia.I’d like to make it clear enough that these accusations are unf” | |


  5. Okay…..A few questions for Guccifer2–
    1) In one of your previous leaks you claimed it was from the Clinton Foundation but it was not. This pre-dated the left’s “fake news” narrative and could have potentially hurt WikiLeaks. You said you would explain later but we never heard anything. Why would you release something that would potentially undermine WikiLeaks, the organization you claimed to have leaked to in the first place? Why leak to WikiLeaks, then turn around and start a Twitter account to claim responsibility for the info. via hacking prior to the first leaks being released by Wikileaks?

    2) Isn’t is more plausible to believe you’re U.S. Intelligence or paid by someone on the left to further their agenda and provide distraction/damage control/muddy the waters? Many who didn’t have the time to invest in weeding through all that was going on during the election had you confused with WikiLeaks.

    I was on Twitter and was shadowbanned, fought with many others hard against the paid trolls in the pursuit of truth, supported WikiLeaks, saw Obama give away control of the Internet which was barely reported (goodbye 1st Amendment on-line), saw the left start a war on independent media and citizen journalists (further attacking our 1st Amendment rights), and the list goes on and on. And let us not forget the recounts and the fact that multiple states were hacked by DHS (including my own) after you encouraged hackers to “get inside” to ensure a fair election.

    (TO ALL) We are all looking for “living” heroes. Myself included. They are getting so hard to find. We hear the rhetoric from those who were elected to represent us but their actions often do not match their words. Don’t wait on a hero to save us. Be the voice yourself. Be the doer. Even if what you can offer is some small contribution of your efforts, it matters because together we can make a huge impact. Don’t rely on the MSM, including Fox, for your information. They all showed their hand during this election and have proven they simply cannot be trusted. Cut off your cable and kick the MSM out of your life. There are plenty of other better options. Seek out your news on-line. Use your state’s Open Records Laws to find answers yourself. Support citizen journalists with your dollars. Keep pursuing the truth.

    Lastly, I don’t think this info. was hacked at all! That’s just another part of the fake narrative.


    1. No one came on here to listen to you. They come here because they’ve connected to Guccifer’s blog – not yours – for whatever reasons they have. Don’t hijack his blog under the ruse of asking questions. You’ve made it quite apparent who you think Guccifer is and have taken the task of educating ALL of us on how to discern differences of real and fake. You were a bitch on twitter and you’ve brought your patronizing attitude here. Don’t forget, everyone has an agenda. Even you.


  6. Why did you intentionally edit documents to attach Russian language meta-data to them?
    Why did you name your computer after the founder of the soviet state police?
    Why did you use Yandex (free Russian email) account to email US mainstream press entities that suspected you to be Russian?
    Why did you claim to be Wikileaks source and then later, following your supposed “Clinton Foundation Hack”, suggest that you were struggling to find a way to get CF data online?
    Why did you post an archive of files clearly not from a CF hack and pretend that they were?

    Are you really Warren Flood of Bright Blue Media or have any connection with Jon Hutson and/or Global Max Media?


      1. The document you sent to TheSmokingGun on 15th June, metadata shows:

        Created by Warren Flood on 15th of June at 13:38
        Modified by Феликс Эдмундович on 15th of June at 14:11

        You appear to have purposefully tainted the document with the name of the Soviet Secret Police’s founder and used a Russian VPN through which to carry out communications.

        Furthermore, your claimed hacks on the DNC, specifically the method of breach in both cases – have been discredited. One was a claim of exploiting a 0-day exploit on NGP-Van that was practically impossible and the other claim was that you used a vulnerability that didn’t exist when you claimed to have used it. – This suggests you didn’t really hack the DNC.

        If you’re who I think you are – you didn’t even have to hack anything to acquire the DCCC docs… and it would explain why Guccifer2.0 can break into so much DNC stuff (but ONLY the DNC) while managing to achieve nothing against any of the other targets of the original Guccifer (who he claims to be following in the footsteps of).

        The anomalies, the correlations…. they all serve to statistically decay the shadow you’ve been hiding in “Guccifer2.0″… You resemble a DNC-insider or hired damage control for such a person.

        USIC, US MSM & CyberSecurity research firms may be (willfully in many cases) hoodwinked, but you don’t fool everyone.


  7. The world will have the data they need to make an informed assessment of their own soon enough.

    The big question remaining is: Who hired you?

    Paustenbach? Alvillar? Marshall? Dacey? Wasserman-Shultz? Miranda? or someone higher up?


    1. Why did Warren Flood create documents that you had stuck a Russian name on within 30 minutes of creation – all occurring on a day you later claimed was AFTER you were kicked out of the DNC network?

      It would seem the most logical explanation is that . Guccifer2.0 = Warren Flood

      I already know you were not the original author of the documents, I know Jennifer Dillon authored the Trump research document and you saved it in RTF1 format – not realizing the creation timestamp stays recorded in the data (MS-Word doesn’t show it but other apps and the raw data do)

      AGAIN… Who in the DNC hired you? … America deserves answers for the games you’ve played against public perceptions.


    2. I don’t give a rat’s ass who Guccifer 2.0 is, or if anyone “hired” him, as you state (which I seriously doubt) because I believe he is just a man who wanted to share TRUTH with the world, the same as WikiLeaks states it does.


  8. You were invented in response to Wikileaks and the leaks they had on Clinton.

    You needed to find a way to discredit them.

    You started off with a Russian template document (blank) and then copied contents from original documents into it.

    What does this say about investigative journalism in the US media in 2016? – and the cyber-security experts that didn’t report what I and others found – and DHS/ODNI and their lazy, flawed assessments?

    America… I didn’t start investigating this until beginning of this year. I now am 95% certain of who Guccfer2.0 is and I’m about to publish proof it was a false flag using evidence that was available from day #1. – I should probably start my own cyber-security company!! LOL.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Why did WikiLeaks follow @GUCCIFER_2 on Twitter, mention him on their Twitter timeline, and credit Guccifer 2.0 with the DNC leak, if it weren’t true? WikiLeaks states their information is always accurate, because they check it before sharing TRUTH with the world.

      I’m very confused by the statements being made! Would you or someone explain to me in normal language (because I’m not tech savvy) exactly what you’re saying. Thank you very much!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi Robbin,

        What Wikileaks point out as interesting over social media is not the same as what Wikileaks publish and/or officially endorse.

        Wikileaks linked to the site (which focuses on Guccifer2.0 being a phony frame-up operation) – but it doesn’t mean they officially endorsed it when they did this… they were just alerting others to it.

        What Wikileaks publish has 100% accuracy.

        What Wikileaks highlight on Twitter as interesting is just stuff that they, at that time, consider to be interesting. – They too, it seems, were duped by Guccifer2.0’s initial ability to obtain documents the public hadn’t seen before… as were most people.


      2. Also, they did not credit Guccifer2.0 for any of their work and the DNC leaks. In fact, nothing G2 released was in the same format (emails w/attachments).

        Everything G2 released was in memo form and separate files.

        The two entities were completely separate but there was a massive effort in the MSM to conflate the two.


  9. I totally believe you. This nonsense is another Obama and the FBI and Hillary made up propaganda.

    They blame anyone but themselves for their downfall or lies.

    Have a good day.


  10. Regarding the claimed breach of NGP-VAN software. ThreatConnect have reported:

    1. That there were no NGP-VAN binaries on the server to exploit.
    2. That NGP-VAN is actually cloud-hosted.

    Guccifer 2.0 insanely in this post tries to double-down on attributing himself to the DNC leaks via a bogus breach claim – one that is already discredited… it’s ridiculous.

    Maybe people should ask CrowdStrike why their file-based intrusion detection system (see their statements in WAPO on 14th of June!!!) only alerted them when specific files were accessed – and explain why despite their investigating, they only concluded that 2 files had been accessed in total when G2 released many more including one of the files that was apparently being monitored by them? (Is this an admission that CS’s detection systems are ineffective?!) – It’s also intriguing that the one file mentioned by name happens to be the first document ever released by Guccifer2.0… the very next day…. after the document had been rendered in a state that had artificial Russian fingerprints applied to it (along with other files – in a systematic 2-stage process)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s