July 15, 2022

The latest Jan. 6 committee hearing on Tuesday examined the role of conspiracy theory communities like 8kun[.]top and TheDonald[.]win in helping to organize and galvanize supporters who responded to former President Trump’s invitation to “be wild” in Washington, D.C. on that chaotic day. At the same time the committee was hearing video testimony from 8kun founder Jim Watkins, 8kun and a slew of similar websites were suddenly yanked offline. Watkins suggested the outage was somehow related to the work of the committee, but the truth is KrebsOnSecurity was responsible and the timing was pure coincidence.

In a follow-up video address to his followers, Watkins said the outage happened shortly after the Jan. 6 committee aired his brief video testimony.

“Then everything that I have anything to do with seemed to crash, so that there was no way for me to go out and talk to anybody,” Watkins said. “The whole network seemed to go offline at the same time, and that affected a lot of people.”

8kun and many other sites that continue to push the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from the 45th president have long been connected to the Internet via VanwaTech, a hosting firm based in Vancouver, Wash. In late October 2020, a phone call to VanwaTech’s sole provider of connectivity to the Internet resulted in a similar outage for 8kun.

Jim Waktins (top right), in a video address to his followers on Tuesday after 8kun was taken offline.

Following that 2020 outage, 8kun and a large number of QAnon conspiracy sites found refuge in a Russian hosting provider. But when the anonymous “Q” leader of QAnon suddenly began posting on 8kun again earlier this month, KrebsOnSecurity received a tip that 8kun was once again connected to the larger Internet via a single upstream provider based in the United States.

On Sunday, July 10, KrebsOnSecurity contacted Psychz Networks, a hosting provider in Los Angeles, to see if they were aware that they were the sole Internet lifeline for 8kun et. al.  Psychz confirmed that in response to a report from KrebsOnSecurity, VanwaTech was removed from its network around the time of the Jan. 6 hearing on Tuesday.

8kun and its archipelago of conspiracy theory communities have once again drifted back into the arms of a Russian hosting provider (AS207651), which is connected to the larger Internet via two providers. Those include AS31500 — which appears to be owned by Russians but is making a fair pretense at being located in the Caribbean; and AS28917, in Vilnius, Lithuania.

8kun’s newfound Russian connections will likely hold, but Lithuania may be a different story. Late last month, pro-Russian hackers claimed responsibility for an extensive distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack against Lithuanian state and private websites, which reportedly was in response to Vilnius’s decision to cease the transit of some goods under European Union sanctions to Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

Many have speculated that Jim Watkins and/or his son Ron are in fact “Q,” the anonymous persona behind the QAnon conspiracy theory, which held that Former President Trump was secretly working to save the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals.

8chan/8kun has been linked to white supremacism, neo-Nazism, antisemitism, multiple mass shootings, and is known for hosting child pornography. After three mass shootings in 2019 revealed the perpetrators had spread their manifestos on 8chan and even streamed their killings live there, 8chan was ostracized by one Internet provider after another.

In 2019, the FBI identified QAnon as a potential domestic terror threat, noting that some of its followers have been linked to violent incidents motivated by fringe beliefs.

The Jan. 6 hearing referenced in this story is available via CSPAN.

165 thoughts on “Why 8kun Went Offline During the January 6 Hearings

  1. Brendan

    Nice work! gotta love the irony of the conspiracy site CEO immediately assuming and spinning conspiracy theories to explain why his site went down vs calling his hosting provider or tech guy

  2. Maureen

    “Then everything that I have anything to do with seemed to crash, so that there was no way for me to go out and talk to anybody”.

    None of this is funny, and yet I am sitting here lmao. Thank you for keeping an eye (or both eyes) on them.

  3. BilltheCat

    Keep making the ISP’s aware of how the 8Kun scum are accessing the internet. The less we allow them to share their filth, the better off we all are.

  4. Mike Cottle

    It’s comforting to know that there are internet authorities looking out for everyone and deciding what is and is not appropriate for consumption. I am tired of the days when individuals were expected to decide for themselves what they consumed. That leaves entirely too much to chance and is extremely dangerous. The day when only speech that has been vetted and approved by these authorities can not happen soon enough. Then and only then can we all rest comfortably!

    1. Henry Winokur

      I have to disagree with you, Mike. What we need are people who are better educated and can think for themselves, which is, apparently, not what Conservatives want, based on everything they want to cut out of our lives right now…

    2. Pete Kokkinis

      Ha! I came here just to say this. I love it! Brian, please stick to tech and keep politics out of it.

      1. mealy

        How about you let Brian do his job as he likes and you either visit his site, or not.

        How’s that.

    3. Jess

      @Mike Cottle — I see your sarcasm and find it refreshing.

      Side note — this post went a little political and not what I’m used to seeing on here. Hope this isn’t a new trend, Bryan. Lots of respect for your investigations and appreciate the education you provide. I am here for tech, not politics.

      1. Callie

        It’s not a new trend. Brian is merely stating fact according to the consensus in the legal field and for objective journalists.
        It’s just shocking for people who still hold on to the belief so they see it as politics.
        In a few years, it will be common knowledge that only minor Fringe groups will dispute. Like the Moon landing, 911, etc.

      2. Alfonso

        Agree completely. Brian has not published my post. He has the right to publish, or not. To bad!
        On the other hand, it tells me exactly who he really is.

        1. HE KNOWS

          Brian knows WHO YOU ARE. He doesn’t care about censorship, but he does bait and investigate. Good luck with your pending indictment 🙂

    4. Dave H

      Has Brian stated below, free speech is about the government not censoring.

      If you want free speech, you have it.
      You’re free to buy your own paper, ink, press to make your own pamphlets and distribute them. You can stand on a milk crate in the public square and speak your mind.

      But you are not entitled to demand that someone give you a platform. Private companies do not have to carry your message nor should they be required to amplify your voice.
      You cannot stand on private property and demand your right to speak from there.

      1. T2020

        That could be true if they didn’t stand behind section 230. We are in a time where social media has become a public utility. Essentially we are in the same period as when phone companies became the most prominent way for people to communicate. How despicable would phone companies be if they said certain races couldn’t use the phone because of their race? It would be horrible. That being said the same companies are not at fault if they allow everyone to use them and someone uses them to do bad and evil like coordinate a crime. We are at a point in time where it is no longer private property. Especially when they stand behind section 230 for not doing something when say the highland park shooter makes awful posts all over them before he commits that act, or the Vivaldi shooter posting everything he said before he did what he did. It’s funny how they can magically post a COVID fact check on ANYTHING related to COVID but not report or make a notification to someone who says, to all their friends, they are about to shoot up a school. They stand behind section 230 and say they are not a publisher. Yet they censor and get all 1930’s Germany and Russia on anyone with a different opinion on super important issues concerning our country. Either you are a shill or just uneducated, or you really want censorship for some gross reason. Bottom line they are not private property, if they are then they support child porn, and mass shootings and they should be shut down for what they are doing to society. Or they are not responsible and they should only stop major crimes, like child porn and mass shootings, and they should allow someone with a different, but peaceful opinion space to speak.

        1. Dave H

          You don’t seem to have a good understanding of section 230. Rather the same twisted reinterpretation that many conservatives falsely believe.

          The whole national debate over net neutrality does have merit, but it is focused on calling ISPs as common carriers. Not social media platforms, hosting providers, etc.

          Internet service providers, ISPs, can be considered a public utility / common carrier precisely because of their limited choice in consumer markets. THAT’S the only comparison with telephone companies.
          Social media platforms, no matter how popular or ubiquitous, are never forced upon a population by sheer Monopoly.

          Nobody cares that your grandma or classmates are peer pressuring you to join, you don’t have to.

        2. Fiona T

          Are you suggesting that the government take over all social media so they can enforce zero censorship? Because that’s what will have to happen in order to strip all private companies on the internet from there freedom of expression.

    5. john

      Hey buddy, if they can use free speech and tell a bunch of wackos and fascist that the election was stolen and they should topple our democracy anybody can call their provider and tell them to give them the boot. I’m tired of people like you wiping their a** with free speech when it works against you and you don’t like its consequences.

    6. spagafus

      Yes! So nice to see the Krebs has the spare time to volunteer in the Thought Police Corps. He’s become so efficient at going after actual cyber criminals that he can now use those skills and time to go after the people who should be criminals, because we don’t like them. Keep on Krebbing.

    7. JAB

      Exactly! Similar, but different, Wimbledon banned Russians from playing…unless they play for a different country.
      We are big kids and can decide for ourselves. I’ve never spent a second on one of those sights and only would out of curiosity now.

    8. Anonymous

      Found the Q-anon believer. Let me guess, you also are against vaccinate mandates and think the Trump election was stolen from him. So stereotypical and such a lil sheep.

  5. sizer99

    Great job! MAGA asshats are all Russian tools, whether deliberately or just as useful idiots destroying everything.

  6. Matt

    “false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from the 45th president”

    Brian, have you actually dug into this or are you just watching CNN/MSN/Fox? Wisconsin just ruled last week that ballot boxes are illegal. Follow that up with https://2000mules.com/. I would rather you keep out of this arena. Stick to the tech and report on that, which you are good at. When you report on these stories you look uneducated and like a MSM shill.

    1. Jon Snow

      Wait…. The conspiracy propaganda movie that has been laughed away by such bleeding hart liberals as (checks notes) Bill Barr and is even too crazy for Fox news.

      That movie?
      >Wisconsin just ruled last week that ballot boxes are illegal.

      Yes, as a famous conman once said: “If more people vote, republicans will never win”.
      The GQP is doing everything legal and illegal to make sure to have less people voting.

      In my days, they used to call that “treason”.

      1. vaadu

        Brian is saying that he knows the unknowable. Even though the system is designed to NOT be fully auditable.

        1. KHarrington

          Brian doesn’t have the burden of proving the negative. People who claim that the election was stolen have the burden of proof. And at every turn (over 60 lawsuits and many recounts and audits) they failed to meet even the lowest standard of proof. So Brian is correct to say it.
          Yes, the system is designed to keep a “secret ballot”. Precisely to stop the losing politicians from trying to find who voted for whom in some mass persecution.

      2. Anon

        Motivating voters to actually vote is part of the political process. Having the government make that easy is rigging the process.

        1. Only in America

          Having the government remove barriers to voting isn’t rigging, it’s righting a wrong. Funny how far right people want the government to make it easier to own guns, but don’t want the same for voting.

    2. David

      Matt, it’s funny to hear all the Trump supporters come out of the woodwork and accuse Brian when they read something they don’t like.
      The claims of election fraud are mainly rooted in the technology. And Brian is an expert in this field.
      When you examine the claims made, they are without merit and without evidence. The courts rejected those claims too.

      When you try to present some political pseudo documentary as if they change the facts, you look uneducated.

    3. Moike

      > ballot boxes are illegal

      Note that is present tense. 1. Our election laws state that votes are counted according to the rules in place at the time of the election. 2. No evidence that ballot boxes resulted in any irregularity.

  7. TheDreadPirateHorsey

    Please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence – you’ve hated Watkins for years.

    If this is a coincidence, then I’m a ninja, and I have yet to flip out and cut anyone’s head off.

  8. Anon E. Moose

    It just goes to show free speech isn’t free. You must continue to fight for it.

  9. William Warren

    Since when did you become an arbiter of what is truth and what isn’t Brian? The best defense to falsehoods is the truth which will never get out with rampant censorship lik we we have now. It’s ironic you hide behind google’s DDOS shield because folks tried to silence you…and now you are doing the to others..no matte how offensive they may be. Frankly, you should post an apology for engaging in censorship/cancel culture…or step outside of your Google shield if you want to not be such a hypocrite.

    1. BrianKrebs Post author

      I guess private companies can decide with whom they do business, and hosting companies cut customers off all the time for a variety of reasons. You would have to ask them why they chose the line of action they did, but my generous guess is they simply were not aware that 8kun was transiting their network. I’d wager that just about any other provider in the US would do the same right now.

      1. William Warren

        i am not saying i am the arbiter of anything…however Brian’s entire post is trumpeting him doing just that.

  10. Kirk Hartley

    Great work – it takes people fighting back – you are a rock star on that, imo!

  11. Kevin McEvoy

    How does the freedom of speech factor into this.
    Do you really think that the average person is so dumb as to not ever be suspicious of things they read or hear.
    Seems that George Orwell was right.

    1. BrianKrebs Post author

      Freedom of speech means the government can’t restrict the rights of the press or of the individual to speak freely. It doesn’t say private companies can’t decide with whom they wish to transact.

      1. CredibleHulk

        No, Brian, this is nonsense. Freedom of speech means people being able to speak about important things freely. Freedom from the government oppression is part of it, but if you build a private system of oppression, where you and your friends use your power in the industry to suppress dissent, it’s as much an attack of freedom of speech as if the FBI had done it. The result is the same – and the goal is the same – people whose opinions you don’t like aren’t able to speak (and no, it doesn’t matter if you think what they’re saying is wrong. Freedom of speech includes freedom of saying things you think are wrong, that much should be clear to any adult). And that’s why you do it, so let’s not be coy about it – to shut them up. To take away their ability to speak. What you did is spitting on the principles of freedom of speech and the fact you used your professional prestige and not the government coercion to oppress people who say something you don’t like – only makes the difference in means, but not the goals and not the meaning of what you’re doing. The yearning for freedom that we have seen in the early days of the internet is gone now, and political wars and hurting the opponent by any means necessary is the name of the game now. Too bad – for all of us.

        1. In The Forest

          Brian is merely informing the hosting companies and it is up to the hosting companies to decide what they want to do. The actions of these companies showed us what they believe.

          When the matter in hand is not sufficiently clear in black and white, it is when human judgement is important. Education plays a big foundational role and information is a top up on knowledge. Not everyone has the privilege of a good education so information plays the leading role. Hence choosing the right source of information is important. It is comforting to know that there are still some brains around that have not been laundered!

        2. Jim Dewey

          Thanks for cutting through the BS and hypocrisy. When you redefine free speech to suit your own narrative, you are not just lying to everyone else; you are also lying to yourself.

          1. Ko

            Yep, free speech was always defined as pertaining to the government. It never suggested that a person had a right to free speech everywhere for anything like forcing speech on someone else’s private property without their consent.

            This idea that internet hosting providers must carry any and all speech is a ridiculous attempt to redefine free speech.

            1. JBo

              False. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. The Constitution prevents the government from blocking Freedom of Speech for an individual in many cases. No where does it say that your freedoms are limited by what’s defined in the document.
              The Constitution only defines what the government can’t do. It doesn’t define the limits of your freedom.

              1. Benatar

                You wrote, “The Constitution only defines what the government can’t do”

                Krebs wrote, “Freedom of speech means the government can’t restrict the rights of the press or of the individual to speak freely. It doesn’t say private companies can’t decide with whom they wish to transact.”

                Sounds like you agree with his point.

              2. Jim Dewey

                Reply to JBo
                I agree with you. What these websites do is just a cynical attempt to justify silencing those they disagree with. Hypocrites at best, totalitarians at worst.

                1. Bobby Mc

                  Stop trying to play the victim. Nobody got silenced.
                  They just got told that their business isn’t welcome anymore and to leave private property. Nothing more American than that.

            2. Jim Dewey

              You misunderstood because of the placement of my comment below yours. I never was impressed with the design of this comment section, too easy to manipulate without thumbs up or down and no way to determine who a reply is posted to after it’s posted. I was agreeing with the CredibleHulk, not you.
              Free speech should not depend on whether you have money or power to attain it, which is what websites do, suppress if they don’t agree. You either have free speech or you don’t. We know longer have it.

              1. Speech is freeer than ever

                Jim, you have a very twisted logic.
                We live in a time where free speech is more available than ever before. Before the internet, you had to buy airtime on community television. Or pay for a radio or TV advertisement spot that ran for 30 seconds. And before that, opinions would have to be written in books and paid for publishing and distributing. And before that, printing out thousands of pamphlets and paying to have them handed out to people.
                You could also write an editorial opinion piece in the newspaper, but newspapers have an editorial process which means that they have to at least agree to print it.

                With the internet and social media, free speech is on steroids. Anybody with very cheap hardware or even free internet at a library, can spend all day blogging on platforms and services that other people pay for.
                Every opinion, every stray thought that crosses a mind, can be duplicated, amplified, sent out to millions worldwide at the blink of an eye.

                And you’re complaining that Free speech has diminished? That’s ridiculous. If anything, there is now so much free speech that it has become a burden and is no longer democratizing.

        3. Phil

          According to your train of logic, the constitution grants me the right to come over to your house & paint anti-trump slogans on it. And the law will prevent you from doing anything about that. You will be required to leave these messages up on your house for as long as I think they should be there. I’m also considering your cars…

        4. tl;dr

          Consider the case of the boycott of a brand on social media that ends up getting advertisers to drop the company that’s polluting the sea, or deforesting the planet. When the advertisers decide to cut ties with the offending company because of greater public awareness of the problem in question, is that censorship? Is that impinging on free speech? How is raising awareness among hosting providers about toxic entities on their network any different?

          1. BrianKrebs Post author

            Or consider what happened in 2008, when I alerted two upstream providers of McColo Corp. that 80-90 percent of the control servers for the world’s largest spam/malware botnets were being routed through their networks.

            Nobody had bothered to assemble all the information in one place and present a clear picture of the problem. Either that, or nobody bothered to ask these companies if they were aware of it and/or okay with it.

            Regardless, those two providers made a (near-simultaneous and very quick) decision to no longer do business with them. Spam volumes plummeted by as much as 75 percent overnight globally, and spam volumes remained way below normal levels for several weeks until the botnet herders could reassemble their networks elsewhere. Fraud at retailers also fell precipitously, as large sources of proxies simply dried up.


            Was that censorship?

    2. Jon Snow

      Have you MET people?

      >Do you really think that the average person is so dumb as to not ever be suspicious of things they read or hear.

      Yes! Totally! They can totally believe at the same time that 6-1:
      – Never happened
      – Was just tourists
      – Was Antifa
      – Was the deep state
      – Should not be investigated
      – Was Hillary / Obama. / ….
      – Those that got convicted should be let go because…. eh…. putting people in jail is not nice!

      Tell me again that there are not military grade algorithms in place to influence the populace.

  12. G.Scott H.

    @Matt “Wisconsin just ruled last week that ballot boxes are illegal.” You should be more specific.That statement suggests that the method of voting in use when the country was founded was found to be illegal. In reality, what was found to be illegal in Wisconsin was the use of drop boxes for absentee ballots. I have not researched the detail, but Wisconsin voting laws may very well preclude the use of drop boxes. Not so in other states. In any case, the use of drop boxes does not equate to a stolen election.

    8kun is not a valid expert source on the topic of election law. Experts on election law, AKA federal judges of all political persuasion have weighed in that the election of 2020 was not stolen, and their opinion is the law under the constitution. These opinions are public record, not just news stories.

  13. Dave P

    If there is one thing I learned watching the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial it’s this: you can’t just hear one side of the story.

    Because of social media, apparently, convictions in the Court of Opinion have now replaced due process and the presumption of innocence. Had Depp never sued Heard, we would never have known Heard was the abuser.

    The January 6th hearings look a lot more like the show trials in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Witnesses would only be called if they backed up the accusations made against various prisoners of course. They would be found guilty, of course, because dissent was not allowed, nor was a fair defense.

    1. JamminJ

      The Congressional hearings are not a court. Hundreds of insurrections have been indicted and will have their day in actual criminal court. Trump and his lawyers have filed 60 plus lawsuits and they had their due process.

  14. CredibleHulk

    Nearly as despicable as the work of the folks that gave us the Alfabank hoax. Keep the good work of getting the Internet rid of people that dare to disagree with you, after all, that’s what it was build for, to push the approved narrative. Nobody thought people of different opinions, sometimes even ones not approved by the Government, would abuse the internet to spew their unverified thoughts and express themselves freely, without any control from the Right Thinking People like Mr. Krebs. With your incessant efforts, we may yet one day all agree on everything – because nobody disagreeing would be allowed to speak. Wouldn’t that be a dream?

    1. temp farm

      Everyone is still allowed to speak. But no private company should be forced to carry speech against their will.
      Disinformation has become a blight on society because fringe opinions have not been suppressed. But instead amplified and legitimized as if factual.

      There is no risk that voices can actually be silenced from the Internet. That’s absurd. You can still find even the most illegal things if you’re looking for it. And that’s where conspiracy theories should go, back to the shadows of the Internet.

  15. bobwyzguy

    This to me seems like a suppression of free speech.  Even if the speaker is wrong, they still have a right to expression under the First Amendment

    1. PowWow

      And the hosting provider has a right to deny that expression on their systems.

  16. spagafus

    So basically shame (extort light?) the hosting provider into shutting down the groups of the “despicable”. Not criminals mind you, but people with an opinion which offends some. These hosting companies know with whom they are doing business. But a high profile netsec journalist gives them a call and they know full well that the event would be published here. What else is the hosting provider supposed to do but take action to shut down the “offensive” sites so they’re not accused of being a supporter and risk a loud and harsh online backlash?

    Yes, they (sort of) had a choice. And the “right to know” is BS because they weren’t told anything they didn’t already know.

    1. hi

      “These hosting companies know with whom they are doing business”

      No, no they don’t. Nearly all have automated processes. Most are glad to be informed when a client is breaking terms of service. It’s hard for a hosting provider to analyze every system for violations. Terms of Use violations are not usually crimes, but still grounds for termination.

      Other service providers, like DDOS services (cloudflare) are much more lenient and don’t really care about offensive content like a hosting provider might.
      Hosting providers tend to have rules against offensive (but not illegal) content.

    2. Hello

      “These hosting companies know with whom they are doing business”

      No, no they don’t. Nearly all have automated processes. Most are glad to be informed when a client is breaking terms of service. It’s hard for a hosting provider to analyze every system for violations. Terms of Use violations are not usually crimes, but still grounds for termination.

      Other service providers, like DDOS services (cloudflare) are much more lenient and don’t really care about offensive content like a hosting provider might.
      Hosting providers tend to have rules against offensive (but not illegal) content.

  17. Morphyle

    I would take the Jan 6th hearings more seriously if they were using a system of adversarial examination. As it stands, I’m unwilling to take them seriously. Either party will say anything to get what they want, which is why an adversarial system is vital.

    1. JamminJ

      What you really want is a spectacle, which is really easy to hijack by just being louder.
      For real objective opposing argument, what you really need is a court of law.

      The Congressional hearings are not a court. Hundreds of insurrections have been indicted and will have their day in actual criminal court. Trump and his lawyers have filed 60 plus lawsuits and they had their due process.

      1. Jim Dewey

        Careful who you call a Republican Brian. RINO’s are playing for the other team.

        1. Real Rep

          Trump’s party will have to split off, as they are the real splinter group.
          Life long conservatives don’t have to bow down and kiss the ring. Trump was a liberal democrat in his early days. He only becomes what benefits him at the moment.
          Being called a RINO by a disgrace like Trump will soon be a badge of honor.

  18. BB

    Imainge caring at all about a few disorganized nut jobs on Jan 6 after the destruction the Democrats and their proxies have caused for 2+ years.

    1. Yankee

      Those few nut jobs were actually a large violent mob. People died. All the things that scare conservatives who fear from the invisible communist / antifa boogeyman. The fake patriots became much worse.
      The last 2 years have been so much more peaceful. Falling off a bike or falling up stairs is the most dramatic thing so far, sounds fine by me.

      1. JoMomma

        A single person died, shot by the capital police department.

        1. BrianKrebs Post author

          Just a tiny amount of searching online reveals it was well more than 1 deaths as a result of Jan 6 riots. A bipartisan report from the Senate found seven deaths

          Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as rioters tried to breach the House chamber.
          Kevin D. Greeson died of a heart attack, collapsing on the sidewalk west of the Capitol on Jan. 6.
          Rosanne Boyland appeared to have been crushed in a stampede of fellow rioters as they surged against the police.
          Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke.
          Mr. Greeson and Mr. Philips died of natural causes, the Washington medical examiner said in April. He added that Ms. Boyland’s death was caused by an accidental overdose.

          In the days and weeks after the riot, five police officers who had served at the Capitol on Jan. 6 died.
          Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7.
          Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack.
          Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward.



    ffs russians working troll farms in 3 shifts

  20. 8kun are Qnutzis

    Regarding your conspiracy theories, these docu-nonsense movies will rot your brain and have you believing in anything. The same video “evidence” that shows normal behavior is always twisted with some narration, cherry picking, and other logical fallacies to drive their political agenda.
    Laypersons don’t know what constitutes “evidence”, and they believe anything labeled as “proof” just because they “want to believe” the BIG LIE.

    Trump will be remembered through history in a way similar to AHitler. Millions of German people followed him, loved and worshiped him. Believed his lies to the point they were willing to go to war and escalate into atrocities. Remember the BIG LIE back then was that Communists burned down the Reichstag. Hitler was able to pass the Enabling Act which solidified his power.
    Now Trump wants to find any loophole to keep him in power regardless of the will of the people. And all he has to do is convince people of a stolen election. VPutin and AHitler both have these similarities to DTrump.

    Hitler even had a failed coup in the 1920’s. That was just the start. It’s fair to compare this two because Hitler needed to be stopped when he was just a right wing extremist politician, long before the atrocities which he is best remember for.

    Trump and others like him needs to be checked early. We have a democracy, but only if we can keep it by sealing up the cracks and loopholes that were made apparent when he tried to exploit them to remain in power.

  21. Arit

    I don’t get it … are you in the business of shutting down everything you consider to be a conspiracy site?

    1. Andy

      Nobody got shut down. He merely told the landlord and got him kicked out back to Russia.

  22. a

    ah yes, a website no normie even knows or gives a f about its existence is 100% the cause of conspiracy theories and you 100% proved the so called loonies there that they’re wrong and your side is the good side.
    you just pust more venom in their teeth, and proven them that they are fighting on the good side.

    1. Andy

      You sound ignorant. Q Anon nutjobs don’t need a reason. And driving them back into the gutters doesn’t grant them victimhood status.
      Boohoo, go cry to Putin.

  23. Walter

    You said… “the false narrative”. Careful Brian. One day, if ever we get a fair and honest review of 2020 voting, that statement might come back to bite you Brian. It’s remarkably easy to cheat in US federal elections, and near impossible to remove the fraud from them afterwards.

    1. Trump lost

      We’ve had so many recounts, reviews and audits. By Republicans. They confirmed Trump lost.
      And so many legal challenges, in front of conservative judges many of whom Trump appointed, confirmed there was no merit to this narrative.
      Despite known vulnerabilities, it’s still impractical to steal a national election precisely because it’s 51+ separate elections. And Trump lost by 3 states.

      Brian is careful. The verdict is in. Trump lost!

      1. Alfonso

        I guess you work for Dominion or any of the other outfitters. You look but do not see. Know a bunch of Chinese that are saying the same thing. “Nothing to see here” Nice try and stay tuned.

        1. Go away Qnut

          Alfonso: “stay tuned”
          This is a standard QAnon tag line.
          Known for failed predictions.

    2. Gubnah

      Let me get this straight, Walter: You think that despite all of the investigations into voter fraud claims in the 2020 election, despite every lawsuit filed by Trump & Co. thrown out of court, including by a number of courts for which Trump actually appointed judges, you think that the smoking gun showing the election was stolen is still going to emerge? Are you also waiting for the red wedding?

  24. Cartwright

    Anyone who knows anything about court knows it’s not as objective as you’d say.
    Don’t tell people what they really want. They just got done telling you otherwise.

  25. Timothy J. McGowan

    Thank you, Brian. Keep up the good work! Please ignore the political bullshirt and keep doing what you do so very well. I sincerely appreciate it.

    1. Juan Corona

      Me too. I’m glad there’s at least a couple of Thank You’s amid the squabbling here.

    1. Srly

      Why can’t you read? He was directly involved. Krebs has a long history of reporting scum to law enforcement (if investigating illegal activity) and/or reporting scum to the companies (if violation of terms of service).
      Pretty typical for Krebs on Security.
      Triggering trump magats is just a side bonus 🙂

    2. JohnAdams

      Looks like deep down Brian isn’t much different from other mainstream media entities. Can’t help but push narratives that suite his own political or ideological opinions (or whomever is paying him to have these opinions), even if it means putting out pre-loaded or false narratives. This article quite literally has every buzz-word possible that the mainstream media also pushes whenever discussing election fraud, Q, or 8kun. Sad!

      1. Truth Hurts

        Is that really your defense? That Brian is MSM because he actually does journalism instead of just going along with TFG and his nonsense? They aren’t buzzwords, they are just words you willfully disregard.
        Sycophants like you think news media is changing, abandon even Fox News because their hard news dept calls Arizona correctly in contrast to your preferred opinion pundits. It’s not the news that has changed, it’s you.

        1. Elona

          Is that really your response? TDS and pure emotion devoid of thought – like a baboon. STFU and GFOH.

          1. no more Q

            Another Q / Trump cultist coming here to accuse the author. Everything a conspiracy for you people?

      2. KGB

        buzz-words really? Nothing mentioned was irrelevant or even mildly off topic!
        Simple facts:
        1. 8kun founder Jim Watkins was before the committee
        2. 8kun does support the election fraud “conspiracy”
        3. “false narrative” of election fraud. No credible evidence has been provided to refute this.
        Simple speculation as no facts were presented by way of corroboration:
        1. Pushing narratives that suite his own political or ideological opinion.
        2. Paying him to have these opinions.
        3. pre-loaded or false narratives
        The only thing even vaguely questionable is Watkins relation to Q-Anon has no specific attribution of sources but even that is stated as SPECULATED.

        This is just solid journalism despite your apparent bias to the contrary.

      3. Jim Dewey

        Well said. There are no neutral parties including Brian Krebs.

        1. Neutral Parties

          We Are Retired Generals and Admirals. Trump’s Actions on Jan. 6 Were a Dereliction of Duty.


          We are political conservatives who have spent most of our adult lives working to support the Constitution and the conservative principles upon which it is based: limited government, liberty, equality of opportunity, freedom of religion, a strong national defense, and the rule of law.

          We have become deeply troubled by efforts to overturn or discredit the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. There is no principle of our Republic more fundamental than the right of the People to elect our leaders and for their votes to be counted accurately. Efforts to thwart the People’s choice are deeply undemocratic and unpatriotic. Claims that an election was stolen, or that the outcome resulted from fraud, are deadly serious and should be made only on the basis of real and powerful evidence.
          Senator John Danforth
          Benjamin Ginsberg
          The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith
          David Hoppe
          The Honorable J. Michael Luttig
          The Honorable Michael W. McConnell
          The Honorable Theodore B. Olson
          Senator Gordon H. Smith

    3. dr.no

      If you don’t understand the role that Qanon and other conspiracy theory communities played in the stolen election narrative and the planning in the lead-up to Jan 6, you clearly have not been paying attention over the past two years. They are a security threat in the same way polio is a threat to society.

  26. Catwhisperer

    If 8kun is a business entity registered somewhere in the US, then how are they doing business with a Russian entity possibly under sanction? I would think the FBI and IRS might be interested…

  27. Elona

    Define projection – Spoken like a true establishment conspiracy theorist yourself Krebs.

    1. Anon

      Your tu quoque argument is ridiculous. It’s a pathetic attempt to distract that you are a nut job conspiracy theorist. Good journalists deal with objective fact and state what is mere speculation. Brian has been doing a great job. Pissing off you QAnon crazies is amusing.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.