The Guccifer 2.0 Chats — The Aaron Nevins Chat

Who Is Aaron Nevins And Why Did He Talk To Guccifer 2.0?

*Recommended reading prior to this article — my first two articles documenting the anomalies I found in the photographs of the alleged chat between Robbin Young and Guccifer 2.0:

The Guccifer 2.0 Chat Hoax — Part 1

The Guccifer 2.0 Chat — The Rebuttal — Part 2

***Continue to check the Updates at the end of the article as news changes very quickly in regards to everything involving Guccifer 2.0

Part 3 — The story of Aaron Nevins…

A Republican operative in Florida received a trove of Democratic documents from the Russia-linked hacker believed to be a key player in the Kremlin’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

This is an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article entitled How Alleged Russian Hacker Teamed Up With Florida GOP Operative

As the name Guccifer 2.0 becomes more familiar through media coverage, and more conversations are being freshly released or re-visited, this particular exchange has been one of the least referenced — that is, until the last few days.

While Nevins denies that Guccifer is a Russian agent, he is forthright about his collaboration with the hacker or group of hackers. Which means that the Journal has found a bona fide, incontrovertible example of collusion. — excerpt from 
A Republican strategist is now confirmed to have colluded with Russian hackers — 
ThinkProgress

Is it serendipity the mainstream media and the Never-Trumpers have another scandal to add to their “Russia is to blame for Trump and your first love dumping you and over cooking the chicken for supper narrative?”

Well, here are a small sampling of the headlines over the past couple of days:

  • It’s Bigger Than Trump: GOP Operatives Colluded With The Russia Government To Hurt Clinton — Politicususa
  • GOP strategist admits he colluded with Russian hackers to hurt Hillary Clinton, Democrats — Salon
  • GOP operative confirms receiving hacked data during campaign — The Hill

One would almost believe it was deliberate synchronization between multiple media sources, not that the media ever plans to release in unison or anything…er..yeah..but sometime between May 25th and May 27th, the story of Aaron Nevins has come back into the stream, Russian collusion twist and all.

*Aaron Nevins was a GOP operative and blogger in Florida during the 2016 election campaign. As the story goes, Nevins had heard of the allegedly stolen documents from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s servers, and contacted Guccifer 2.0 through his website, asking if he had any information related to the Florida area for his gossip blog HelloFLA .

When the hacker responded affirmatively, Nevins apparently set up a private Dropbox for Guccifer 2.0 and was rewarded with some 2.5 gigabytes of DCCC data, some of which Nevins published on the blog under a pseudonym.

Nevins states he did not realize the enormity of his catch at first.

The DCCC documents that were leaked to Nevins analyzed voters in key Florida districts, breaking down how many people were considered dependable Democratic voters, undecided Democrats, Republican voters and the like. — from the Wall Street Journal article

A short time after Nevins’ published his blog post, Guccifer 2.0 contacted Roger Stone and shared the link to the posted documents.

Although, it was known last year HelloFla.com had received and published some of the documents attributed to Guccifer 2.0’s alleged hack, it was not known exactly how much data was dumped, nor was the true identity of the blogger known at that time.

It is possible the media is taking advantage of the fact the author turned out to be a GOP operative during the campaign — transforming the story into proof of collusion with Russia by simply adding in the zealously contrived Russian hacker, Guccifer 2.0 — but there are several problems with this most recent attempt to undermine the Trump Administration.

Forget for a minute, that the entire storyline behind the mysterious Guccifer 2.0 is sketchy and inconsistent at best, (see Adam Carter’s site Guccifer 2.0 — Game Over for the most thorough timeline of events) nowhere does Guccifer 2.0 claim to be Russian. In fact, if any, or all, of his conversations are to be believed, he is adamantly anti-Russian.

For the purpose of this article, I’m going to set aside these details and look at the screen captures of the alleged conversation between Aaron Nevins and Guccifer 2.0.

There are three images provided by Aaron Nevins for an interview with the Wall Street Journal. First, the original screenshots without my annotations:

*Images featured solely for the purpose of demonstration and commentary included in this article.
Original screen captures of chat between Aaron Nevins and Guccifer 2.0
Original screen captures of chat between Aaron Nevins and Guccifer 2.0.

Let’s take a closer look at these screenshots. To understand exactly what I am looking for, please refer to my earlier article The Guccifer 2.0 Chat Hoax.

If my hypothesis regarding the appearance of the wrong icons appearing in the wrong places is correct, then the same scrutiny should be applied to this chat as well.

This first screenshot shows the proper icons appearing — a Delete icon and a Block icon on the Guest’s side of the chat. This is normal.

All appears normal and correct in above screenshot.

Here’s where the problems begin. In fact, the exact issues encountered in Robbin Young’s chat with Guccifer 2.0. appear here in Nevins’ chat.

There should never be a Block User icon on the Host side of the chat.

In both the picture above and below, we see the problem with the icons. Never should an icon to block the host appear on the host’s side of the chat — but there it is.

The Host’s side should only ever show the Delete icon. Makes sense.

Why would you ever want to block yourself in your own chat?

If we surmise Robbin Young’s chat with Guccifer 2.0 was manipulated, then Aaron Nevins’ chat with Guccifer 2.0 was also manipulated. It’s all or nothing — either you believe both conversations have been tampered with or neither one was altered.

It would also be reasonable to conclude, whoever doctored one chat, doctored both. The chances of two different people manipulating two separate chats with the same alleged hacker using the same faulty method to manipulate the photos would be astronomical.

I mentioned in my last article, the method used in this photo manipulation (if it is indeed manipulated) is so awkward and distinct, it could be considered a fingerprint in itself.

I wrote of a much simpler method for creating a fake chat which would be nearly impossible to detect. Now, with more than one chat featuring the identical anomalies in this same distinct pattern, it is difficult to accept there is no connection between the two sets of pictures.

To be clear,

I am not making any accusations towards either Robbin Young or Aaron Nevins in regards to their alleged conversations with Guccifer 2.0.

Looking exclusively at the evidence and applying my yet to be disproven hypothesis, I can say with a good level of certainty, somebody manipulated some of the screenshots in both conversations.

I’m not drawing any conclusions other than the following:

  • Of all the Guccifer 2.0 chat logs which I’ve come across so far, these appear to be the only two with the same strange icon anomalies.
  • There has yet to be an adequate explanation for these anomalies from anybody including Twitter (*will update if/when Twitter responds)
  • There has been no evidence of anybody being able to recreate these same anomalies on any platform, nor has there been any examples of others who have expressed having these same issues (none I know of…feel free to provide examples if you find.)
  • The same person(s) who manipulated one set has to have manipulated the other set as well. As I mentioned earlier, the chances two different people (without a connection) manipulating two different conversations with the same hacker and using the same flawed technique would be next to none .

Unfortunately, these findings only serve to add more questions — What is the connection between the two chats? Who and why would anyone alter these chats? What is the benefit? Who gains? Was Nevins looking out for the interests of the GOP? If so, why would he put forth apparently manipulated photos of a chat with Guccifer 2.0?

Any argument for software glitches causing the errors is being stretched to the limit now — had a chat surfaced from the same time period which didn’t involve Guccifer 2.0, the glitch hypothesis could still be plausible. Or even if, for some strange reason, everybody’s chats with Guccifer 2.0 had the errors…that’s a real stretch but at least it would provide some sort of connection to explain the anomalies.

No matter how many attempts, I cannot explain these issues away as pure coincidence.

As usual, I leave it up to the reader to decide.

Article Notes

My attempts to contact Aaron Nevins for comment have thus far fallen short. I am currently waiting on a reply from HelloFLA and will update accordingly with any reply.

If anybody in contact with Mr. Nevins would kindly share this link, I would welcome any comment he might wish to offer.

New Updates appear first and have a date stamp

Wednesday, May 31, 2017 — *correction- I had originally written Guccifer 2.0 had contacted Nevins first.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017 — Update, I have been told Robbin Young’s original copy of her Direct Message chat has been found or restored. My offer to her still stands: Provide a new screen cap of any one of the screens which showed the anomalies in my first article. This would be a good step towards proving or disproving the hypothesis of the Twitter software being at fault.

*Update- Apparently, Robbin Young’s original Direct Message chat with Guccifer 2.0 has gone missing, (deleted), from her Twitter account. In my last article, Guccifer 2.0 Chat — The Rebuttal, I had asked for Ms. Young to attempt a new screen shot of any one of the screens where the anomalies appeared to bolster the argument of a software glitch being the cause.

Unfortunately, without the originals, there is no chance of proving or disproving the claims of the software having changed between my original article and present day.

**Update- I have a Twitter support ticket open requesting information on this icon anomaly but have yet to receive a response. (message for Twitter support…please, please, simplify, and what I mean is get rid of all the bots, in support and have a human available to answer questions.)

HM

*Images included in this article are featured solely for the purpose of demonstration and commentary following the copyright guidelines of Fair Use .

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Hannibal Moot’s story.