Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and a very suspicious DNC leak saga

Can  Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear  be codewords for CIA false flag operation ?
Did Crowdstrike injected malware from CIA collection in DNC servers to implicate Russians?

News CIA hacking and false flag cyber operations Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump Recommended Links Vault 7 scandal DNC "emails leak into Russian hack" false flag Do the US intelligence agencies attempt to influence the US Presidential elections ? Strzok-gate Andrew McCabe and his close circle of "fighters with organized crime"
Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Coordinated set of leaks as a color revolution tool Brennan elections machinations Hillary Clinton email scandal Anti Trump Hysteria Attempts to entrap Trump FBI Mayberry Machiavellians
Nation under attack meme The Deep State National Security State  American Exceptionalism  Media-Military-Industrial Complex Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Bernie Sanders betrayal of his supporters History of American False Flag Operations
Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite  Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Myth about intelligent voter Trump vs. Deep State Did Obama order wiretaps of Trump conversations Michael Flynn Doublespeak New American Militarism Bait and Switch
Deception as an art form The Iron Law of Oligarchy Principal-agent problem Neoliberalism Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Non-Interventionism Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc

As of Jan 12, 2018 it is clear that  Russiagate became FBI-gate -- an attempt of FBI brass  to subvert the US Presidential elections in favor of Hillary Clinton. And Ray McGovern  played an important role in this making this fact public, first of all discrediting the idea of DNC hack (which was actually an internal leak) which logically led to the analyses of Crowdstrike role and the hypothesis that Crowdstrike injected malware from CIA collection in DNC server(s) and later discovered it implicate Russians.  Performing  a classic false flag operation. See The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.

Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."

Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers' correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of the made-up "Resistance" narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn't make sense on its face.

The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.

 

Crowdstike and it founder are very interesting people indeed. This unknown to anybody startup managed to attact key people from FBI cyber intelligence unit.

CrowdStrike has brought on board senior FBI executives, such as Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director (EAD) of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, and Steve Chabinsky, former deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division. CrowdStrike has received $256 million in funding from Warburg Pincus, Accel Partners, and Google Capital.

There is a lot of information about both  founders George Kurtz and Dmirty Alperovich on Youtube (See Recommended Links). Alperovich is CTO so juggling him allow to judge the levle of the firm. There are a dozen or so of him presentations I think. Which allow to create some level of understanding what this guy is about.  The things that he is talking about make sense. But he of course he exaggerates and distort like a real slick marketer. In no way this is a "technical guru" type.

Note: in 2017 Alperovich is just 37. That's amazing career in a very difficult field. In which you need many-many years just to learn  networking protocols. So he probably do not know much outside narrow field of email and webmail.   And he did not study much iether. Alperovitch earned a M.S. in information security in 2003 and a B.S. in computer science in 2001, both from Georgia Institute of Technology. While BS in computer science from GeorgTech usually means that the guy is not an idiot, people who try to get MS in information  security are usually second-rate from the computer science perspective.  So he is not a bright star in computer science iether. All his career he was limited to Apple and Windows, which also limit person in a certain way.  So in comparison with top cybersecurity guys from FBI or CIA he probably is just a slick careerist with penchant of self-promotion and marketing.  Pretty reckless guy Dmitri Alperovitch - Offense as the Best Defense - AusCERT2013 - YouTube
He is pretty slick presenter, I give that to him.
 I wonder who sponsored him, as on his own he probably was unable to climb so fact so quickly on the management ladder.

CrowdStrike - Wikipedia

CrowdStrike, Inc. is an American cybersecurity technology company based in Sunnyvale, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. The company provides endpoint security, threat intelligence, and incident response services to customers in more than 170 countries.[1][2] The company has been involved in response efforts to several high-profile cyber-attacks, including the Sony Pictures hack,[3] the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, and the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. In the last case it concluded Russian state actors were responsible.[4]

CrowdStrike was co-founded by entrepreneur George Kurtz (CEO),[5][6] Dmitri Alperovitch (CTO),[7] and Gregg Marston (CFO, retired). In 2012, Shawn Henry, a former FBI executive who led both the FBI's criminal and cyber divisions, was hired to lead sister company CrowdStrike Services, Inc., which is focused on proactive and incident response services.[8]

The company gained recognition for providing threat intelligence and attribution to nation state actors[9] conducting economic espionage and IP theft. This includes the outing of state-sponsored Chinese group, Putter Panda, linked to China's spying on US defense and European satellite and aerospace industries.[10] In May 2014, supported by CrowdStrike's reports, the US Department of Justice charged five Chinese military hackers for economic cyber espionage against US corporations. Similarly, the firm is known for uncovering the activities of Energetic Bear, an adversary group with a nexus to the Russian Federation that conducts intelligence operations against a variety of global victims with a primary focus on the energy sector.

Following the very public Sony Pictures hack, CrowdStrike produced attribution to the government of North Korea within 48 hours and demonstrated how the attack was carried out step-by-step.[11] On May 2015, the company released Researcher Jason Geffner's discovery of VENOM, a critical flaw in open source hypervisor called Quick Emulator (QEMU),[12] which is used in a number of common virtualization products.

In 2013, the company launched the Falcon platform, a technology that stops breaches by combining next-generation antivirus, endpoint detection and response, and proactive hunting. In 2014, CrowdStrike was instrumental in identifying members of PLA Unit 61486 as the perpetrators of a number of cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure.[13][14]

In July 2015, Google invested in the company's Series C funding round, which in total raised $100 million. To date, CrowdStrike has achieved total funding of $256 million with estimated annual revenue of $100 million and valuation more than $1 billion.[15] Investors include Telstra, March Capital Partners, Rackspace, Accel Partners and Warburg Pincus.[16][17] According to the company, its customers include three of the 10 largest global companies by revenue, five of the 10 largest financial institutions, three of the top 10 health care providers, and three of the top 10 energy companies.[18]

In 2016, the company was ranked #40 on the Deloitte Fast 500 North America list.[19]

Crowdstrike has figured prominently in the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks and the attribution of those attacks to Russian intelligence services. On March 20, 2017 during testimony before congress, James Comey stated "Crowdstrike, Mandiant, and ThreatConnect review[ed] the evidence of the hack and conclude[d] with high certainty that it was the work of APT 28 and APT 29 who are known to be Russian intelligence services."[20]

Industry recognition[edit]

Dmitri Alperovitch - Wikipedia

Alperovitch worked at a number of computer security startups in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including e-mail security startup CipherTrust, where he was one of the leading inventors of the TrustedSource reputation system. Upon acquisition of CipherTrust by Secure Computing in 2006, he led the research team and launched the Software-as-a-Service business for the company. Alperovitch took over as vice president of threat research at McAfee, when the company acquired Secure Computing in 2008.

In January 2010, he led the investigation into Operation Aurora, the Chinese intrusions into Google and two dozen other companies.[2] Subsequently, he led the investigation of Night Dragon espionage operation of the Western multinational oil and gas companies, and traced them to Song Zhiyue, a Chinese national living in Heze City, Shandong Province.[3]

In late 2011, along with entrepreneur George Kurtz[4][5] and Gregg Marston, Dmitri Alperovitch co-founded and became the chief technology officer of CrowdStrike,[6] a security technology company focused on helping enterprises and governments protect their intellectual property and secrets against cyberespionage and cybercrime. CrowdStrike has brought on board senior FBI executives, such as Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director (EAD) of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, and Steve Chabinsky, former deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division. CrowdStrike has received $256 million in funding from Warburg Pincus, Accel Partners, and Google Capital.

Alperovitch was awarded the prestigious Federal 100 Award for his contributions to the U.S. federal information security [7] and was recognized in 2013 and 2015 as one of Washingtonian (magazine)'s Tech Titans for his accomplishments in the field of cybersecurity.

In August 2013, he was selected as one of MIT Technology Review's Top 35 Innovators Under 35, an award previously won by Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Mark Zuckerberg [8]

In 2016, Politico Magazine featured him as one of "Politico 50" influential thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics[9]

In 2017, Fortune magazine listed Alperovitch in "40 Under 40" annual ranking of the most influential young people in business, along with Emmanuel Macron, Mark Zuckerberg and Serena Williams.[10]

He is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank and was named in December 2013 as one of Foreign Policy's Top 100 Leading Global Thinkers, along with Angela Merkel, John Kerry, Ben Bernanke and Jeff Bezos [11]


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 16, 2020] Veteran CIA Analyst- How An Internet 'Persona' Helped Birth Russiagate -

Jun 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Veteran CIA Analyst: How An Internet 'Persona' Helped Birth Russiagate


by Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2020 - 19:25 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

Four years ago on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping "telltale" but synthetically produced Russian "breadcrumbs" in his metadata.

Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC emails – namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party's 2016 primary – was successfully obscured .

The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

me frameborder=

Almost everybody still "knows" that – from the man or woman in the street to the forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.

Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the vogue.

The soil had already been cultivated for "Russiagate" by Democratic PR gems like Donald Trump "kissing up" to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their "bromance" (bromides that former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, "Russian meddling" was off and running – on steroids – acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.

Here's how it went down :

about:blank

me frameborder=

Adding to other signs of fakery, there is hard evidence that G-2.0 was operating mostly in U.S. time zones and with local settings peculiar to a device configured for use within the US , as Tim Leonard reports here and here .)

Leonard is a software developer who started to catalog and archive evidence related to Guccifer 2.0 in 2017 and has issued detailed reports on digital forensic discoveries made by various independent researchers – as well as his own – over the past three years. Leonard points out that WikiLeaks said it did not use any of the emails G2.0 sent it, though it later published similar emails, opening the possibility that whoever created G2.0 knew what WikiLeaks had and sent it duplicates with the Russian fingerprints .

As Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) told President Trump in a memorandum of July 24, 2017, titled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?":

"We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been ready to publish and to 'show' that it came from a Russian hack."

We added this about Guccifer 2.0 at the time:

"The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original 'Guccifer 2.0' material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the 'hand-picked analysts' from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the misnomered 'Intelligence Community' Assessment dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics."

Guccifer 2.0 Seen As a Fraud

In our July 24, 2017 memorandum we also told President Trump that independent cyber investigators and VIPs had determined "that the purported 'hack' of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. Information was leaked to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. " [Emphasis added.].

Right. Ask the FBI. At this stage, President Trump might have better luck asking Attorney General William Barr, to whom the FBI is accountable – at least in theory. As for Barr, VIPs informed him in a June 5, 2020 memorandum that the head of CrowdStrike had admitted under oath on Dec. 5, 2017 that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked – by Russia or by anyone else. [Emphasis added.] This important revelation has so far escaped attention in the Russia-Russia-Russia "mainstream" media (surprise, surprise, surprise!).

Back to the Birth of G-2

It boggles the mind that so few Americans could see Russiagate for the farce it was. Most of the blame, I suppose, rests on a thoroughly complicit Establishment media. Recall: Assange's announcement on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton-related emails came just six weeks before the Democratic convention. I could almost hear the cry go up from the DNC: Houston, We Have a Problem!

Here's how bad the problem for the Democrats was. The DNC emails eventually published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, had been stolen on May 23 and 25. This would have given the DNC time to learn that the stolen material included documents showing how the DNC and Clinton campaign had manipulated the primaries and created a host of other indignities, such that Sanders' chances of winning the nomination amounted to those of a snowball's chance in the netherworld.

Clinton at the 2016 convention, via Wikimedia Commons.

To say this was an embarrassment would be the understatement of 2016. Worse still, given the documentary nature of the emails and WikiLeaks' enviable track record for accuracy, there would be no way to challenge their authenticity. Nevertheless, with the media in full support of the DNC and Clinton, however, it turned out to be a piece of cake to divert attention from the content of the emails to the "act of war" (per John McCain) that the Russian "cyber attack" was said to represent .

The outcome speaks as much to the lack of sophistication on the part of American TV watchers, as it does to the sophistication of the Democrats-media complicity and cover-up. How come so few could figure out what was going down?

It was not hard for some experienced observers to sniff a rat. Among the first to speak out was fellow Consortium News columnist Patrick Lawrence, who immediately saw through the Magnificent Diversion. I do not know if he fancies duck hunting, but he shot the Russiagate canard quite dead – well before the Democratic convention was over.

Magnificent Diversion

In late July 2016, Lawrence was sickened, as he watched what he immediately recognized as a well planned, highly significant deflection. The Clinton-friendly media was excoriating Russia for "hacking" DNC emails and was glossing over what the emails showed ; namely, that the Clinton Dems had pretty much stolen the nomination from Sanders.

It was already clear even then that the Democrats, with invaluable help from intelligence leaks and other prepping to the media, had made good use of those six weeks between Assange's announcement that he had emails "related to Hillary Clinton" and the opening of the convention.

The media was primed to castigate the Russians for "hacking," while taking a prime role in the deflection. It was a liminal event of historic significance, as we now know. The "Magnificent Diversion" worked like a charm – and then it grew like Topsy.

Lawrence said he had "fire in the belly" on the morning of July 25 as the Democratic convention began and wrote what follows pretty much "in one long, furious exhale" within 12 hours of when the media started really pushing the "the Russians-did-it" narrative.

Patrick Lawrence

Below is a slightly shortened text of his article :

"Now wait a minute, all you upper-case "D" Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters?

Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his famously red-baiting campaign – a disgusting episode – during his first run for the Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is perfectly fair to say.

I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday [July 22] among the Democrats, specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain

The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton's nomination. The prints were everywhere – many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton's 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC's chair in any society that takes ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the past five years.

Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to Clinton and numerous others atop the party's power structure have had nothing to say, as in nothing, about this unforgivable breach. They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.'s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the room.

The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union" to assert that the D.N.C.'s mail was hacked "by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." He knows this – knows it in a matter of 24 hours – because "experts" – experts he will never name – have told him so.

What's disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers – assuming for a sec that this concocted narrative has substance?

Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess – and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).

Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no "Russian actor" at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.

Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook's lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified "expert," and more conditional verbs than you've had hot dinners – everything cast as "could," "might," "appears," "would," "seems," "may." Nothing, once again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political process.

Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate – no, not the DNC's fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but "those who pose a threat in cyberspace." it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow weary

We must take the last few days' events as a signal of what Clinton's policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November. Turning her party's latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade.

Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?

I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?"

A year later Lawrence interviewed several of us VIPs, including our two former NSA technical directors and on Aug. 9, 2017 published an article for The Nation titled, "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack."

Lawrence wrote, "Former NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs), say it wasn't a hack at all, but a leak – an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system."

And so it was. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate narrative at The Nation at the time. Its staff, seriously struck by the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, rose up in rebellion. A short time later, there was no more room at The Nation for his independent-minded writing.


Drop-Hammer , 2 hours ago

His name was (((Seth Rich))).

zoomie92 , 1 hour ago

Direct USB download to chip or portable HD was the only way to get those download speed shown on the file metadata. This has been proven in multiple independent ways. But the press is filled with ******* retards - and so is the country.

Franko , 1 hour ago

Rest in Peace Mr Seth.

I believe many US officials have enough and want to tell the others about this.

Question:were they should be go to spread the news?To which country before been assasinated?

To end like Julian Assange or like Snowden?

belogical , 2 hours ago

...Gucifer had much less to do with this than the Obama admin. They were using the intelligence community for no good and as their crimes became visible they had to commit bigger and bigger crimes to cover them up. In the end a large part of the DOJ, FBI and Obama admin should be held accountable for this, but when you get this high they likely won't. You can already see Lindsey Graham of the deep state finally holding hearing to spin the narrative before the Durham probe becomes public. Unfortunate but only a few will get their hands slapped and the true person, Obama who deserve to be prosecuted will likely skate.

PedroS , 2 hours ago

Crowdstrike. The owners should be in jail for their role.

Slaytheist , 2 hours ago

Crowdstrike IS Guccifer.

They were ordered by the criminal DNC org to cover the fact that the data was downloaded internally, in order to hide the connection to the Podesta/Clinton ordered hit on person who did it - Seth Rich.

Weedlord Bonerhitler , 3 hours ago

The computer of a DNC operative named Warren Flood was used to disseminate the Guccifer 2.0 disinfo tranche. Adam Carter had the analysis IIRC.

Giant Meteor , 3 hours ago

Always good to hear from Ray!

philipat , 39 minutes ago

Tick tock, still no indictments and soon the campaign will be in full swing so that everything will be attacked as "political". Is Durham done?

[Jun 03, 2020] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput

Highly recommended!
Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

freedommusic , 23 minutes ago link

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?

AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.

DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the server was examined?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?

AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.

DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in FBI laboratories?

AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.

(silence)

DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?

AGENT: Uh .. no.

DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually examined the computer hardware?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?

AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?

AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.

DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their servers?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?

AGENT: I don't know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?

AGENT: No, I cannot.

DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?

AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?

AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.

( source )

hooligan2009 , 14 minutes ago link

Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).

[May 27, 2020] Brennan ears over Guccifer 2.0 mask -- CIA is the most probable origin of Gussifer 2.0

If DNC was hack not a leak, then NSA would have all information about the hack.
May 27, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j1qOs0dE4I


P. Michael Garber , May 26, 2020 at 22:21

I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.

I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.

Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.

Mark McCarty , May 25, 2020 at 21:25

On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!) Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" – DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.

This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks. Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)

If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?

It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting attention from the content of the released emails.

As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.

Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted Secretary of State emails.

Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about 2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".

Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which SR was slain.

Tim , May 25, 2020 at 20:33

How does the murder of the DNC staffer fit in?

Linda Wood , May 26, 2020 at 23:00

DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016 primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.

mockingbirdpaper (dot) com/content/local-activist-files-suit-access-exit-polling-data-dead-witness-blocks-path-truth

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

Highly recommended!
Images deleted.
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tim Leonard via ConsortiumNews.com,

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange “may be connected with Russians?”

In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:

On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.

This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.

Timing

On June 12, 2016, in an interview with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).

On June 14, 2016, an article was published in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).

On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).

On June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 appeared for the first time. He fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using material that wasn’t from the DNC), used a proxy in Moscow to carry out searches (for mostly English language terms including a grammatically incorrect and uncommon phrase that the persona would use in its first blog post) and used a Russian VPN service to share the fabricated evidence with reporters. All of this combined conveniently to provide false corroboration for several claims made by CrowdStrike executives that were published just one day earlier in The Washington Post.

[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier this month.]

First Claim Versus First Contact

On the day it emerged, the Guccifer 2.0 operation stated that it had given material to WikiLeaks and asserted that the organization would publish that material soon:

By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received confirmation of intent to publish.

However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June 22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them rather than doing what it was doing:

[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special counsel.]

If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.

Needing To Know What WikiLeaks Had

Fortunately, information that gives more insight into communications on June 22, 2016 was made available on April 29, 2020 via a release of the Roger Stone arrest warrant application.

Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):

@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?

@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing. No other media will release the full material.

@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs? If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?

@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?

Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0 had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.

The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.

Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?

@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted message to office@wikileaks.org. They key is here.

and June 27, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.

@WikiLeaks: Thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.

Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16, 2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even more doubtful).

Claims DCLeaks Is A Sub-Project Of WikiLeaks

On June 27, 2016, in an email chain to the Smoking Gun (exposing Guccifer 2.0 apparently being in the Central US timezone), Guccifer 2.0 claimed that DCLeaks was a “sub-project” of WikiLeaks.

There’s no evidence to support this. “Envoy le” is also a mistake as standard French emails read: “Envoye le.” Claims allegedly made by Guccifer 2.0 in a Twitter DM to DCLeaks on September 15, 2016 suggest that he knew this was nonsense:

There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.

(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)

Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted to).

The ‘About 1GB’ / ‘1Gb or So’ Archive

On July 4, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 contacted WikiLeaks:

@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.

This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:

@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?

@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].

@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.

@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.

@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.

@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?

@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?

@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.

@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?

@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some hours.

@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.

@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just ask for custom fast upload point in an email.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?

@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too big to fake.

@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?

@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]

@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?

@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.

@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.

@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some hours.

@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.

@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill, because he’s a target in that investigation.

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.

@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.

@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the FBI.

@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?

@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.

@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?

@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.

@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.

@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc anyhow?

@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.

@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.

@WikiLeaks: :))).

@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.

@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.

@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.

[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]

On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:

It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the file were readable.

The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:

@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.

@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.

On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:

@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?

On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:

@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.

@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?

@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]

@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?

@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?

@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?

@WikiLeaks: yes.

@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.

@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.

@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.

@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?

@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.

@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?

@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.

@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then there is no point in trying to shut you up.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it

Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.

Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).

The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.

Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.

Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d given them!!!”.

Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016.

Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.

We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July 19, 2016.

Ulterior Motives?

While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:

Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.

If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first started publishing attachments from those emails.

Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties

WikiLeaks Offers Reward

On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:

ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 9, 2016

In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.

When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.

When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘ sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.

Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across social media.

Guccifer 2.0 Claims Seth Rich As His Source

On August 25, 2016, approximately three weeks after the reward was offered, Julian Assange was due to be interviewed on Fox News on the topic of Seth Rich.

On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).

Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?

[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]

Special Counsel Claims

In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general election, delivered his final report.

It claimed:

Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).

No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.

Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians

In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):

The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange

Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:

  1. June 15, 2016: claiming to have sent WikiLeaks material on his blog.
  2. June 27, 2016: when he claimed DCLeaks was a sub-project of WikiLeaks.
  3. July 13, 2016: Joe Uchill of The Hill reported that Guccifer 2.0 had contacted the publication and stated: “The press gradually forget about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and have some more docs.”
  4. July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
  5. August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
  6. August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks“.
  7. September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
  8. October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer 2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly not from the Clinton Foundation.)
  9. October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases. already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”

Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:

  1. June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
  2. August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks, the persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
  3. August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
  4. October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.

Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.

Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.


xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)

Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world. Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the truth. Kill the messenger....literally.

xxx 10 minutes ago

here's what really happened:

an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.

the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar operation.

Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts, using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network. Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.

you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.

if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.

this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate himself and Assange along with him.

if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of Assange.

xxx 11 minutes ago

According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but "Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.

Is that so?

xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)

The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.

xxx 28 minutes ago

I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.

xxx 29 minutes ago

********

xxx 33 minutes ago

At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.

No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv glare...

Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have much time to regret.

The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,

And it has grudges to keep.

xxx 37 minutes ago

Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?

- In prison?

- Released?

- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.

Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.

xxx 41 minutes ago

+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.

Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.

xxx 44 minutes ago

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"

Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...

xxx 45 minutes ago

@realDonaldTrump

A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called investigator? Read story!

xxx 45 minutes ago

Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike

xxx 51 minutes ago

Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)

Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others?

xxx 1 hour ago

"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...

xxx 1 hour ago

James Guccifer Clapper.

xxx 1 hour ago

Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.

xxx 1 hour ago

Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.

Justice for Seth Rich!

xxx 1 hour ago

Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power these entities have on swaying American minds.

xxx 1 hour ago

ObamaGate.

xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)

Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not "hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren flood.

Really sloppy larp!!!

xxx 1 hour ago

This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/

xxx 1 hour ago

This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it knows what to do with.

What do you think the result will be?

As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.

But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.

xxx 1 hour ago

And.....?

Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds that they are?

xxx 1 hour ago

Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.

xxx 15 minutes ago

That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?

The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).

They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.

A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.

IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.

So, the democrats did it to themselves.

And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.

And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.

xxx 1 hour ago

Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.

xxx 1 hour ago

Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda : looks like Gussifer 2.0 was a false flag operation designed to smear WikiLeaks and distract from the content of the stolen by Seth Rich or some other insider DNC emails

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
May 24, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Daniel P , May 23, 2020 at 13:34

Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.

With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.

Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.

Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01

These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone at all fell for that

Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21

Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.

Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00

The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.

OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40

Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles facilitating spectacles' popularity.

Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.

Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35

This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.

I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.

Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).

Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19

Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.

Cal Lash , May 22, 2020 at 01:20

I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.

treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34

"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"

G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's "related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.

Thank you for fantastic work.

Mark McCarty , May 21, 2020 at 22:24

A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.

Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.

Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to that date.

It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It does credit to them both.

Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33

How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian Assange!

[May 14, 2020] NYT Falsely Blames Russia For Cyberattack Committed By British Hacker

Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous" cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
May 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Merkel Is 'Outraged' by Russian Hack but Struggling to Respond
Patience with President Vladimir Putin is running thin in Berlin. But Germany needs Russia's help on several geopolitical fronts from Syria to Ukraine.

NYT Berlin correspondent Katrin Bennhold writes:

Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous" cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."

But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians, Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.

"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."

That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are.

Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week.

Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.

This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken.

The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?

While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:

As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.

bigger

Ahem. No!

That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in December, was done with the Mirai worm :

More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.

The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a service. He was arrested in February 2017:

A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national communication infrastructure.

According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany, where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.

The British man, one Daniel Kaye, plead guilty in court and was sentenced to 18 month imprisonment :

During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by competitors to takedown Lonestar.

In Aug 2017 Daniel was extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about £75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.

The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been discussed at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot net, has written several stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel Kaye.

Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.

The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact checking.

It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent of what the actually facts say.

Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC | Permalink


J Swift , May 14 2020 15:05 utc | 1

Good article!

Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived) arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of everyone's sensitive, personal information.

Petri Krohn , May 14 2020 15:26 utc | 2
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking hackers are actually Ukrainians .

Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:

Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike

Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the "Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays...

Patrick Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc | 3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream, Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
Brendan , May 14 2020 15:41 utc | 4
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:

"Correction: May 14, 2020

An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016 cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the article. "

That was there for at least 13 hours from yesterday evening onwards. The page was archived this morning though before that edit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200513221700/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/world/europe/merkel-russia-cyberattack.html

Norwegian , May 14 2020 15:45 utc | 5
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
james , May 14 2020 15:45 utc | 6
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this bullshit too...

i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night - #DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read from him!

@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..

Brendan , May 14 2020 15:48 utc | 7
OK I don't know how to fix the formatting in my last link but you can look up https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/world/europe/merkel-russia-cyberattack.html on https://web.archive.org for 10:46 May 14 2020
m droy , May 14 2020 15:51 utc | 8
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't get more of their new interpretation form here.

Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.

After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.

tucenz , May 14 2020 16:22 utc | 9
Fairy tales told by Danny Kaye....

[May 11, 2020] Tucker: Adam Schiff should resign

This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup d'état against Trump
May 11, 2020 | www.youtube.com

RionE23 , 2 days ago

I'm sick of politicians getting a free pass by "resigning" no, they break the law they go to jail.. just like the rest of us.

shannon11590 , 1 day ago

Adam Schiff simply needs to be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for the countless number of criminal acts that he committed while in Congress.

[Mar 21, 2020] Why Is CrowdStrike Confused On 11 Key Details About The DNC 'Hack'

Mar 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Why Is CrowdStrike Confused On 11 Key Details About The DNC 'Hack'? by Tyler Durden Sat, 03/21/2020 - 21:20 Authored by Larry Johnson via Sic Semper Tyrannis blog,

Here is the bottom-line - despite being hired in late April (or early May) of 2016 to stop an unauthorized intrusion into the DNC, CrowdStrike, the cyber firm hired by the DNC's law firm to solve the problem, failed abysmally. More than 30,000 emails were taken from the DNC server between 22 and 25 May 2016 and given to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike blamed Russia for the intrusion but claimed that only two files were taken. A nd CrowdStrike inexplicably waited until 10 June 2016 to reboot the DNC network.

CrowdStrike, a cyber-security company hired by a Perkins Coie lawyer retained by the DNC, provided the narrative to the American public of the alledged hack of the DNC, But the Crowdstrike explanation is inconsistent, contradictory and implausible. Despite glaring oddities in the CrowdStrike account of that event, CrowdStrike subsequently traded on its fame in the investigation of the so-called Russian hack of the DNC and became a publicly traded company. Was CrowdStrike's fame for "discovering" the alleged Russian hack of the DNC a critical factor in its subsequent launch as a publicly traded company?

The Crowdstrike account of the hack is very flawed. There are 11 contradictions, inconsistencies or oddities in the public narrative about CrowdStrike's role in uncovering and allegedly mitigating a Russian intrusion (note--the underlying facts for these conclusions are found in Ellen Nakashima's Washington Post story , Vicki Ward's Esquire story , the Mueller Report and the blog of Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch):

  1. Two different dates -- 30 April or 6 May -- are reported by Nakashima and Ward respectively as the date CrowdStrike was hired to investigate an intrusion into the DNC computer network.
  2. There are on the record contradictions about who hired Crowdstrike. Nakashima reports that the DNC called Michael Sussman of the law firm, Perkins Coie, who in turn contacted Crowdtrike's CEO Shawn Henry. Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch tells Nakashima a different story, stating our "Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
  3. CrowdStrike claims it discovered within 24 hours the "Russians" were responsible for the "intrusion" into the DNC network.
  4. CrowdStrike's installation of Falcon (its proprietary software to stop breaches) on the DNC on the 1st of May or the 6th of May would have alerted to intruders that they had been detected.
  5. CrowdStrike officials told the Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima that they were, "not sure how the hackers got in" and didn't "have hard evidence."
  6. In a blog posting by CrowdStrike's founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, on the same day that Nakashima's article was published in the Washington Post, wrote that the intrusion into the DNC was done by two separate Russian intelligence organizations using malware identified as Fancy Bear (APT28) and Cozy Bear (APT29).
  7. But, Alperovitch admits his team found no evidence the two Russian organizations were coordinating their "attack" or even knew of each other's presence on the DNC network.
  8. There is great confusion over what the "hackers" obtained. DNC sources claim the hackers gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. DNC sources and CrowdStrike claimed the intruders, "read all email and chat traffic." Yet, DNC officials insisted, "that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken." However, CrowdStrike states, "The hackers stole two files."
  9. Crowdstrike's Alperovitch, in his blog posting, does not specify whether it was Cozy Bear or Fancy Bear that took the files.
  10. Wikileaks published DNC emails in July 2016 that show the last message taken from the DNC was dated 25 May 2016. This was much more than "two files."
  11. CrowdStrike, in complete disregard to basic security practice when confronted with an intrusion, waited five weeks to disconnect the DNC computers from the network and sanitize them.

Let us start with the very contradictory public accounts attributed to Crowdstrke's founder, Dmitri Alperovitch. The 14 June 2016 story by Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post and the October 2016 piece by Vicki Ward in Esquire magazine offer two different dates for the start of the investigation:

When did the DNC learn of the "intrusion"?

Ellen Nakashima claims it was the end of April:

"DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April . Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity... That evening, she spoke with Michael Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who handled computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. Within 24 hours, CrowdStrike had installed software on the DNC's computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate who had gained access, when and how.

Ward's timeline, citing Alperovitch, reports the alert came later, on 6 May 2016:

At six o'clock on the morning of May 6, Dmitri Alperovitch woke up in a Los Angeles hotel to an alarming email. . . . late the previous night, his company had been asked by the Democratic National Committee to investigate a possible breach of its network. A CrowdStrike security expert had sent the DNC a proprietary software package, called Falcon, that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. Falcon "lit up," the email said, within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC: Russia was in the network.

This is a significant and troubling discrepancy because it marks the point in time when CrowdStrike installed its Falcon software on the DNC server. It is one thing to confuse the 30th of April with the 1st of May. But Alperovitch gave two different reporters two different dates.

What did the "hackers" take from the DNC?

Ellen Nakashima's reporting is contradictory and wrong. Initially, she is told that the hackers got access to the entire Donald Trump database and that all emails and chats could be read. But then she is assured that only two files were taken. This was based on Crowdstrike's CEO's assurance, which was proven subsequently to be spectacularly wrong when Wikileaks published 35,813 DNC emails. How did Crowdstrike miss that critical detail? Here is Nakashima's reporting:

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts. . . .

The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.

One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer (2015) and was monitoring the DNC's email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.

The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff -- an average of about several dozen on any given day. . . .

CrowdStrike is continuing the forensic investigation, said Sussmann, the DNC lawyer. "But at this time, it appears that no financial information or sensitive employee, donor or voter information was accessed by the Russian attackers," he said.

The DNC emails that are posted on the Wikileaks website and the metadata shows that these emails were removed from the DNC server starting the late on the 22nd of May and continuing thru the 23rd of May. The last tranche occurred late in the morning (Washington, DC time) of the 25th of May 2016. Crowdstrike's CEO, Shawn Henry, insisted on the 14th of June 2016 that "ONLY TWO FILES" had been taken. This is demonstrably not true. Besides the failure of Crowdstrike to detect the removal of more than 35,000 emails, there is another important and unanswered question -- why did Crowdstrike wait until the 10th of June 2016 to start disconnecting the DNC server when they allegedly knew on the 6th of May that the Russians had entered the DNC network?

Crowdstrike accused Russia of the DNC breach but lacked concrete proof.

Ellen Nakashima's report reveals that Crowdstrike relied exclusively on circumstantial evidence for its claim that the Russian Government hacked the DNC server. According to Nakashima:

CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate -- often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted -- but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. " But we don't have hard evidence, " Alperovitch said.

There is a word in English for the phrases, "Not sure" and "No hard evidence"--that word is, "assumption." Assuming that the Russians did it is not the same as proving, based on evidence, that the Russians were culpable. But that is exactly what CrowdStrike did.

The so-called "proof" of the Russian intrusions is the presence of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear?

At first glance, Dmitri Alperovitch's blog postin g describing the Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear "intrusions" appears quite substantive. But cyber security professionals quickly identified a variety of shortcomings with the Alperovitch account. For example, this malware is not unique nor proprietary to Russia. Other countries and hackers have access to APT28 and have used it.

Skip Folden offers one of the best comprehensive analyses of the problems with the Alperovitch explanation :

No basis whatsoever :

APT28, aka Fancy Bear, Sofacy, Strontium, Pawn Storm, Sednit, etc., and APT29, aka Cozy Bear, Cozy Duke, Monkeys, CozyCar,The Dukes, etc., are used as 'proof' of Russia 'hacking' by Russian Intelligence agencies GRU and FSB respectively.

There is no basis whatsoever to attribute the use of known intrusion elements to Russia, not even if they were once reverse routed to Russia, which claim has never been made by NSA or any other of our IC.

On June 15, 2016 Dmitri Alperovitch himself, in an Atlantic Council article, gave only "medium-level of confidence that Fancy Bear is GRU" and "low-level of confidence that Cozy Bear is FSB." These assessments, from the main source himself, that either APT is Russian intelligence, averages 37%-38% [(50 + 25) / 2].

Exclusivity :

None of the technical indicators, e.g., intrusion tools (such as X-Agent, X-Tunnel), facilities, tactics, techniques, or procedures, etc., of the 28 and 29 APTs can be uniquely attributed to Russia, even if one or more had ever been trace routed to Russia. Once an element of a set of intrusion tools is used in the public domain it can be reverse-engineered and used by other groups which precludes the assumption of exclusivity in future use. The proof that any of these tools have never been reverse engineered and used by others is left to the student - or prosecutor.

Using targets :

Also, targets have been used as basis for attributing intrusions to Russia, and that is pure nonsense. Both many state and non-state players have deep interests in the same targets and have the technical expertise to launch intrusions. In Grizzly Steppe, page 2, second paragraph, beginning with, "Both groups have historically targeted ...," is there anything in that paragraph which can be claimed as unique to Russia or which excludes all other major state players in the world or any of the non-state organizations? No.

Key-Logger Consideration :

On the subject of naming specific GRU officers initiating specific actions on GRU Russian facilities on certain dates / times, other than via implanted ID chips under the finger tips of these named GRU officers, the logical assumption would be by installed key logger capabilities, physical or malware, on one or more GRU Russian computers.

The GRU is a highly advanced Russian intelligence unit. It would be very surprising were the GRU open to any method used to install key logger capabilities. It would be even more surprising, if not beyond comprehension that the GRU did not scan all systems upon start-up and in real time, including key logger protection and anomalies of performance degradation and data transmissions.

Foreign intelligence source :

Other option would be via a foreign intelligence unit source with local GRU access. Any such would be quite anti-Russian and be another nail in the coffin of any chain of evidence / custody validity at Russian site.

Stated simply, Dmitri Alperovitch's conclusion that "the Russians did it" are not supported by the forensic evidence. Instead, he relies on the assumption that the presence of APT28 and APT29 prove Moscow's covert hand. What is even more striking is that the FBI accepted this explanation without demanding forensic evidence.

Former FBI Director James Comey and former NSA Director Mike Rogers testified under oath before Congress that neither agency ever received access to the DNC server. All information the FBI used in its investigation was supplied by CrowdStrike. The Hill reported :

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what it found with investigators.

The foregoing facts raise major questions about the validity of the Crowdstrike methodology and conclusions with respect to what happened on the DNC network. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a set of facts that, as of today, have no satisfactory explanation. The American public deserve answers.

[Mar 12, 2020] Did Joe Biden's Former IT Guy Masquerade as Guccifer 2.0 by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama Presidential Transition Team by the General Services Administration. ..."
"... The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered to the GSA. ..."
"... The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD." ..."
"... "Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc." ..."
"... This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA product. ..."
"... If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? ..."
"... The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress. ..."
"... There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July 26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC: ..."
"... A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation. ..."
"... Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url. ..."
"... It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us. ..."
Mar 12, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Why does the name of Joe Biden's former Internet Technology guru, Warren Flood, appear in the meta data of documents posted on the internet by Guccifer 2.0? In case you do not recall, Guccifer 2.0 was identified as someone tied to Russian intelligence who played a direct role in stealing emails from John Podesta. The meta data in question indicates the name of the person who actually copied the original document. We have this irrefutable fact in the documents unveiled by Guccifer 2.0--Warren Flood's name appears prominently in the meta data of several documents attributed to "Guccifer 2.0." When this transpired, Flood was working as the CEO of his own company, BRIGHT BLUE DATA. (brightbluedata.com). Was Flood tasked to masquerade as a Russian operative?

Give Flood some props if that is true--he fooled our Intelligence Community and the entire team of Mueller prosecutors into believing that Guccifer was part of a Russian military intelligence cyber attack. But a careful examination of the documents shows that it is highly unlikely that this was an official Russian cyber operation. Here's what the U.S. Intelligence Community wrote about Guccifer 2.0 in their very flawed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

The laxity of the Intelligence Community in dealing with empirical evidence was matched by a disturbing lack of curiosity on the part of the Mueller investigators and prosecutors. Here's the tall tale they spun about Guccifer 2.0:

On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were responsible for the breach. Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.

[Apelbaum note--According to Crowdstrike and Special Counsel Mueller, both were present, APT28 AKA "Fancy Bear" and APT29 AKA "Cozy Bear".]

The claims by both the Intelligence Community and the Mueller team about Guccifer 2.0 are an astounding, incredible denial of critical evidence pointing to a U.S. actor, not a Russian or Romanian. No one in this "august" group took the time to examine the metadata on the documents posted by "Guccifer 2.0" to his website on June 15, 2016.

I wish I could claim credit for the following forensic analysis, but the honors are due to Yaacov Apelbaum. While there are many documents in the Podesta haul that match the following pattern, this analysis focuses only on a document originally created by the DNC's Director of Research, Lauren Dillon. This document is the Trump Opposition Report document.

According to Apelbaum , the Trump Opposition Report document, which was "published" by Guccifer 2.0, shows clear evidence of digital manipulation:

  1. A US based user (hereafter referred to as G2 ) operating initially from the West coast and then, subsequently, from the East coast, changes the MS Word 2007 and Operating System language settings to Russian.
  2. G2 opens and saves a document with the file name, "12192015 Trump Report - for dist-4.docx". The document bears the title, "Donald Trump Report" (which was originally composed by Lauren Dillon aka DILLON REPORT) as an RTF file and opens it again.
  3. G2 opens a second document that was attached to an email sent on December 21, 2008 to John Podesta from Sara.Latham@ptt.gov. This WORD document lists prospective nominees for posts in the Department of Agriculture for the upcoming Obama Administration. It was generated by User--Warren Flood--on a computer registered to the General Services Administration (aka GSA) named "Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20-3.doc", which was kept by Podesta on his private Gmail account. (I refer to this as the "WARREN DOCUMENT" in this analysis.)
  4. G2 deletes the content of the 2008 Warren Document and saves the empty file as a RTF, and opens it again.
  5. G2 copies the content of the 'Dillon Report' (which is an RTF document) and pastes it into the 2008 Warren Document template, i.e. the empty RTF document.
  6. G2 user makes several modifications to the content of this document. For example, the Warren Document contained the watermark--"CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT". G2 deleted the word "DRAFT" but kept the "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark.
  7. G2 saves this document into a file called "1.doc". This document now contains the text of the original Lauren Dillon "Donald Trump Report" document, but also contains Russian language URL links that generate error messages.
  8. G2's 1.DOC (the Word version of the document) shows the following meta data authors:
    • Created at 6/15/2016 at 1:38pm by "WARREN FLOOD"
    • Last Modified at 6/15/2016 at 1:45pm by "Феликс Эдмундович" (Felix Edmundovich, the first and middle name of Dzerzhinsky, the creator of the predecessor of the KGB. It is assumed the Felix Edmundovich refers to Dzerzhinsky.)
  9. G2 also produces a pdf version of this document almost four hours later. It is created at 6/15/201`6 at 5:54:15pm by "WARREN FLOOD."
  10. G2 first publishes "1.doc" to various media outlets and then uploads a copy to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website (which is hosted in the United States).

There are several critical facts from the metadata that destroy the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian or a Russian.

This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA product.

If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? A covert cyber operation is no different from a conventional human covert operation, which means the first and guiding principle is to not leave any fingerprints that would point to the origin of the operation. In other words, you do not mistakenly leave flagrant Russian fingerprints in the document text or metadata. A good cyber spy also will not use computers and servers based in the United States and then claim it is the work of a hacker ostensibly in Romania.

None of the Russians indicted by Mueller in his case stand accused of doing the Russian hacking while physically in the United States. No intelligence or evidence has been cited to indicate that the Russians stole a U.S. Government computer or used a GSA supplied copy of Microsoft Word to produce the G2 documents.

The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress.

There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July 26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC:

If foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to undermine that process, the U.S. government should treat such efforts even more seriously than standard espionage. These types ofcyberattacks are significant and pernicious crimes. Our government must do all that it can to stop such attacks and to seek justice for the attacks that have already occurred.

We are writing to request more information on this cyberattack in particular and more information in general on how the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF attempt to prevent and punish these types ofcyberattacks. Accordingly, please respond to the following by August 9, 2016:

  1. When did the Department of Justice, FBI, and NCIJTF first learn of the DNC hack? Was the government aware ofthe intrusion prior to the media reporting it?
  2. Has the FBI deployed its Cyber Action Team to determine who hacked the DNC?
  3. Has the FBI determined whether the Russian government, or any other foreign
    government, was involved in the hack?
  4. In general, what actions, if any, do the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF take to prevent cyberattacks on non-governmental political organizations in the U.S., such as campaigns and political parties? Does the government consult or otherwise communicate with the organizations to inform them ofpotential threats, relay best practices, or inform them ofdetected cyber intrusions.
  5. Does the Justice Department believe that existing statutes provide an adequate basis for addressing hacking crimes of this nature, in which foreign governments hack seemingly in order to affect our electoral processes?

So far no document from Comey to Lynch has been made available to the public detailing the FBI's response to Lynch's questions. Why was the Cyber Action Team not deployed to determine who hacked the DNC? A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation.

Recent Comments

h | 12 March 2020 at 12:08 PM

Of course sleepy Joe was in on the overall RussiaGate operation. And now another reasonable question by sleuth extraordinaire will fall into the memory hole b/c no one who has the authority and the power in DC is ever going to address, let alone, clean up and hold accountable any who created this awful mess.

Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url.

What's troubling to me is that even the most simplest investigative acts to find answers never seems to happen. Instead, more than three years later we're playing 'Whodunit.'

It's been over 3 years now and if we had a truly functioning intel/justice apparatus this simple act would have been done long ago and then made public. Yet, here we are more than three years later trying to unravel, figure out or resolve the trail of clues via metadata the pranksters left behind.

It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us.

[Feb 29, 2020] CrowdStrike s Dmitri Alperovitch by William F. Jasper

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton and her Democratic National Committee allies — which appear to have included virtually all the top-tier DNC officials — decided the best defense would be an aggressive offense. They would make a pre-emptive damage-control strike to shift media and public attention away from the content of the e-mails (which they knew would be damning) to the provenance of the e-mails. They would divert the focus away from the embarrassing, unethical, and illegal actions revealed in the e-mails to how they were obtained and by whom. ..."
"... The following day, on June 15, the “Russian hacking” narrative was reinforced by “Guccifer 2.0,” an anonymous Internet persona, who claimed that the forensics of the DNC server showed it had been tainted with “Russian fingerprints.” ..."
"... All of the above organizations — most especially the CFR — have longstanding, troubling ties to the Deep State intelligence services . Notwithstanding Alperovitch’s many elitist ties listed above, it is his connections to the Atlantic Council that are especially noteworthy, as they illustrate the extensive and dangerous interconnectedness of these private globalist organizations with think tanks, major corporations, intelligence agencies, national governments, the United Nations, and other intergovernmental organizations. These private globalist organizations form the top level of the pyramid of power of the state-within-the-state — the Deep State — and they consider themselves above the rule of law and all that stuff meant for lower mortals. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is a staunch opponent of the Brexit, President Donald Trump, nationalist-populist movements, and the burgeoning independent media. ..."
"... The Ukrainian civil war was well orchestrated by Obama and Hillary's Deep State along with Russian Mafioso and Ukrainian neo-Nazi Stefano Bandera operatives, a dubious mercurial cult from WWII who operated for both Hitler and Stalin's armies, being responsible for the penetration of the OPC's (precursor to the CIA) early Cold War operations behind the Iron Curtain. Every freedom fighter we trained behind the Iron Curtain was immediately identified and assassinated by the KGB because of Belorussian and Ukrainian double agents trained by the OPC-CIA: ..."
"... Crowdstrike is just another US based start-up getting high on the hog of government contracts, and was keen to be there at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. The evidence from "Adam Carter" shows that Guccifer 2.0 was almost certainly a creation of Crowdstrike, in order to manufacture the story that it was a Russian hacker and not a disgruntled DNC leaker. ..."
"... The setup was in the media. On June 15 2016, Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked by the two "bears", but the only thing missing was opposition research on Donald Trump. The next day, G2 appears, "leaking" the very boring "Trump research". The problem is, that that document didn't come from the DNC leak, it came from the Podesta email leak, yet that was never revealed at the time. How did Crowdstrike know on the 15th, to say that the DNC hackers took the Trump research, and G2 appears the next day claiming to release the document, when in actuality, G2 got the "Trump" file off Podesta's machine? ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com

Dmitri Alperovitch has played a key role in diverting attention from Hillary Clinton's documented unethical, illegal, and treasonous activities with Putin to allegations of ties between Donald Trump and Putin, for which no evidence has been forthcoming. Is Alperovitch, in reality, one of Putin's best deep-cover agents?

Before the WikiLeaks announcement in 2016 that it would be releasing thousands of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee, few Americans had heard of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike or Dmitri Alperovitch (shown), its Russian-Ukranian cofounder and chief technology officer. He is still far from being a household name, but he remains a central figure in the ongoing “Trump-Russia collusion” investigations by Senate and House committees and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

That WikiLeaks announcement, by the whistleblowing organization’s spokesman Julian Assange, came on June 12, a little over a month before the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The Hillary Clinton campaign, still facing an insurgency from staunch Bernie Sanders supporters, was thrown into a panic. The WikiLeaks release was seen as something that could seriously sabotage her march to the White House. Clinton and her Democratic National Committee allies — which appear to have included virtually all the top-tier DNC officials — decided the best defense would be an aggressive offense. They would make a pre-emptive damage-control strike to shift media and public attention away from the content of the e-mails (which they knew would be damning) to the provenance of the e-mails. They would divert the focus away from the embarrassing, unethical, and illegal actions revealed in the e-mails to how they were obtained and by whom.

As mentioned above, the WikiLeaks announcement came on June 12. Two days later, on June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced (via the Washington Post) that its forensic analysis of the DNC server had determined malware had been injected into the server — and it had been done by Russians. Not just any Russians, mind you, but agents of Vladimir Putin. Alperovitch and CrowdStrike’s Shawn Henry (a former FBI executive under Director Robert Mueller and President Obama) told the Post that their investigation revealed the DNC server had been hacked by the cyber-espionage groups known as “Fancy Bear,” allegedly associated with the Russian GRU (military intelligence) and “Cozy Bear,” allegedly associated with the FSB (the successor to the infamous Soviet KGB).

The following day, on June 15, the “Russian hacking” narrative was reinforced by “Guccifer 2.0,” an anonymous Internet persona, who claimed that the forensics of the DNC server showed it had been tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta, along with their DNC auxiliaries, immediately launched their brazen Russia-bashing program, claiming that Putin was interfering in our presidential election to keep her out of the White House and put his “puppet,” Donald Trump, into the Oval Office. It was precisely the kind of audacious response one would expect from Podesta, who earned notoriety as a shrewd and ruthless political operative while serving as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. In that post, he proved his worth as the master of damage control, handling Bill Clinton’s scandals du jour cavalcade: Chinagate, Troopergate, Coffeegate, Bimbogate, etc. Besides diverting attention from the e-mails released by WikiLeaks, the Russia-Trump collusion accusations served other purposes as well. Certainly among the foremost of those purposes was that accusing Trump of colluding with Russia would bolster Hillary’s image as an anti-Putin hardliner. This was not only a move calculated to counter Hillary’s and the Democrats’ images as historically “soft on communism” and “soft on national security/national defense,” but calculated also to serve as a sort of immunity against investigation and prosecution of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and many others in their circle for their own well-documented corrupt, illegal, and treasonous dealings with Putin and Russia, which we have reported on extensively over many years (see here, here, and here, for example).

However, the “Trump-Russia collusion” meme would not have taken hold and could not have continued causing the political distraction and upheaval more than a year into the Trump administration simply on the strength of Clinton, Podesta, and the DNC. The ongoing campaign against President Trump has only remained viable because of the continuous support and connivance of Deep State operatives in the intelligence community and the major media.

This connivance was apparent from the start, when the DNC and CrowdStrike refused to allow official analysts from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other agencies to examine the DNC server that was supposedly hacked by the Russians. One might expect that, in response, the “rebuffed” intelligence and law-enforcement agencies would refrain from endorsing the conclusions of a report that was obviously serving a partisan political purpose and that was based on evidence that they had not seen, because it had been purposely withheld from them. But no, the politically appointed intel chiefs lined up to parrot the Clinton/DNC/CrowdStrike line that Putin had interfered in the U.S. presidential election to torpedo Hillary Clinton and aid Donald Trump.

Phony “Fingerprints,” Phony “Hack”

Like the phony “Russia dossier” on Trump produced by Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS for Hillary Clinton and the DNC, the CrowdStrike “analysis” quickly came unraveled under expert examination. Among the many authoritative refutations of CrowdStrike’s claims are an early analysis by former top IBM executive Skip Folden, entitled “Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge” and “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence" by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). The VIPS study, led by the legendary Dr. William Binney, a former technical director at the NSA, also benefitted from the input of VIPS members who were cybersecurity experts with the NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI, and military intelligence.

Among their most important finds are these two critical points:

1) The claimed “Russian fingerprints” provide no trace routing to prove that any “hacking” was done by Russian intelligence operatives. The software and methods allegedly used are commonly available and commonly used by many private individuals, criminal syndicates, and state actors. Moreover, the “Russian” traces are so crude as to be obvious plants pointing to the Russians, whereas, if Putin’s cyberspooks had actually done it, they would have done a more professional job of covering their tracks, the experts say, and;

2) The “hack” of the DNC was actually a leak, not a hack. The technical analysis of the security breach shows that the DNC e-mails were copied onto a USB device, such as a thumb drive, by someone physically at the DNC headquarters, not downloaded via a remote connection on the Internet. Thus it was a leak by someone at the DNC, not Russian hackers, who provided the data to WikiLeaks. That’s not an insignificant distinction!

In addition to the Folden and VIPS reports, other top-grade technical experts who have challenged and discredited the faux “intelligence community consensus” on the DNC hacking include:

In short, what we have is very credible technical analysis that challenges the claim of “Russian hacking” vs. a Clinton-DNC contractor who has a motive to produce a scenario that his employer is demanding. We also have the unexplained refusal of the Clinton-DNC “victims” to provide the evidence of the supposed crime to law-enforcement and intelligence authorities. Finally, and most suspiciously, we have the intelligence community (IC) that fails to demand seeing the evidence before endorsing the DNC/CrowdStrike verdict — a verdict that is obviously politically expedient.

In addition to the technical forensic analysis that discredits the “Russian hacking” charges, we also have the claims of two WikiLeaks principals involved in the DNC e-mail breach who insist that the data was obtained via an inside leak, not a Russian Hack. WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange has repeatedly and emphatically stated that neither Russia nor anyone associated with Russia had anything to do with providing WikiLeaks with the DNC e-mails. For many people, however, Assange’s denials are barely more credible than those of Vladimir Putin himself, even though Assange and WikiLeaks have — time after time — reliably delivered precisely what they promised and have been non-partisan, exposing wrongdoing regardless of the wrongdoers’ political affiliations. Assange is not alone, though, in denying a Russian source connection.

Craig Murray, the human-rights whistleblower and former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has said in interviews with two British newspapers, The Guardian and Daily Mail Online, that he personally flew to Washington, D.C., and met with the DNC employee who provided him with the DNC e-mails to give to WikiLeaks. “I’ve met the person who leaked them,” Murray told The Guardian, “and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack.” Ambassador Murray’s career has shown him to be a credible witness, as well as heroically courageous. In exposing the brutal communist dictatorship of Uzbek President Islam Karimov, he also stood up to the British Foreign Office, which was covering for Karimov, and in so doing, sacrificed his diplomatic career and drew down on himself a vicious campaign of character assassination aimed at destroying his reputation.

Thus, we have highly credible technical analysis that asserts the DNC e-mails were obtained by leak, not hack, and we have a credible witness/participant who testifies that he received the DNC data from a DNC “insider” and delivered them to WikiLeaks.

Who is Dmitri Alperovitch?

Who is Dmitri Alperovitch, and why is his highly suspect CrowdStrike analysis accepted as gospel by the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the IC, and the IC-tainted Big Media “Mockingbirds”? Dmitri Alperovitch was born in Moscow in 1980, which is to say, during the latter years of the Soviet Union. There seem to be large gaps in his curriculum vitae concerning his life before emigrating to the U.S., making his background somewhat mysterious, which, some might think, would be problematical for someone who is reputed to be a top go-to guy on cyber security. But it certainly doesn’t seem to be problematic for major investors such as CapitalG (formerly Google Capital), which led a $100 million capital drive for CrowdStrike in 2015. By May of 2017, Business Insider reported, Alperovitch’s startup had attracted over $256 million and its stock was valued at just under $1 billion.

Billionaire Eric Schmidt, the longtime CEO of Google (and its parent company, Alphabet, Inc.) is, of course, a big-time DNC donor, and was a major supporter of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as were many other Google executives. Schmidt was a principal investor in The Groundwork, a start-up tech company formed to assist Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Besides Google, CrowdStrike has benefitted from cash infusions from Warburg Pincus, Accel Partners, Telstra, and March Capital Partners.

Just as interesting as Alperovitch’s apparent Midas touch is his cachet with the elite media and the great and the good of the globalist one-world set. He has been the subject of flattering profiles at Esquire, Fortune, Politico, the Washington Post, NPR, CNBC, and many other media herd venues. He is also featured as an anointed expert at such exclusive insider assemblages as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the World Economic Forum, the Aspen Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Atlantic Council (where he is a senior fellow), and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University (where he is also a senior fellow).

All of the above organizations — most especially the CFR — have longstanding, troubling ties to the Deep State intelligence services. Notwithstanding Alperovitch’s many elitist ties listed above, it is his connections to the Atlantic Council that are especially noteworthy, as they illustrate the extensive and dangerous interconnectedness of these private globalist organizations with think tanks, major corporations, intelligence agencies, national governments, the United Nations, and other intergovernmental organizations. These private globalist organizations form the top level of the pyramid of power of the state-within-the-state — the Deep State — and they consider themselves above the rule of law and all that stuff meant for lower mortals.

The Atlantic Council is subsidized by taxpayers through its government-related funding partners, which include the U.S. State Department; the European Union; the European Investment Bank; NATO; and the governments of Norway, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Lithuania, South Korea, Cyprus, Latvia, and Slovakia; among others. The Atlantic Council’s corporate sponsors include JPMorgan Chase, the Blackstone Group, Bank of America, Airbus, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Ford, Saab, Zurich, Walmart Stores, Inc., Lockheed Martin, 21st Century Fox, Arab Bank, Boeing, CIGNA Corporation, Coca-Cola Company, Raytheon, Pfizer, and many others. Besides the Rockefeller and Soros foundations, the Atlantic Council also receives generous handouts from the usual establishment tax-exempt foundations that fund globalist and leftwing causes.

The Atlantic Council’s website tells us, “In 1961, former Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter, with Will Clayton, William Foster, Theodore Achilles and other distinguished Americans, recommended the consolidation of the U.S. citizens groups supporting the Atlantic Alliance into the Atlantic Council of the United States.”

What the Atlantic Council’s website doesn’t mention is that all of these founders were also leading members of the CFR, the principal organization pushing for world government and the annihilation of national sovereignty for most of the past century. Virtually all of the individuals populating the Atlantic Council’s historical roster of its current and past chairmen, presidents, and directors are/were also prominent CFR members. The Atlantic Council represents and projects the CFR globalist agenda on a multitude of political and economic issues, as, for instance, in its support for the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnersip), the UN Climate treaty, increased Muslim migration into Europe, expanded EU control over its member states, expanded funding and powers for the United Nations and NATO, and much more. The Atlantic Council is a staunch opponent of the Brexit, President Donald Trump, nationalist-populist movements, and the burgeoning independent media.

It is the Atlantic Council’s involvement in launching an insidious campaign to stamp out the growing Internet-based independent media that is our main concern here, and the area where Dmitri Alperovitch appears to be a central character. A key instrument in that effort is a group of anonymous national security and cybersecurity “experts” who claim to be fighting Russian propaganda in the alternative media.

The group, which goes by the name “Is It Propaganda Or Not?” or "PropOrNot" (www.propornot.com), joined up with Snopes, Politifact, Fake News Watch, Fort Liberty Hoax Sites, and other left-leaning groups to attack conservative and libertarian news sites. It has been boosted in this treacherous attack on the First Amendment by the Washington Post, the New Republic, and other members of the Fourth Estate with deep ties to the Deep State.

This danger has been amplified by the efforts of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other tech giants to censor politically incorrect speech on the Internet. We first wrote about PropOrNot in a December 2016 article, “FAKE NEWS: Media Hysteria Over Irrelevant Fake Websites Masks More Sinister Agenda.”

In a forthcoming article, we will be examining the threat to our freedom of speech posed by the PropOrNot-Deep State complex and the roles of Alperovitch, CrowdStrike, Google, CFR-Atlantic Council, and the “intelligence community” in that ongoing dangerous attack on liberty.

Image: screenshot from YouTube video of CBS News interview with Dmitri Alperovitch

Related articles:

Rachel Verdon 2 years ago • edited ,

William Jasper, asking "Is Alperovitch, in reality, one of Putin's best deep-cover agents," has every right to be suspicious about Dmitri Alperovitch and his ties to the Atlantic Council of the Ukraine. Alperovitch hates President Putin and the new Russian Federation. Alperovitch was involved in toppling the legitimate Ukrainian presidency of Viktor Yanukovych who favored aligning with Russia instead of the European Union, according to an article in CounterPunch on March 23, 2017:

"Cybersecurity Firm That Attributed DNC Hacks to Russia May Have Fabricated Russia Hacking in Ukraine" by Michael J. Sainato
http://www.counterpunch.org...

The Ukrainian civil war was well orchestrated by Obama and Hillary's Deep State along with Russian Mafioso and Ukrainian neo-Nazi Stefano Bandera operatives, a dubious mercurial cult from WWII who operated for both Hitler and Stalin's armies, being responsible for the penetration of the OPC's (precursor to the CIA) early Cold War operations behind the Iron Curtain. Every freedom fighter we trained behind the Iron Curtain was immediately identified and assassinated by the KGB because of Belorussian and Ukrainian double agents trained by the OPC-CIA:

Brett Harris paul dinatale a year ago ,

I don't see how Alperovich is connected to Russia, he arrived in the US as a 15year old, and has been working hand in glove with the Obama Administration, especially during the Ukraine coup in 2014. Crowdstrike has already been caught using the same techniques as in the DNC, to "prove" that Russia hacked Ukranian artillery guidance computers. The Ukrainian military has come out and explicitly denied that any artillery was infected, and has been independently verified.

Crowdstrike is just another US based start-up getting high on the hog of government contracts, and was keen to be there at the beginning of the Clinton presidency. The evidence from "Adam Carter" shows that Guccifer 2.0 was almost certainly a creation of Crowdstrike, in order to manufacture the story that it was a Russian hacker and not a disgruntled DNC leaker.

The setup was in the media. On June 15 2016, Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked by the two "bears", but the only thing missing was opposition research on Donald Trump. The next day, G2 appears, "leaking" the very boring "Trump research". The problem is, that that document didn't come from the DNC leak, it came from the Podesta email leak, yet that was never revealed at the time. How did Crowdstrike know on the 15th, to say that the DNC hackers took the Trump research, and G2 appears the next day claiming to release the document, when in actuality, G2 got the "Trump" file off Podesta's machine?

Plenty of Ukrainian collusion with the DNC, along with British and Australian collusion to undermine Trump, no "collusion" or any other evidence that Russia hacked anyone.

[Feb 19, 2020] One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone call. Not their phony quid pro quo.

Feb 19, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

D , 16 February 2020 at 01:06 PM

One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone call. Not their phony quid pro quo.

All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the Democrat impeachment.

Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2020/02/15/crowdstrike-claim-that-russia-hacked-dnc-server-remains-at-center-of-2016-spygate-scandal-hoax/

[Dec 22, 2019] Gussifer 2.0 released nothing remotely damaging to the DNC and is arguably US based (timestamps), and is either CIA or Crowdstrike.

Dec 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Ed Snack , 21 December 2019 at 01:41 PM

Other points to note:

1.

Ed Snack , 20 December 2019 at 10:56 PM
Other points to note:

1. G2 released nothing remotely damaging to the DNC, the first document was even the DNC's oppo file on DJT
2. G2 did some copying and compress/decompress on files. Imbedded timestamps strongly suggest a US Timezone location
3. G2 released some files claiming to be from the DNC, but which demonstrably came from John Podesta's account
4. G2 did not claim to be involved with the Podesta account, which was phished and not hacked as such
5. As an aside, both the Fancy and Cosy Bear packages had been available for third parties to obtain since 2013-4 or so. So their use is not proof of Russian involvement. One or other has been used in bank exploits before 2016.

I believe that G2 is arguably US based (the timestamps are reasonably conclusive), and is either CIA or Crowdstrike. The existence of G2 is a diversionary one to strengthen the case for blaming the Russians. It may be connected to wanting to divert attention from Seth Rich and his subsequent murder, but may not be - that is Seth Rich's death may be just an unfortunate coincidence, we have inadequate information to conclude either way.

[Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam

Highly recommended!
Looks like Brennan ears are all over this false flag operation...
Dec 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Mark McCarty , 21 December 2019 at 02:34 PM

Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.

And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer 2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.

So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know that DNC EMAILS would be released?

Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).

So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.

That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.

[Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Dec 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization, the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me explain why.

Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following explanation about methodology:

When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment

To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary evidence."

Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan.

Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):

DCLeaks

"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter. Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and later made unrestricted to the public.


Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts (in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140


GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141 The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142


GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144


The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."

Guccifer 2.0

On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146

That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.

The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150

The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement.153"

Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.

In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.

We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents :

Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016, include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6

One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE. Hackernews explains the purpose and function of MARBLE:

Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.

Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.

"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks explains.

So guess what gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."

We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.

Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)

Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.

Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.

The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.

It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."

Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:

  1. It was 29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible. And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
  2. According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
    • Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
  3. The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
  4. 10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office."
  5. On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
    • Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.
    • The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
    • The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
  6. 15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:

The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable event.

Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.

It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.

The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU.

Posted at 02:13 PM in Larry Johnson , Russiagate | Permalink


Factotum , 20 December 2019 at 02:45 PM

LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Paul Damascene , 20 December 2019 at 02:54 PM
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
walrus , 20 December 2019 at 03:51 PM
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts long enough to be extradited.

You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published. Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.

Ghost Ship , 20 December 2019 at 04:04 PM
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?

With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.

[Dec 06, 2019] Reminder No intelligence agency ever saw the evidence of the alleged russian hacking reported by CrowdStrike

Dec 06, 2019 | www.investmentwatchblog.com

October 3, 2019 by IWB Facebook 0 Twitter Email RSS feed - Syndicate IWB Subscribe To Our Newsletter

by datascientist36

CrowdStrike had 2 people that used to work for Mueller and one was part of the Atlantic Council. Atlantic Council has ties to Burisma Group (Hunter Biden), Big Clinton donors and Ukraine.

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3387

No intel agency ever saw the evidence. They only saw a redacted report provided by CrowdStrike.

Proof:
Official Court Document – Short version

Official Court Document – Full Version


Proof that multiple members of the CrowdStrike team worked for Mueller and Atlantic Council –

Source

Dimitry Alperovich – Co-Founder and CTO. Crowdstrike "investigated" the hacking of the DNC's servers. The FBI was refused access to independently examine the DNC servers. Former NSA experts later claim it wasn't a hack, but a leak by someone with access to the DNC's system. Alperovich is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Former McAfee Executive.

George Kurtz – Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Former McAfee Executive.

Steven Chabinsky – Former General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer (9/12-4/16). Appointed by Obama to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity on April 18, 2016 – two months before Crowdstrike report. Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division and FBI's top cyber lawyer during Mueller's tenure as FBI Director. Now a Partner at White & Case – a D.C. law firm.

Shawn Henry – CSO and President of Crowdstrike Services since April 2012. Previously the FBI's Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch – appointed by FBI Director Mueller.

Robert Johnston – Principal Consultant & Incident Response Expert. Lead investigator on the DNC server investigation. Previously, Marine Corps captain in U.S. Cyber Command. Team Lead of 81 National Cyber Protection Team. Left Crowdstrike in August 2016 and co-founded cybersecurity firm Adlumin. The FBI has never spoken with Johnston.


Burisma Group and Atlantic Council connection proof –
Burisma Group Website

The Atlantic Council of the United States and Burisma Group, an independent gas producer in Ukraine, have announced a cooperative agreement. Atlantic Council will develop programs with Burisma's support to strengthen transatlantic relations, including a focus on energy security and related issues.


This is the company that Hunter Biden had connections too and this is the company that was being investigated by the Ukraine Prosecutor that Biden got removed due to bribing the Ukraine with $1B.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden

Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019.

Proof of Biden bribing them –
Video where he admits to it and brags about it
Memo from the prosecutor that was removed


Atlantic Council –

International Advisory Board

Mr. Victor Pinchuk, Founder, East One Ltd.

Clinton Foundation's Deep Financial Ties to Ukrainian Oligarch Revealed

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3387

Between 2009 and 2013, including when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, according to that foundation, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine.

Schiff Staffer recently made an august visit to Ukraine. Sponsored by the Atlantic Council

The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager, is also currently one of 19 fellows at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a bipartisan program that says it "educates congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region."

Eager's trip to Ukraine last month was part of the fellowship program and included nine other House employees. The bi-partisan visit, from August 24 to August 31, was billed as a "Ukraine Study Trip," and culminated in a meeting with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

The dates of the pre-planned trip are instructive. Eager's visit to Ukraine sponsored by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council began 12 days after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his August 12 complaint about President Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.


FYI: This is why the media and the dems have been doing everything they can to spin the narratives to distract from all this. Most of this info people don't know about so it needed to be shared.

What Is CrowdStrike And How Are They Connected To Ukraine?

The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier,"

The CrowdStrike report implicated Russia for the DNC hack, leading to the two-plus years of Russiagate–but there's more. To this day neither the DOJ nor the FBI has a complete copy of the CrowdStrike report According to the Department of Justice, in its response to the Roger Stone defense asking for a copy of the CrowdStrike report, lawyers for the DNC and DCCC provided redacted draft copies of the CrowdStrike report "to the government." They never saw the full report.

Perhaps the FBI trusted CrowdStrike's report because the company's executive Shawn Henry, who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia for the DNC hack served as assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.

CrowdStrike has ties to the Obama team, is friends with Hillary Clinton, former Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko, and connected to Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, another friend of the DNC and someone who donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Tying it all together, the CrowdStrike document (if the full report ever existed) may have been one more element of the DNC/Deep State effort to end the Trump Presidency before it started If everything was above board -- why didn't the FBI demand to examine the DNC server or the entire CrowdStrike report?

Why is the Media Ignoring Obama's Role in the Biden-Ukraine Controversy?

The simplest answer may be that there isn't really much "conservative" media left to care.

But we do and Obama's fingerprints are all over this too.

Everything Biden does lately seems to be done without much thought of potential consequences, but that's the subject of another article.

Examine this quote from Joe Biden :

Trending: National Media Blackout: Florida Daycare Worker Caught Breaking the Legs of 4 Different Toddlers in the Same Day

"They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, 'You have no authority. You're not the president -- the president said' I said, 'Call him.' I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars.' I said, you're not getting the billion. I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b -- -. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

[Dec 05, 2019] American Intelligence Media

Dec 05, 2019 | aim4truth.org

....Also discussed at length is connection between the Ukrainian Atlantic Council to the DNC, Clintons, NATO, Evelyn Farkas, George Soros, and the globalist gangsters . The anti-Russian propaganda of NATO's Cold War machine (Atlantic Council) used Dmitri Alperovitch's Crowdstrike to disrupt the U. S. Presidential election and Ukrainian/Russian relations. Additional resources to support the audio discussion are:

The official Director of National Intelligence Agency report on Russian hacking (meddling) in the U. S. presidential election is hyperlinked below – thirteen pages of a big "nothing burger" that does not have a single piece of evidence. This is an embarrassing waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. .

Note that the entire "evidence" on Russian hacking of the DNC server is one paragraph containing zero evidence.

Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and CyberIncident Attribution

Another fake intelligence report claims to describe how Dmitri Alperovitch's Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear work in cyberspace. This report is another sad, expensive report that is nothing more than a disinformation piece produced and published by two U.S. intelligence agencies – the FBI and Department of Homeland Security – to propagandize Americans. What the report actually describes is well-known and freely available Ukrainian malware that is old and has nothing to do with Russia.

GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

The report does not prove that Russia hacked the 2016 U.S. election, but it does reveal that the PHP malware sample that the government provided from the CrowdStrike report is:

Wordfence (cyber analysis company) analyzed the IP addresses available in the declassified report and demonstrated that they are in 61 countries, belong to over 380 organizations and many of those organizations are well known website hosting providers from where many attacks originate. There is nothing in the IP data that points to Russia specifically.

Furthermore, the report claims to contain technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.

If you read this report, remember that it is propaganda, and the authors assume that you know nothing about anything and count on you "believing" multiple U.S. intelligence agencies who really work for the Deep State and not the American people.

  1. 10 Trump's Kabuki STING: Part 37: EXPOSED: THE BRITISH ARE RUNNING A COUP OPERATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAIN. – American on January 16, 2019 at 8:44 pm
  2. 11 Canada's Peter Downing, #WEXIT & George Soros (Seriously) | Europe Reloaded on November 24, 2019 at 7:15 am

[Dec 05, 2019] Dmitri Alperovitch Archives - The Clinton Foundation Timeline

Notable quotes:
"... In many accounts of the incident (e.g. Wikipedia here ), it's been reported that "both groups of intruders were successfully expelled from the systems within hours after detection". This was not the case, as Ritter pointed out: data continued to be exfiltrated AFTER the installation of Crowdstrike software, including the emails that ultimately brought down Wasserman-Schultz: ..."
"... There were no fewer than 14409 emails in the Wikileaks archive dating after Crowdstrike's installation of its security software. In fact, more emails were hacked after Crowdstrike's discovery on May 6 than before . Whatever actions were taken by Crowdstrike on May 6 , they did nothing to stem the exfiltration of emails from the DNC. (Read more: Climate Audit/Steve McIntire, 9/02/2017) ..."
Dec 05, 2019 | clintonfoundationtimeline.com
March 23, 2017 – Crowdstrike co-founder and donor to the Clinton Foundation, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments

"The cyber security firm outsourced by the Democratic National Committee , CrowdStrike, reportedly misread data, falsely attributing a hacking in Ukraine to the Russians in December 2016 . Voice of America , a US Government funded media outlet, reported, "the CrowdStrike report , released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists. But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report.

( ) The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the DNC , Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed report by Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted pages of unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive evidence of Russian election interference allegations. Leopold wrote, "what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University, is truly bizarre: a two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016, that contains information DHS culled from the internet. It's all unclassified -- yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black ink. Why? Not because it would threaten national security, but because it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods that may amount to little more than using Google."

Hillary Clinton accepts the Atlantic Council's 2013 Distinguished International Leadership Award. (Credit: YouTube)

In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta's emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike's bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm's CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation .

In 2013 , the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it's Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014 , the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk , who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014 , who now lives in exile in Russia." (Read more: CounterPunch, 3/23/2017)

Share this: December 30, 2016 – The credibility of cyber firm Crowdstrike, claiming Russia hacked the DNC, comes under serious question

Jeffrey Carr (Credit: Vimeo)

"The cyber security firm hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its analysis into question upon further inspection.

Jeffrey Carr was one of the most prominent cynics, and as he noted in his December post, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort :

The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) " Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.

It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.

Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn't assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words  --  malware deployed is malware enjoyed!

If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.

If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.

If it's classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling "attribution-as-a-service".

Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?

As The Hill reported in January :

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what it found with investigators.

"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.

This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled, Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :

An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.

The CrowdStrike report , released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering. "

(Read more: Michael Krieger/Liberty Blitzkrieg, 3/22/2017)

Share this: December 29, 2016 – Tech experts disagree with Crowdstrike's assessment and are critical of the FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR)

( ) " Breitbart News has interviewed tech experts who do not agree with the CrowdStrike assessment or Obama administration's claims that the DNC/DCCC hacks clearly committed by Russian state actors, with much criticism aimed at the FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "Grizzly Steppe" that was released at the end of December . As ZDNet reported after the JAR report was released by the Obama administration on the same day that they announced sanctions against Russia:

Mark Maunder, CEO, Wordfence (Credit: public domain)

The JAR included "specific indicators of compromise, including IP addresses and a PHP malware sample." But what does this really prove? Wordfence, a WordPress security company specializing in analyzing PHP malware, examined these indicators and didn't find any hard evidence of Russian involvement. Instead, Wordfence found the attack software was P.AS. 3.1.0, an out-of-date, web-shell hacking tool. The newest version, 4.1.1b, is more sophisticated. Its website claims it was written in the Ukraine.

Mark Maunder, Wordfence's CEO, concluded that since the attacks were made "several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S sic which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources."

Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security (Credit: public domain)

True, as Errata Security CEO Rob Graham pointed out in a blog post, P.A.S is popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. But it's "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world." In short, just because the attackers used P.A.S., that's not enough evidence to blame it on the Russian government.

Independent cybersecurity experts, such as Jeffrey Carr , have cited numerous errors that the media and CrowdStrike have made in discussing the hacking in what Carr refers to as a " runaway train " of misinformation.

For example, CrowdStrike has named a threat group that they have given the name "Fancy Bear" for the hacks and then said this threat group is Russian intelligence. In December 2016 , Carr wrote in a post on Medium :

A common misconception of "threat group" is that [it] refers to a group of people. It doesn't. Here's how ESET describes SEDNIT, one of the names for the threat group known as APT28, Fancy Bear, etc. This definition is found on p.12 of part two "En Route with Sednit: Observing the Comings and Goings":

As security researchers, what we call "the Sednit group" is merely a set of software and the related network infrastructure, which we can hardly correlate with any specific organization.

Unlike CrowdStrike, ESET doesn't assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone.

Despite these and other criticisms from technical experts with no political ax to grind, the House Intelligence Committee has called no independent cybersecurity professionals to challenge the Democrats' claims of "Russian hacking" that have been repeated ad naseum by the media.

Instead of presenting counter-arguments to allow the general public to make up their own minds, the House committee has invited Shawn Henry and Dmitri Alperovitch from CrowdStrike. (Read more: Breitbart, 3/09/2017)

Share this: January 2015 – May 25, 2016: There are 14,409 emails in the Wikileaks DNC email archive that are taken after Crowdstrike installs their security software

"Yesterday, Scott Ritter published a savage and thorough critique of the role of Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, who are uniquely responsible for the attribution of the DNC hack to Russia. Ritter calls it "one of the greatest cons in modern American history". Ritter's article gives a fascinating account of an earlier questionable incident in which Alperovitch first rose to prominence – his attribution of the "Shady Rat" malware to the Chinese government at a time when there was a political appetite for such an attribution. Ritter portrays the DNC incident as Shady Rat 2. Read the article.

My post today is a riff on a single point in the Ritter article, using analysis that I had in inventory but not written up. I've analysed the dates of the emails in the Wikileaks DNC email archive: the pattern (to my knowledge) has never been analysed. The results are a surprise – standard descriptions of the incident are misleading.

Nov 7, 2017 : story picked up by Luke Rosniak at Daily Caller here

On April 29 , DNC IT staff noticed anomalous activity and brought it to the attention of senior DNC officials: Chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC's Chief Executive, Amy Dacey, the DNC's Technology Director, Andrew Brown, and Michael Sussman, a lawyer for Perkins Coie, a Washington, DC law firm that represented the DNC. After dithering for a few days, on May 4, the DNC (Sussman) contacted Crowdstrike (Shawn Henry), who installed their software on May 5 .

Dmitri Alperovich sits before a Crowdstrike/DNC timeline published by Esquire, with one addition by an observant viewer. (Credit: Christopher Leaman/Esquire)

According to a hagiography of Crowdstrike's detection by Thomas Rid last year, Crowdstrike detected "Russia" in the network in the early morning of May 6 :

At six o'clock on the morning of May 6 , Dmitri Alperovitch woke up in a Los Angeles hotel to an alarming email. Alperovitch is the thirty-six-year-old cofounder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, and late the previous night, his company had been asked by the Democratic National Committee to investigate a possible breach of its network. A CrowdStrike security expert had sent the DNC a proprietary software package, called Falcon, that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. Falcon "lit up," the email said, within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC: Russia was in the network.

In many accounts of the incident (e.g. Wikipedia here ), it's been reported that "both groups of intruders were successfully expelled from the systems within hours after detection". This was not the case, as Ritter pointed out: data continued to be exfiltrated AFTER the installation of Crowdstrike software, including the emails that ultimately brought down Wasserman-Schultz:

Moreover, the performance of CrowdStrike's other premier product, Overwatch, in the DNC breach leaves much to be desired. Was CrowdStrike aware that the hackers continued to exfiltrate data (some of which ultimately proved to be the undoing of the DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the entire DNC staff) throughout the month of May 2016, while Overwatch was engaged?

This is an important and essentially undiscussed question.

Distribution of Dates

The DNC Leak emails are generally said to commence in January 2015 (e.g. CNN here ) and continue until the Crowdstrike expulsion. In other email leak archives (e.g Podesta emails; Climategate), the number of emails per month tends to be relatively uniform (at least to one order of magnitude). However, this is not the case for the DNC Leak as shown in the below graphic of the number of emails per day:

Figure 1. Number of emails per day in Wikileaks DNC archive from Jan 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Calculated from monthly data through March 31, 2016 , then weekly until April 15 , then daily. No emails after May 25, 2016 .

There are only a couple of emails per month (~1/day) through 2015 and up to April 18, 2016 . Nearly all of these early emails were non-confidential emails involving DNCPress or innocuous emails to/from Jordan Kaplan of the DNC. There is a sudden change on April 19, 2016 when 425 emails in the archive. This is also the first day on which emails from hillaryclinton.com occur in the archive – a point that is undiscussed, but relevant given the ongoing controversy about security of the Clinton server (the current version of which was never examined by the FBI) The following week, the number of daily emails in the archive exceeded 1000, reaching a maximum daily rate of nearly 1500 in the third week of May . There is a pronounced weekly cycle to the archive (quieter on the week-ends).

Rid's Esquire hagiography described a belated cleansing of the DNC computer system on June 10-12 , following which Crowdstrike celebrated:

Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office. Alperovitch told me that a few people worried that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was clearinghouse. "Those poor people thought they were getting fired," he says. For the next two days, three CrowdStrike employees worked inside DNC headquarters, replacing the software and setting up new login credentials using what Alperovitch considers to be the most secure means of choosing a password: flipping through the dictionary at random. (After this article was posted online, Alperovitch noted that the passwords included random characters in addition to the words.) The Overwatch team kept an eye on Falcon to ensure there were no new intrusions. On Sunday night, once the operation was complete, Alperovitch took his team to celebrate at the Brazilian steakhouse Fogo de Chão.

Curiously, the last email in the archive was noon, May 25 – about 14 days before Crowdstrike changed all the passwords on the week-end of June 10-12 . Two days later ( June 14 ), the DNC arranged for a self-serving article in the Washington Post in which they announced the hack and blamed it on the Russians. Crowdstrike published a technical report purporting to support the analysis and the story went viral.

There were no fewer than 14409 emails in the Wikileaks archive dating after Crowdstrike's installation of its security software. In fact, more emails were hacked after Crowdstrike's discovery on May 6 than before . Whatever actions were taken by Crowdstrike on May 6 , they did nothing to stem the exfiltration of emails from the DNC. (Read more: Climate Audit/Steve McIntire, 9/02/2017)

Share this:

[Dec 04, 2019] CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia Meddling Claims

The possibility of CrowdStrike central role in creation of Russiagate might be one reason that Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) were trying to swipe under the carpet the part of Trump conversation where he asked Zelenski to help to recover server images CrowdStrike shipped to Ukraine.
Another question is that now it is possible that one of CrowdStrike employees or Alperovich himself played the role of Gussifer 2.0
Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Which brings me to the newest piece to drop, CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia Meddling Claims .

Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:

I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of critical events in the flawed investigation.

[Dec 04, 2019] The central question of Ukrainegate is whether CrowdStrike actions on DNC leak were a false flag operation designed to open Russiagate and what was the level of participation of Poroshenko government and Ukrainian Security services in this false flag operation by Factotum

Highly recommended!
Highly recommended !
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings. The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that "I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
Dec 04, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Originally from: The Intelligence Whistleblower protection Act did not apply to the phone call ... Reposted - Sic Semper Tyrannis


Factotum , 20 November 2019 at 01:02 PM

The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.

Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.

Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.

vig -> Factotum... , 21 November 2019 at 11:00 AM
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.

On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.

It seems to either or. No?

What basics am I missing?

David Habakkuk -> vig... , 21 November 2019 at 12:53 PM
vig,

There is no reason why it should be 'either/or'.

If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.

So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.

The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.

What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation.

On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .)

It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'

However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.

And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )

Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.

In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that he is wrong.

It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.

However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)

The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'

Factotum -> vig... , 21 November 2019 at 01:45 PM
Several loose end issues about Crowdstrike:

1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?

2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.

3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.

4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link .

5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .

likbez said in reply to Factotum... , 04 December 2019 at 01:29 AM

Hi Factotum,
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.

Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):

Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.

MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.

Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.

In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.

His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed.

Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.

While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:

Enjoy and Happy Cyber Week shopping :-)

[Dec 04, 2019] Common Funding Themes Link 'Whistleblower' Complaint and CrowdStrike Firm Certifying DNC Russia 'Hack' by Aaron Klein

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
Sep 28, 2019 | www.breitbart.com

There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.

One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor to the Democratic Party.

CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign, reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.

On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc.

In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.

Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and the U.S. State Department.

Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's own claims, as Breitbart News documented .

One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the "cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko "also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani." Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above."

The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine."

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.

The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed."

Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National Endowment for Democracy.

CrowdStrike and DNC servers

CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."

In his extensive report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not "obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server and shared details with the FBI.

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.

A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.

"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.

"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the official continued.

... ... ...

Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

[Dec 04, 2019] DNC Russian Hackers Found! You Won't Believe Who They Really Work For by the Anonymous Patriots

Highly recommended!
Jan 01, 2017 | themillenniumreport.com

"If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the algorithms are."

Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike.

By the Anonymous Patriots
SOTN Exclusive

Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."

Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.

CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary problem."

CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy. Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.

Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in history! Nothing suspicious about that.

Alperovitch and the DNC

After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch, Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his "proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.

As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply "agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND" assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.

Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.

Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked – before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.

The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.

It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least, Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military (GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also had done "nothing" but observe.

It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on Donald Trump."

It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged" attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that "Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct – even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .

How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag report?

After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no evidence to back it up.

On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three other officials, to resign.

Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately "believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of Congress.

Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.

Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S. Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.

Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History

Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.

In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.

While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.

Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.

In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before it confirmed the attribution.

Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.

Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission

After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America. Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an American with a top-secret clearance overnight.

We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.

Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system from that point on .

Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so that they can always have over-riding control.

Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about Michael's codes?

Stolen Russian Codes

In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption codes.

Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .

KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.

Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri, which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits" when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's "suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.

Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys

Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures . Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market .

Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear physics.

Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S. military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control) Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go figure.

Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page

Education:

Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics

Work History:

Sr. Security Architect

VT IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications including cryptographic protocols, authentication.

Principal SME (Contractor)

DISA -Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014 – Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.

Technical Lead (Contractor)

U.S. Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.

Principal Software Engineer

Comtech Mobile Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.

Sr. Software Engineer

TriCipher – 2006-2007 – Designed and developed security architecture for TriCipher Armored Credential Authentication System.

Lead Software Engineer

BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging platform with Single Sign On authentication.

Principal Software Research Engineer

Pathfire – 2001-2002 – Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.

Obama – No Friend of America

Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American networks.

Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch for that.

It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a "frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.

Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?

It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very issues:
"If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike

Originally posted at: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=62536

[Dec 04, 2019] June 4th, 2017 Crowdstrike Was at the DNC Six Weeks by George Webb

Highly recommended!
A short YouTube with the handwritten timeline
Nov 27, 2019 | www.youtube.com
AwanContra - George Webb, Investigative Journalist

[Dec 04, 2019] Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.reddit.com

Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the "Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/25/who-is-fancy-bear-and-who-are-they-working-for/

Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless, here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:

Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/366696-russian-hacker-claims-he-can-prove-he-hacked-dnc

Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-hacker-stealing-clintons-emailshacking-dnc-putinsfsb-745555 (Note that Newsweek's title is an overt lie.)

According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence. And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/25/who-is-fancy-bear-and-who-are-they-working-for/

Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".

https://medium.com/@jeffreyscarr/the-gru-ukraine-artillery-hack-that-may-never-have-happened-820960bbb02d

Eliason has concluded that RUH8 is Fancy Bear.

This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear (RUH8).

In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.

As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails, which most likely were leaked.

How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.

I will ask Adam Carter for his opinion on this. 19 comments 84% Upvoted This thread is archived New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast Sort by View discussions in 1 other community level 1



zer0mas 1 point · 1 year ago

Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions. level 1

veganmark 2 points · 1 year ago

Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal. level 1

alskdmv-nosleep4u -1 points · 1 year ago

I see things like this:

DNC wasn't even hacked.

and have to cringe. Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together pretty commonly.

DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc., it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.

Interestingly, Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever.

That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).

The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:

Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools

Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth, like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The spoofed evidence is just mud.


An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?

And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2

alskdmv-nosleep4u 2 points · 1 year ago

What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking. level 1

Honztastic 2 points · 1 year ago

DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2

veganmark 2 points · 1 year ago

Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1

Inuma I take the headspace of idiots 9 points · 1 year ago

So you mean to tell me that WWIII is being prepared by Mueller and it was manufactured consent?

I'd be shocked, but this only proves that the "Deep State" only cares about their power, consequences be damned. level 1

veganmark 8 points · 1 year ago

George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17:

HillaryBrokeTheLaw Long live dead poets 10 points · 1 year ago

Nice.

I'm glad you're still following this. Crowdstrike is shady af. level 1

[Dec 04, 2019] Fancy Bear - Conservapedia

Highly recommended!
Dec 04, 2019 | www.conservapedia.com

Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU . CrowdStrike founder, Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.

There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers. The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.

Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC , and Press-TV. His articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.

Contents [ hide ] Fancy Bear is Ukrainian Intelligence Shaltai Boltai

The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their job.

According to Politico ,

"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well." [1]

The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.

All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian government's intelligence and propaganda arms.

Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against Ukraine's criminal activities.

The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.

They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution. The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to the State which in this case is Russia.

How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.

This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.

From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.

In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged data from the Surkov leak.

But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .

The First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers

The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.

In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010, Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't we?

"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."

Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo hack.

The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.

So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.

Chalupa collusion with Ukrainian Intelligence
See also: Ukrainian collusion and Ukrainian collusion timeline

Alexandra Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime. It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.

Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife Huma Abedin using Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to do opposition research hacked her.

Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate passwords.

Dobrovolska

Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2] [3] Alexandra Chalupa was running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives, hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.

Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in 2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington to meet with Chalupa.

Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?

According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.

Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y. Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]

According to CNN , [5] DNC sources said Chalupa told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.

Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and Washington.

Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers. [6] She took the Rada [parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.

Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top Secret Passwords From Team Clinton

One very successful method of hacking is called social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in passwords.

The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research. On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.

Alleged DNC hack

There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.

At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.

If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election . The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might have.

Alperovitch and Fancy Bear

George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]

  • In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is" statement showing this.
  • The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
  • The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian involvement?
  • information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
  • Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
  • How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
  • NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
  • In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."
  • The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
  • Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
  • Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
  • According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
  • If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa ? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection.
  • How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work.
  • Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
  • The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed. [8] There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an authoritarian fascism .
  • Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi, Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the "heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.
  • Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
  • In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
  • At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
  • Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
  • Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
  • According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
  • The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign.
  • What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security?
  • When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal conspiracy.
  • If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
  • Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
  • When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
  • Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
  • In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. [11] They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.
  • Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his "Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the past.
  • Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
  • These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
  • When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
  • Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."
  • What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts.
  • The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
  • According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have."
  • While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
  • The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike

According to Obama the hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into November.

Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election -- contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC

This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best.

The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating. That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.

It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was prosecutable.

Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the spotlight but there are Republicans involved.

Further reading

[Dec 04, 2019] June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams by George Webb

Highly recommended!
Nov 27, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.

MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the public.

The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.

Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.

In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.

[Nov 30, 2019] CrowdStrike: a Conspiracy Wrapped in a Conspiracy Inside a Conspiracy by Oleg Atbashian

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
Nov 29, 2019 | www.frontpagemag.com

The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.

Fri Nov 29, 2019 Oleg Atbashian 133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.

A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.

Let's look at the facts:

None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian agent.

Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that "CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.

But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back Trump every step of the way.

So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled now ?

Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:

  1. Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story with the same names and details as the real one.
  2. Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
  3. Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory. Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for you.
  4. Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let up.

This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story for another day.

For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are

The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history, supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was "socialist realism."

Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.

The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.

The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head, that it's a nonissue.

But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps because it's more important than the story suggests.

Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom.

The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years.

And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.

This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.

If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage, complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.

The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target.

It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't Chris Wallace.


NAHALKIDES a day ago ,

Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate. They didn't - which means they're covering something up.

coolit10 NAHALKIDES a day ago ,

And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?

🕊jr🕊 " Deep State Target " coolit10 13 hours ago ,

Let's be honest, that FBI made no attempt to investigate it in the first place as they were as culpable in this crime as the DNC.

Herman Young 🕊jr🕊 " Deep State Target " 12 hours ago ,

Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.

SteveTn6b NAHALKIDES 16 hours ago ,

They know who breached their security. He'd dead!

Herman Young SteveTn6b 12 hours ago ,

Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE was the only favor Trumps asked for.

Karen Herman Young 9 hours ago ,

We all know it was Seth Rich

Clasvi SteveTn6b 13 hours ago ,

you are spot on. it is amazing how they shut down the Seth Rich murder. The media was all to happy to shut it down.

Karen Clasvi 9 hours ago ,

Fox helped with that cover up

undrprsr Clasvi 6 hours ago ,

Yep, and Donna Brazile wrote in her book she feared for her life after Seth Rich was murdered, why's that if it was just a random attack?

El Cid NAHALKIDES 15 hours ago ,

There are two important facts to glean from this article:

1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.

From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets' technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).

I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?

Joe Clear NAHALKIDES 12 hours ago ,

They sure are, that being the killing of Seth Rich who copied the data to flash drive and gave it to Wikileaks.

stanley castleberry NAHALKIDES 12 hours ago ,

They found out right away. Hence Rich was assassinated.

Herman Young NAHALKIDES 12 hours ago • edited ,

That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.

No Bread or Circuses a day ago ,

The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!

The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the Left down to Justice!

We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation. Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!

We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to undermine our nation.

People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!

God Bless President Trump!
God Bless America!

Anacleto Mitraglia 21 hours ago • edited ,

In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge, ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.

Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?

Herman Young Anacleto Mitraglia 12 hours ago ,

The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.

El Cid Anacleto Mitraglia 15 hours ago • edited ,

don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just office software)

Cynthia Campbell 19 hours ago ,

If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you (Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain, Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and rightly so!

doc_who_cuts 20 hours ago ,

not seizing the DNC and hillary servers is the clearest case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE I know of in the last few years.

Herman Young doc_who_cuts 12 hours ago ,

Isn't it ironic, the Dems accuse Trump of "obstruction of justice".

FRANCES LOUISE a day ago ,

I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion, treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more! Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed. Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate was the target"

Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place: https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute. MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The most recent was Nov. 20th.

Link will show you how much attention has been given to "debunking" Q - gotta wonder why
https://cdn.qmap.pub/images...

elephant4life FRANCES LOUISE 19 hours ago ,

Perkins-Coie is the real-world Milton, Chadwick & Waters. I'm willing to bet their industrial-sized shredders are working overtime.

Herman Young elephant4life 12 hours ago ,

Unless Bleach-Bit got there first.

Herman Young FRANCES LOUISE 12 hours ago ,

Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action is.

Grant Hodges a day ago ,

The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst. I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.

coolit10 Grant Hodges a day ago ,

Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a thumb drive or external hard drive.

Grant Hodges coolit10 a day ago ,

One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location, say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.

El Cid Grant Hodges 14 hours ago • edited ,

The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes. VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so, did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?

(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would be looking for, but its a start).

[Nov 30, 2019] American Intelligence Media

Nov 30, 2019 | aim4truth.org

In January 2017, after much hullabaloo from the Democrats about Russian hacking of the 2016 election, the Anonymous Patriots set out to get the record straight about who was hacking who. Using basic internet research, along with our ability to separate fake media narrative from actual truth, we posted a citizen intelligence report entitled: Russian Hackers Found

In this article, we disclosed that Dmitri Alperovitch is the Russian DNC hacker . Yet to date, the corporate media remains silent on our report and intelligence agencies have not updated the lame report that they originally provided as evidence of Russian hacking (see PDF link below). While the Deep State operatives in the media and intelligence agencies continue to suppress vital intelligence that the American people need to make America great again , the American Intelligence Media has moved on to disclose more about Alperovitch and the Crowdstrike operations.

As we have discussed in several audios, Barack Obama's favorite cyberwarlord was Dmitri Alperovitch, whose loyalty to the United States is certainly questionable. Is it odd to you that Alperovitch, known as the best criminal Russian hacker in the world, was at one time arrested by the FBI? If James Comey is the "D.C. Fixer" for the political elite, then Dimitri Alperovitch is the "Cyber-Fixer" for the Deep State. Whether it's Russian, Korean, or Chinese "hacking" in American, it is always Dmitri who is the only expert the Deep State calls on to quickly examine the evidence and then hide or destroy it.

Also discussed at length is connection between the Ukrainian Atlantic Council to the DNC, Clintons, NATO, Evelyn Farkas, George Soros, and the globalist gangsters . The anti-Russian propaganda of NATO's Cold War machine (Atlantic Council) used Dmitri Alperovitch's Crowdstrike to disrupt the U. S. Presidential election and Ukrainian/Russian relations. Additional resources to support the audio discussion are:

Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

.

Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart 2 The DNI Report Faked Sources

.

Ukraine Tried to Tip the Election in Clinton's Favor

.

What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google

.

The official Director of National Intelligence Agency report on Russian hacking (meddling) in the U. S. presidential election is hyperlinked below – thirteen pages of a big "nothing burger" that does not have a single piece of evidence. This is an embarrassing waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. .

Note that the entire "evidence" on Russian hacking of the DNC server is one paragraph containing zero evidence.
Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions
in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber
Incident Attribution

Another fake intelligence report claims to describe how Dmitri Alperovitch's Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear work in cyberspace. This report is another sad, expensive report that is nothing more than a disinformation piece produced and published by two U.S. intelligence agencies – the FBI and Department of Homeland Security – to propagandize Americans. What the report actually describes is well-known and freely available Ukrainian malware that is old and has nothing to do with Russia.

GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

The report does not prove that Russia hacked the 2016 U.S. election, but it does reveal that the PHP malware sample that the government provided from the CrowdStrike report is:

Wordfence (cyber analysis company) analyzed the IP addresses available in the declassified report and demonstrated that they are in 61 countries, belong to over 380 organizations and many of those organizations are well known website hosting providers from where many attacks originate. There is nothing in the IP data that points to Russia specifically.

Furthermore, the report claims to contain technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.

If you read this report, remember that it is propaganda, and the authors assume that you know nothing about anything and count on you "believing" multiple U.S. intelligence agencies who really work for the Deep State and not the American people.

[Nov 30, 2019] Beyond The DNC - Leaks, Hacks, and Treason by George Eliason George Eliason

Notable quotes:
"... This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best. ..."
Nov 30, 2019 | www.mintpressnews.com

Here's what's different in the information I've compiled.

At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.

This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism. If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy. The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might have.

The real crime of the DNC hack wasn't the hack.

If only half of the following proved true in context and it's a matter of public record, that makes the argument to stop funding for Ukraine immediately barring an investigation of high crimes by Ukrainian Diaspora, Democrat, and Republican leaders in Congress, private Intel for hire, and Ukrainian Intel's attacks on the US government and political processes.

Perhaps it's time Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump should consider treason investigations across the board. Make America great again by bringing justice and civility back.

DNC Hack – High Crimes or Misdemeanors?

So what went on at the DNC way back in 2016? Do you know? Was it a hack or a leak? Does it matter?

Recently, an investigative journalist who writes under the name Adam Carter was raked over the coals. Carter writes at Disobedient Media and has been providing a lot of evidence supporting the DNC leak story former Ambassador Craig Murray and Wikileaks claim happened.

When the smear article came out and apparently it's blossoming into a campaign, a few people that read both of us wrote to the effect "looks like your work is the only thing left standing." I immediately rebuffed the idea and said Carter's work stands on its own . It has nothing to do with anything I've written, researched, or plan to.

I'd say the same about Scott Humor , Lee Stranahan , Garland Nixon , Petri Krohn , or Steve McIntyre . And there are many others. There has been a lot of good work on the DNC hacks and 2016 election interference. Oftentimes, what looks like contradictory information is complimentary because what each journalist is working on shows the story from a different angle.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q9W3QsO75mM?rel=0&showinfo=0

There are a lot of moving parts to the story and even a small change in focus brings an entirely new story because it comes from a different direction.

Here's what I mean. If the DNC hack was really a leak, does that kill the "hack" story? No, it doesn't and I blame a lot of activist journalists for making the assumption that it has to work this way. If Seth Rich gave Ambassador Craig Murray a USB stick with all the "hacked info," it doesn't change an iota of what I've written and the evidence you are about to read stands on its own. But, this has divided people into camps before the whole situation could be scrutinized and that's still not done yet.

If for example you have a leak on Jan 5th , can you have "a hack" on Jan 6th , 7th, or 8th? Since there is so much crap surrounding the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks have been a cover-up?

Hang em' High

According to Obama the hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into November.

Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election -- contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC

This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/L3cDZU9Tp7w?rel=0&showinfo=0

The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating. That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.

It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was prosecutable.

Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the spotlight but there are Republicans involved.

Identifying Team Fancy Bear

There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers . The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.

Identifying the hackers as FSB or GRU today is as helpful and has the same validity as identifying Special Prosecutor Mueller as a cashier at McDonalds because he worked there during school. It's insulting and self-defeating, so stop it.

How Mueller is Making a Russian Attribution for the DNC Hackers

If you look at the attribution section for the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber and specifically the section that deals with peacetime attributions of a non-state actor/ hacker we have an answer.

The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc call themselves volunteers to keep safe from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.

They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the threshold of military action. Mueller has a lot of latitude for making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intel. Based on how the rules are written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution. The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to the State which in this case is Russia.

How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.

This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and of course Russia. We'll get to why shortly.

After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for Russia . The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.

From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.

In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged data from the Surkov leak.

But during 2014,2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers.

The First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers

The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.

In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010, Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't we?

"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."

Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo hack.

The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.

So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.

The DNC's Team Fancy Bear

The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their job. Let that concept settle in for a moment.

According to Politico "In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists , government officials and private intelligence operatives . While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well ."

me title=

The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.

All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena Chalupa at the Atlantic Council . Both C halupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian government's Intel and propaganda arms.

Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage, terrorist, counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda, and info war channels officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against Ukraine's criminal activities.

Alexandra Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group called Fancy Bear by Dimitry Alperovich and Crowdstrike at the latest in 2015. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime. It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.

Indict Team Clinton for the DNC Hacks and RNC Hack

Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife Huma Abedin using Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to do opposition research hacked her.

Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate passwords.

The RNC Hack

According to the Washington Post , "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach."

In January 2017 , criminal proceedings started for Edward Nedelyaev under articles 335 'spying' and 343

'inciting hatred or enmity." He was a member of the Aidar battalion. Aidar members have been cited for torture and murder. Although the translation isn't available on the linked video the MGB (LNR equivalent to the FBI) ask Aidar's Nedelyaev about his relationship with Ukraine's SBU. The SBU asked him to hack US presidential candidate Donald Trump's election headquarters and he refused. Asked if this was through convictions, he says no, explaining that he is not a hacker. The video was published on January 10, 2017 .

Taken at face value it really does show the ineptness of the SBU after 2014. This is why Ukraine relied (s) on the Diaspora financed Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, RUH8, Bellingcat, Webradius, InformNapalm and associated parties.

The Ukrainians were hired to get the goods on Trump. Part of that is knowing where to start isn't it?

Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top Secret Passwords From Team Clinton

How stupid would the Fancy Bear teams of Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and RUH8 be if they had access to the DNC servers which makes it easier to get into the US State servers and not do that if it was their goal?

One very successful method of hacking is called social engineering. You gain access to the office space and any related properties and physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in passwords.

Let's be clear. The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research. On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.

Here is where it goes from bad to outright Fancy Bear ugly. Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former staff for research purposes from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. Were any foreigners part of the opposition research team for Team Hillary in 2014-2015-2016? The Clinton's don't have a history of vetting security issues well.

Let's recap. Clinton keeps 6 top secret passwords for research staff. Alexandra Chalupa is running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives, hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.

Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in 2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington to meet with Chalupa.

Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?

According to the Politico article , Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.

Four Verkhovna Rada deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y. Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh.

According to CNN, DNC sources said Chalupa told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information against Trump's campaign . Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.

Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and Washington.

Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers . She took the Rada members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.

The Podesta Hack – Don't Mess with OUNb Parkhomenko

I have no interest in reviewing his history except for a few points. Adam Parkhomenko, a Diaspora Ukrainian nationalist almost gained a position in the presumed Clinton White House. As a Ukrainian nationalist, his first loyalty, like any other Ukrainian nationalist, is to a fascist model of Ukraine which Stepan Bandera devised but with a win it would be in America.

During the 2016 primaries, it was Parkhomenko who accused Bernie Sanders of working for Vladimir Putin. Parkhomenko has never really had a job outside the Clinton campaign.

Adam Parkhomenko <img src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png" alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454" srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png 355w, https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png 235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy, Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy, Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought onboard.

Ultimately, Podesta became responsible for this because he gave Parkhomenko assurances that his staff would be brought on and there would be no gaps in their paycheck. Many of them including Parkhomenko's family moved to Brooklyn. And of course, that didn't happen. Podesta was hacked in March and the Ukrainian nationalist Adam Parkhomenko was hired April 1st .

Today, Parkhomenko is working as a #DigitalSherlock with the Atlantic Council along with the Fancy Bear hackers and many of the people associated with them. Why could this be a revenge hack?

The Ukrainian Intel hackers are Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalists. Alexandra Chalupa is also an OUNb Bandera Ukrainian nationalist. This Ukrainian nationalist was on his way to becoming one of the most powerful people in America. That's why.

The DNC Leak- A Patriotic Act

At the same time her aides were creating "loyalty scores ", Clinton, "instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her -- not the other way around -- and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.2'" After personally reading the email correspondence of her staffers, she called them into interviews for the 2016 campaign, where she confronted them with some of the revelations."-

Forget about the DNC. The hackers may have spent months surfing the US secret servers downloading and delivering top secret diplomatic files to their own government. The people entrusted with this weren't just sloppy with security, this is beyond treason.

It doesn't matter if it was Seth Rich, though I hope it was ( for identification's sake), who downloaded data from the DNC servers. The reasons supporting a leak are described by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This shows clearly why the leak to Wikileaks is much more plausible than a hack for the files taken in what is commonly called the DNC hack. This leak was one "hack" of many that was going on.

Imagine being this person inside the situations described above with the reality hitting you that things were very wrong. Even if they only saw parts of it, how much is too much? US government secrets were being accessed and we know this because the passwords were given out to the research teams the hackers were on.

It is very possible that giving the files to Wikileaks was the only safe way to be a whistleblower with a Democrat president supporting Team Hillary even as Team Hillary was cannibalizing itself. For detail on how the leak happened, refer to Adam Carter at DisobedientMedia.com and the VIPS themselves.

Today, this isn't a Democrat problem. It could just as easily been an establishment Republican.

Ukraine needs to pay for what their Intel Operators/ hackers have done. Stop funding Ukraine other than verifiable humanitarian aid. Call your Congressional Rep.

Next up – We are going to look at who has oversight over this operation and who's footing the bills.

Over the last 4 years, I've researched and written many stories that are still breaking in media today. Over the past 7 months we:

If you want to support investigative research with a lot of depth, please support my Patreon page. You can also support my work through PayPal as we expand in new directions over the coming year. For the last 4 years, it's been almost entirely self-supportive effort which is something when you consider I live in Donbass.

Top Photo | Former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile holds a copy of her book Hacks, detailing the hacking of the DNC, during a meeting of The Commonwealth Club, Nov. 9, 2017, in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez | AP

George Eliason is an American journalist that lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

[Nov 28, 2019] Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far from it

Nov 28, 2019 | www.reddit.com

Posted by u/PropagandaBot1 1 day ago

Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far from it.

The persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of Russian-themed breadcrumbs, examples include: US politics (domestic)

PropagandaBot1 -1 points · 1 day ago

http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Hillary/guccifer20_false_flag_operation.shtml

[Nov 22, 2019] CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward because, it is not going away.

Highly recommended!
Nov 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Factotum , 17 November 2019 at 05:40 PM

Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just sent him away for life.

CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy theory simply does not pass the smell test.

Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576

Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck.

[Nov 11, 2019] I Caught The Swamp - CrowdStrike Server, DNC-NATO Blackberries, OCONUS Lures

An interesting video. Was Crowdstrike server in Ukraine used to perform false flag attack on DNC which they later attributed to Russia ?
Nov 11, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Someone Unknown , 27 minutes ago

Think Adam Schiff will have the courage to hang himself?

Davida G , 24 minutes ago

Thank you George , may the right ears be listening to your very informed words. Blessings from Europe 🙏🙏🙏

Madam Mortified , 25 minutes ago

I am so glad you came up on my feed...it's been a few years. Thanks for the findings.

Eli Redshirt , 8 minutes ago

Thank you sir!

Sharon Seal , 17 minutes ago (edited) div tabindex="0" role="

article"> Ellen Ratner (sister of Bruce) was allegedly involved in some of this. Here is what I have, mostly from the Butowsky lawsuit that was filed. Most interesting in this data is the fact that Ellen Ratner met with Assange for 6 hours after a return flight from Berlin. May 11 Wikileaks lawyer Michael Ratner died of cancer He had a sister Ellen Ratner, a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News. Aug 26 2016 Ellen Ratner interview on Tom Hartmann. During their discussion Ellen shares news she has heard regarding Julian Assange and his threats of releasing hacked data that will send Hillary Clinton to prison (data that was either obtained by Russian hacker groups or DNC staffer Seth Rich - who HRC had murdered for his betrayal). "Julian Assange is saying he's going to do a new leak from WikiLeaks. Now, I have to tell you something, my brother Michael was Julian Assange's attorney before he died (that's before Michael died, Julian Assange is still alive)... and a lot of people think that what Julian Assange is actually doing is, he has made a bet that he's going to do better under Trump than Hillary Clinton, so he's going after Hillary Clinton." Nov 5 2016 Butowsky Lawsuit: "Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Ratner, a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News, contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms. Ratner's brother, the late Michael Ratner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Ratner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth's parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth's murder." Dec 17 2016 Butowsky Lawsuit: "On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Ratner, Mr. Butowsky finally contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about Ms. Ratner's meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he and his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to go public with Seth's and Aaron's role in leaking the emails because "we don't want anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected." Mr. Rich said he did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email. Dec 29 2016 Butowsky Lawsuit: On December 29, 2016 at 1:51 p.m., Mr. Butowsky sent an email to Ms. Ratner from his iPad: "If the person you met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a reason you we aren't reporting it ?" At 3:48 p.m. that afternoon, Ms. Ratner responded as follows: "because--- it was a family meeting---- I would have to get his permission-- will ask his new lawyer, my sister-in-law."

JustAnotherPaddy , 1 minute ago div tabindex="0" role="articl

e"> Go to Quantico and learn how to glow. And this term 'OCONUS lures'...that just burns me. These terms they use to attempt to sterilize and normalize something that is absolutely Pimping and trafficking by design. How can this legitimately be FBI and DoJ policy? You're bringing women into the country to sex up and spy on schmucks for blackmail, profit and control. Words mean things. It's like government 'Authorities' at all levels of gov calling us 'civilians'? Think about that. A local cop, who is a citizen, calling you a civilian. Like you are collateral meat in a war zone. You and the officer - are citizens of this country. That word was inserted to separate you from your rights here. It changes the thought and perspective of you...and the officer. And they are not the nebulous 'Authorities'! They are public servants lent certain limited powers and all the responsibility that comes with it. Rant off, but it just bothers me...this double speak. Words mean things and using woman for 'operations' isn't ok at all. The people that fall for them? Just amazing dumb. As an adult, you should have formed so idea of the people you can reasonably attract. If some 11 rated super model rolls up to you in a bar and you've been mostly dating 5-7 range people, know that there's a reason your punching above your weight class. Your a target. If it's too good to be true, it absolutely is. Lures are drawing a check from our government for sex. What do we call that downtown? This should be prosecuted...and stopped.

Jean Burk , 16 minutes ago (edited)

Seth Rich was the source of the thumb drive(s). So I guess we have to disagree. Otherwise why was he killed? WHY would Podesta say to make an example of whoever got into the emails? Maybe Seth complained, went to (Donna? Debbie W-S?) about the cheating of Bernie Sanders. I don't believe a thing Mueller says. Kamphuis would know. Why was he killed?

[Nov 09, 2019] The Media's Obsession With Personalities Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself. ..."
"... Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Consortium News ..."
Nov 09, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter if it were a hack or a leak by an insider. That's because the emails WikiLeaks released were accurate. When documents check out it is irrelevant who the source is. That's why WikiLeaks set up an anonymous drop box, copied by big media like The Wall Street Journal and others . Had the emails been counterfeit and disinformation was inserted into a U.S. election by a foreign power that would be sabotage. But that is not what happened.

The attempt to stir up the thoroughly discredited charge of collusion appears to be part of the defense strategy of those whose reputations were thoroughly discredited by maniacally pushing that false charge for more than two years. This includes legions of journalists. But principal among them are intelligence agency officials who laundered this "collusion" disinformation campaign through the mainstream media.

Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy.

Stone may be just a footnote to this historic partisan battle that may scar the nation for a generation. But he has the personality to be the poster boy for the Democrats' lost cause.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

[Nov 03, 2019] Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine. The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they are trying to protect

Nov 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Nov 2 2019 1:00 utc | 82

Petri Krohn's comment @37 "ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT"

Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.

The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they are trying to protect.

This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr criminal investigation into russiagate.

[Oct 27, 2019] Biden's Intervention In Ukraine And Ukraine's 2016 Election Meddling Are Matters of Fact

Notable quotes:
"... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired. ..."
"... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out. ..."
"... Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky. ..."
"... Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really "debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. ..."
"... In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the Ukrainians delivered a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych. ..."
"... Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT headline emphasized the fact: ..."
"... insisting on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. ..."
"... That term "conspiracy theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the author wishes were not true but almost certainly is. ..."
"... Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very much doubt.... ..."
"... If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these young journalists are suggesting. ..."
"... Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being lied to particularly over matters of importance. ..."
"... Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent him becoming president. That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump ..."
"... Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. ..."
"... Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions known as Russiagate began. ..."
"... I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up "dirt" on Trump ..."
"... Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out. ..."
"... It seems some corners are coming unglued if the ZH link below is any indication: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-entrapped-flynn-manipulated-evidence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order ..."
"... The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit "LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States." ..."
"... Prescient observation by Aaron Mate : "When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep State TV." ..."
"... The take away quote: "Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner." ..."
"... Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors. ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation. ..."
"... It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals since he is such a lousy business man. ..."
"... The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101. ..."
"... Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit. What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony. ..."
"... Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents, MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with "conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent (that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his position is a "conspiracy theory". ..."
"... Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare. For example, this was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities' version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy theorists". ..."
"... This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles. ..."
"... They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths appear to carry some validity. ..."
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the ordinary USA persons mind... ..."
"... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc. ..."
"... i am sure biden is small potatoes in the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage, it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam when i was a teenager.. ..."
Oct 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".

On October 04 a New Yorker piece, headlined The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine , asserted:

[In late 2018], Giuliani began speaking to current and former Ukrainian officials about the Biden conspiracy theory, and meeting with them repeatedly in New York and Europe. Among those officials was Viktor Shokin, a former top Ukrainian prosecutor who was sacked in March, 2016, after European and U.S. officials, including Joe Biden, complained that he was lax in curbing corruption. Shokin claimed that he had lost his powerful post not because of his poor performance but rather because Biden wanted to stop his investigation of Burisma, in order to protect his son. The facts didn't back this up. The Burisma investigation had been dormant under Shokin.

Several other media outlets also made the highlighted claim to debunk the "conspiracy theory". But is it correct?

We have looked into the claim that Shorkin's investigation against Burisma owner Zlochevsky was dormant, as the New Yorker says, and found it to be false :

The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into a frenzy.
...
On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
...
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.

Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky.

It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a report by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.


bigger


On Thursday Buzzfeed News wrote about a different Ukrainian prosecutor who in early 2019 was approached to set up meetings with President Donald Trump's private lawyer Rudy Giuliani:

[Gyunduz] Mamedov's role was key. He was an intermediary in Giuliani's efforts to press Ukraine to open investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and the debunked conspiracy theory about the country's interference in the 2016 presidential election , a collaboration between BuzzFeed News, NBC News, and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) can reveal.

The OCCRP is funded by the UK Foreign Office, the US State Dept, USAID, Omidyar Network, Soros' Open Society, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Most of these entities were involved in the 2014 coup against the elected government of the Ukraine.

Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really "debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials.

As Politico reported shortly after Trump had won the election, it was the Democratic Party organization, the DNC, which had asked the Ukrainians for dirt that could be used against the campaign on Donald Trump:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia.

The Ukrainian-American who was the go between the DNC and the government of Ukraine had earlier worked for the Clinton administration:

Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the Ukrainians delivered a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

"Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of so-called 'black accounts of the Party of Regions,' which the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are investigating," the statement said. "We emphasize that the presence of P. Manafort's name in the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in the column of recipients could belong to other people."

The provenance of the ledger is highly dubious. It was allegedly found in a burned out office of Yanukovych's old party:

The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev.
...
The accounting records surfaced this year, when Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament who said he had received a partial copy from a source he did not identify, published line items covering six months of outlays in 2012 totaling $66 million. In an interview, Mr. Leshchenko said another source had provided the entire multiyear ledger to Viktor M. Trepak, a former deputy director of the domestic intelligence agency of Ukraine, the S.B.U., who passed it to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Anti-corruption groups in Ukraine said the black ledger detailing payments was probably seized when protesters ransacked the Party of Regions headquarters in February 2014.

The pages from the ledger, which had come from anonymous sources probably supported by John Brennan's CIA , were never proven to be genuine. But the claims were strong enough to get Manafort fired as campaign manager for Donald Trump. He was later sentenced for unrelated cases of tax evasion.

Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT headline emphasized the fact:

Ukraine's leaders campaign against 'pro-Putin' Trump ( screenshots ):

The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
...
Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.

"A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy," Mr Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. "For me it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world."
...
If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev's action may have played at least a small role.

A Democratic Party operative asked the Ukrainian ambassador to find dirt on Trump's campaign manger Paul Manafort. A few month later a secret "black ledger" emerges from nowhere into the hands of dubious Ukrainian actors including a 'former' domestic intelligence director.

The ledger may or may not show that Manafort received money from Yanukovych's party. It was never verified. But it left Trump no choice but to fire Manafort. Ukrainian figures who were involved in the stunt openly admitted that they had meddled in the U.S. election, promised to do more of it and probably did.

The Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is well documented. How the Buzzfeed News author can claim that it is a "debunked conspiracy theory" is beyond me.

In 1998 the U.S. and the Ukraine signed a Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (pdf). I came into force in February 2001. Article I defines the wide scope of assistance:

1. The Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.

2. Assistance shall include: (a) taking the testimony or statements of persons; (b) providing documents, records, and other items; (c) locating or identifying persons or items; (d) serving documents; (e) transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; (f) executing searches and seizures; (g) assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and (h) any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.

3. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct that is the subject of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding in the Requesting State would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State.

When Trump asked the current Ukrainian President Zelensky to help with an investigation into the above matters he acted well within the law and within the framework of the treaty. It was certainly not illegitimate to do that.

But when mainstream media deny that Biden's interference in Ukraine's prosecutor office is suspect, or claim that the Ukraine did not interfere in the U.S. elections, they make it look as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not in this case. To use it a basis of an 'impeachment inquiry' is political bullshit.

Making these false claims will come back to haunt those media outlets. Sooner or later the public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the already low trust in the media even more.

Posted by b on October 26, 2019 at 17:51 UTC | Permalink


Piotr Berman , Oct 26 2019 18:16 utc | 1

"Sooner or later the public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the already low trust in the media even more."

More precisely, there exit Trump-friendly media with millions of followers, so insisting on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. Not to mention leftist media reminiscing how Senator Biden championed the cause of MBNA (credit cart giant) when it was also a generous employer of his dear son. Of course, given the size of Delaware, it could be just a coincidence.

corkie , Oct 26 2019 18:27 utc | 3
Thanks b for providing the nitty gritty details of this sorry saga. That term "conspiracy theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the author wishes were not true but almost certainly is.
Maracatu , Oct 26 2019 18:30 utc | 4
What is certain is that if Biden is selected as the Dem candidate and ends up as President, the GOP (if it retains influence in Congress) will open an investigation into his actions on behalf of his son. Russia-gate is the gift that keeps on giving!
ben , Oct 26 2019 18:34 utc | 5
Thanks b, for the reality check. Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very much doubt....
ben , Oct 26 2019 18:39 utc | 6
P. S. DJT, IMO, is ALSO in the same category with Biden, HRC and other scum-bags that need to "go away", if not imprisoned..
Ort , Oct 26 2019 18:56 utc | 8
Thanks for another informative and insightful commentary, B. It's like a drink of cool, clean water after staggering through a volcanic landscape full of fumaroles belching sulfurous plumes of superheated gas.

Sometimes my hobby horses merrily hop along under me without any effort on my part. I just hang onto the reins and howl. So: it's bad enough that the US mass-media consent-manufacturers, aka the CIA/Deep State's "Mighty Wurlitzer", gin up endless propaganda to discredit the facts you mention; their mission is to fool enough of the public that there's no "there" there, and prop up Biden's presidential campaign in the bargain.

But what increasingly bugs me is so-called "alternative" news outlets and independent journalists buying into the spin that Trump and his associates are using the pretext of investigating corruption as a means to illegally and illicitly "dig up dirt on political rivals". Put the other way around, they concede that Biden and other Team Obama honchos are indeed "dirty", and that their Ukraine adventure was reprehensibly illicit or illegal and self-serving-- but they return to faulting Trump for impermissibly exploiting these circumstances in order to gain political advantage.

It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi are careful to affirm that Trump et al 's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power. But, sadly, even journalists like Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Michael Tracey have echoed this rote condemnation.

My guess is that this arises from two acronyms: incipient TDS, which compels even "alternative" US journalists to regard Trump as the "heel" in the staged "professional"-wrestling scam of US electoral politics. Also, CYA; I suspect that these relatively young, professionally vulnerable journalists are terrified of coming off as "defending" or "excusing" Trump, lest they trigger wrathful excoriation from their peers and the hordes of social-media users whose custom they cultivate.

This is why I appreciate your clarity and forthrightness on this fraught topic.

Paul Damascene , Oct 26 2019 19:26 utc | 10
Ort @ 8 --

Rereading your post, and agreeing with some it, I find I disagree less with its conclusions than on first reading.

If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these young journalists are suggesting.

But where I would disagree is if you were suggesting that Taibbi, Mate and Blumenthal are making obligatory objections to Trump more generally, in order to curry favour with their peers. I think each of them would readily reel off lists of things (more substantive than Ukrainegate -- and probably not including Russia collusion) that they think Trump should be castigated, impeached and perhaps prosecuted for.

karlof1 , Oct 26 2019 19:32 utc | 11
Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being lied to particularly over matters of importance.
Peter AU 1 , Oct 26 2019 19:39 utc | 12
Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent him becoming president. That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump. He definitely is more than the twitter reality TV persona that he puts up as a public face.

With the Barr investigation, it looks like the non Trump section of the swamp will be drained in the near future.

jasmin , Oct 26 2019 19:43 utc | 13
Possibly an irrelevant point, but Shokin's replacement Lutsenko was the prosecutor who resurrected the "deceased", self declared journalist, Arkady Babchenko. The story was full of plot twists, involving a Boris German/Herman, who was Russian. B kept Us regaled with events. I'd post a link, but have witnessed too many thread expansions too risk it.
dh , Oct 26 2019 19:45 utc | 14
I think a lot of people give the MSM too much credit. Of course editorials etc. can influence people's thinking but the media, and journalists in general, are loathed by the people who voted for Trump. It's a big reason he was elected.
ben , Oct 26 2019 19:45 utc | 15
Ort @ 8 said;"It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi are careful to affirm that Trump et al's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power."

Co-Opted, or truthful, depending on what you believe. You, have every right to your opinion, but, when push comes to shove, think I'll give my opinion being swayed or not, by giving more credibility to the five names you've decided to "shade".

DJT has a record of behavior, and so do the five you've mentioned. My choice is clear, I'll believe the five..

Jen , Oct 26 2019 19:56 utc | 16
Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions known as Russiagate began.

I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up "dirt" on Trump, Manafort or anyone Manafort supposedly had connections with who is also mentioned in the "black ledger" but maybe that's because with the garbage that Bellingcat has so delivered, Eliot Higgins and company can't be trusted any more. Their masters should have known though, that when you give your subordinates base material to work with, they can only come up with base results: garbage in, garbage out.

psychohistorian , Oct 26 2019 19:57 utc | 17
Thanks for your ongoing documentation of the political criminality in the US b. The recent events are playing out like a two-bit soap opera rerun in a nursing home for America's brainwashed. Maybe Trump could start a new TV game show called Apprentice Corruption and instead of saying "Your Fired!" it could be "Your Guilty!"

As an American it is difficult to watch the country that I was taught such good things about in school be exposed as a criminal enterprise running cover for the elite cult that owns global private finance and manipulates Western not-so-civilized culture.

I hope all this BS we are going through wakes up enough of the semi-literate public to overthrow the criminal sect and restore the Founding Fathers motto and concept of E Pluribus Unum.

lysias , Oct 26 2019 20:09 utc | 18
Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out.
karlof1 , Oct 26 2019 20:35 utc | 19
Given the fact that she got a first hand look at the Outlaw US Empire's injustice system and its tie-in with BigLie Media, the comments by the now back in Russia Maria Butina carry some legitimate weight that're worth reading: "'I believe that the Americans are wonderful people, but they have lost their legal system,' Butina said. 'What is more, they are routinely losing their country. They will lose it unless they do something'.... "'I am very proud of my country, of my origin,' Butina stressed. 'And I come to realize it more and more.'"

Should I bold the following, maybe make the lettering red, and put it in all caps:

"They are routinely losing their country."

I know this is an international bar, but the general focus has long been on the Outlaw US Empire. IMO, Maria Butina is 100% correct. The topic of this thread is just further proof of that fact. As I tirelessly point out, the federal government has routinely violated its own fundamental law daily since October 1945. The media goes along with it robotically. And aside from myself, I know of no other US citizen that's raised the issue--not Chomsky, not Zinn, not anyone with more credentials and public accessibility than I. I sorta feel like Winston Smith: Am I the only one who sees and understands what's actually happening?! Well, I've shared what I know, so I'm no longer alone. But that's not very satisfying, nor is it satisfactory.

psychohistorian , Oct 26 2019 21:00 utc | 22
It seems some corners are coming unglued if the ZH link below is any indication: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-entrapped-flynn-manipulated-evidence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order

The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit "LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States."
"

karlof1 , Oct 26 2019 21:00 utc | 23
Prescient observation by Aaron Mate : "When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep State TV."

Sure, he sees it, many of us barflies see it, but it's the public within the Outlaw US Empire that must see and understand this dynamic. If they don't or won't, then Butina's words are even more correct--They are losing their country.

Brian_J , Oct 26 2019 21:07 utc | 24
Here are some more Biden & Biden lobbying revelations going back to 2008 from the Washington Examiner from before Biden became VP: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/biden-outreach-to-dhs-and-doj-overlapped-with-work-by-son-hunters-lobbying-firm
psychohistorian , Oct 26 2019 21:08 utc | 25
Below is another ZH link (still can't do HTML....sigh) about more Biden perfidy re his son Hunter: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/busted-joe-biden-intervened-help-hunters-lobbying-efforts-multiple-occasions

The take away quote: "Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner."

uncle tungsten , Oct 26 2019 21:10 utc | 26
steven t johnson #20

Excuses from the Trump lovers should be dismissed out of hand.

They usually are dismissed around this bar stj. As are the excuses from the Dem lovers.

How do you excuse this ?

MadMax2 , Oct 26 2019 21:27 utc | 28
maracatu 4

The merry-go-round scenario you post would indicate a broken state. Biden's been in office for 43 years, Trump 3 yrs... the potential for dirt is large, mix it with even larger GOP vengeance should that scenario arise and this will drag on through the decades.

'A republic, if you can keep it.' ~Franklin

paul , Oct 26 2019 21:35 utc | 29
What Trump did was corrupt. Normal corruption. What Biden did was corrupt. A lot more corrupt. And rather brazen.
Peter AU 1 , Oct 26 2019 21:46 utc | 30
"They are routinely losing their country."

Part and parcel of democracy. Western style democracy at least. Perhaps others can set theirs up better, though allways, the achilles heel of democracy is information, or media. Who oversees ensuring voters recieve accurate information.

The oz state of NSW had something that broke through this for a bit. ICAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Commission_Against_Corruption_(New_South_Wales)

It took complaints from the public and investigated them. They did not have power to bring charges, but for a time findings were made public. Once it got onto a money trail it would keep following and that would lead to other money trails. It was a state agency and had to stop at state borders but most money trails led to federal politics. It was defanged when they came too close to federal politics.

Something like this in a countries constitution could work though it could be corrupted the same as anything else.

MadMax2 , Oct 26 2019 21:49 utc | 31
@karlof 23

Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors.

It wasn't so long ago these deep state types would rather steer clear of the media. Now they are out there earning bread driving the narrative. Are these deep state media faces a tactical last resort...?

jadan , Oct 26 2019 22:13 utc | 32
Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation.

It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals since he is such a lousy business man. Putin and other Russian kleptocrats saved Trump boy's bacon. So it's very confusing when bed actors do good things.

Biden is no doubt quite corrupt. But that's got little to do with Trumps quid pro quo with Ukraine. You say that Ukrainian interference in US elections is well documented. You don't offer any documents, b. Anti-Putin Ukrainians were naturally anti-Trump. So what? Where's the beef? Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel bills and gave the world Chernobyl, interfered in US elections.

Your defense of Trump is getting tiresome. He's a criminal with no respect for the US Constitution and he deserves to be impeached. This is not to say that Joe Biden or his drug addict son are not also shit stains. I am just dismayed that you, an ostensibly intelligent independent commentator would go to bat for an ignoramus like Trump.

Don Bacon , Oct 26 2019 22:16 utc | 33
The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101.

President Harry Truman probably received as much flak as any politician ever did, especially after he canned war-hero General MacArthur. But Truman wasn't a candy-ass current politician complaining about dirt-digging. No, he gave back more than he got, in spades.

What was "give-em-hell" Harry Truman's attitude? Some Truman quotes:
--"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
--"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart"
--"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
-- "I'll stand by [you] but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen ."

That's what Trump is doing and will probably continue to do with fake news. (And he coined the phrase.)

vk , Oct 26 2019 22:19 utc | 34
I'll repeat what I posted here some days ago: this is not a battle between truth vs lies, but between which is the truth that will guide the USA for the forseeable future.

Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit. What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony.

It's not that the liberals deny Biden did what he did, but that they disagree with Trump's interpretation over what he did. This is what the doctrine of the vital center is all about: some facts are more facts than others, prevailing the one which maintains the cohesion of the empire.

There's a battle for America's soul; the American elite is in flux: Russia or China?

vk , Oct 26 2019 22:25 utc | 35
It seems Jeff Bezos is angry he didn't get that USD 10 billion cloud contract from the Pentagon: Company with ties to Trump's brother Robert awarded $33 million government contract
karlof1 , Oct 26 2019 22:26 utc | 36
MadMax2 @31--

In 1984 , the narrative was now 100% in your face and everything had to be manipulated to match it, which apparently hadn't been needed previously. But we aren't told if that was done as a "last resort." I would think not given continuing polls showing ongoing distrust of media, thus the difficulty of manufacturing consent. Look at the great popularity enjoyed by Sanders amongst 18-30 year-olds who get most of their information online or via social media and the measures being taken to try and manipulate those realms. Then there're efforts to counter the misinformation and manipulation by numerous activists, many of which get cited here.

Another thought: They're out front now because the Establishment's deemed the fight to control the narrative's being lost, and they've been drafted to rectify the situation. If correct, they ought to keep failing.

uncle tungsten , Oct 26 2019 22:27 utc | 37
karlof1 #19

The international nature of this bar and its many flies is that mostly (from what I read) they have an immense respect for the rule of law. It is this singular concept that we trust will transcend religion and the quasi religiosity of political allegiances.

The rule of law is a deity-like singularity that embraces all beings equally, or should. Assaulting that legitimate expectation of the law applying equally is what confronts us daily in so many ways and when it is observed being assaulted by the highest office bearers in political and corporate life that we barflies get mighty annoyed. The gross vista of assumed immunity demonstrated by Nixon is equaled by the antics of the Clinton foundation and its Directors. Each and every one of them.

But it is far worse than that as the assault on the rule of law is daily carried out by the mafias that infest our societies, the corrupt and violent police that cant/wont protect our citizens, the international warmongering criminal classes that propagandise us to accept warring as a legitimate exercise of power even though we recognise it as a crime against humanity.

So when we see the deplorable state of media and jurisprudence and fairness we can only think as Maria Butina does "that we are routinely losing our countries" and I would add our civil societies. The latter is vastly more concerning than the former IMO.

alaff , Oct 26 2019 22:47 utc | 38
Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents, MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with "conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent (that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his position is a "conspiracy theory".

Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare. For example, this was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities' version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy theorists".

When I see words like "conspiracy theory" in the headlines and see what media use them, then, you know, it's all clear. No chance for such articles/media to be taken seriously.

james , Oct 26 2019 22:59 utc | 39
@32 jadan quote "Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel bills...." are you familiar with the name porkoshenko, or any other one of the numbers of kleptomaniacs in positions of power in the ukraine? how do you think they got their, if ''that little piss ant country' can't even pay it's bills? i am sure you are capable of adding 2 + 2...

b isn't defending trump here.. he's highlighting how corrupt the msm is! it looks like you missed that.. check the headline..

Peter Charles , Oct 26 2019 23:02 utc | 40
This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles.

They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths appear to carry some validity. If you look for it you can find it applying in almost every bit of 'news', if it is in any way controversial, whether it is partisan politics, Climate Change or Brexit to give examples.

Jackrabbit , Oct 26 2019 23:51 utc | 41
jadan @32:
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
Jackrabbit , Oct 26 2019 23:51 utc | 42
uncle tungsten @37: rule of law

If the people get the government they deserve then they also get the laws/order they deserve. Voting alone is unlikely to fix that. We need Movements.

Michael Droyd , Oct 27 2019 0:12 utc | 43
Ukraine was just one hell of a honey pot that too many couldn't resist visiting. Kind of like Russia (Uranium One and HRC) or China (Biden for a start). Giulani is going to be very busy - he still hasn't produced anything that wasn't already published, but I bet he has much more.

And then there is this: https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-plundering-of-ukraine/

ben , Oct 27 2019 0:47 utc | 48
DB @ 33 said; Trump coined the phrase "fake news".

Horse puckey DB, check this out: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/head-in-the-cloud/201611/brief-history-fake-news

ben , Oct 27 2019 0:54 utc | 49
And this; https://www.1843magazine.com/technology/rewind/the-true-history-of-fake-news
evilempire , Oct 27 2019 0:56 utc | 50
Burisma investigated by SFO for money laundering: https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/the-hunt-for-burisma-pt-1/
Jackrabbit , Oct 27 2019 1:12 utc | 51
Glenn Brown @46:
... smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
Yes, I do think they are smart enough and agreed to act in their collective best interest. Kissinger first wrote of MAGA in a WSJ Op-Ed in August 2014. Trump entered the race in June 2015, IIRC.

Do you think that Trump - who failed at multiple businesses - just woke up one day and became a political and geopolitical genius? As a candidate he said he'd "take the oil" and now, more than 3 years later, he has! LOL.

And JUST AFTER the Mueller investigation formally ends, Trump ONCE AGAIN solicits a foreign power to interfere in a US election. The biggest beneficiary? Deep State BIDEN! Who now gets all the media attention.

FYI Wm Gruff makes your same point often: that Deep State mistakes demonstrate that they couldn't possible pull of a Trump win (if that's what they wanted). I disagree.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

I very much doubt that anyone will go to jail - or serve any meaningful jail time if they do - over the Deep State shenanigans. Nor will people 'wake up' and see how they've been played anytime soon. Even the smarter, more savvy denizens of the moa bar have much difficulty connecting dots. Dots that they don't want to see.

Jackrabbit !!

Jackrabbit , Oct 27 2019 2:14 utc | 55
The Deep State at work:

But they would NEVER interfere in a Presidential election.

LOL

Jackrabbit !!

jadan , Oct 27 2019 2:44 utc | 56
@41 Jackrabbit

If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge

Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.

What distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured. He made it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context, media and process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American dream. It was a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.

Jackrabbit , Oct 27 2019 2:45 utc | 57
Oh, but Deep State DID interfere. FACT: Deep Stater Hillary colluded with DNC against Sanders. ( But she would NEVER participate in collusion that caused her to lose an election./sarc LOL)

And now pro-Trump people say Clapper, Brennan, and Comey interfered in the 2016 election OR committed treason by trying to unseat the President!

So we can talk about Deep State interference . . . as long as it follows the partisan narrative that's been established for us.

Jackrabbit !!

uncle tungsten , Oct 27 2019 3:26 utc | 58
jadan #54

I have news for you. USA Presidents use strong coercive persuasive arguments or means of speech ALL THE TIME. And always have. Sometimes they can be subtle and allude to an action that might make them happy and sometimes they can be blunt. Its a presidential thing. It is what statespeople do when they 'negotiate' for their desired outcome.

It is not illegal or corrupt. It is power nakedly exercised. Just because Biden is a candidate for the same presidential role does not confer immunity for Biden's graft in favor of his son a few years back. You make a mockery of your position.

One USA President visited Australia once and when confronted with a roadblock of demonstrators seeking peace in Vietnam demanded of the Australian Premier to "drive over the bastards". That didn't happen but the President continued to drive all over the Vietnamese innocents.

Trump may be a grifter and a scumbag but there are warmongers well ahead of him in the cue for justice. Take Hillary Clinton for example. She is a ruthless killer and the greatest breach of USA national Security ever with her Secretary of State emails held on an unsecured server in her closet.

ben , Oct 27 2019 3:30 utc | 59
The same powers some call "deep state," are the same powers that have given us ALL modern day presidents, probably from FDR on. IMO, they are nothing more, nothing less than the "captains of commerce", who, through the vast accumulation of wealth by monopoly, buy our "representatives" to legislate rules and regulations to benefit themselves.

Our so-called "leaders" work for them, with very few exceptions, and transcends all political parties, and now also the Supreme Court.

$ has been ruled speech, unlimited $ is allowed to be given to politicians for elections. How could anything but massive corruption take place under this kind of system?

restlelss94110 , Oct 27 2019 3:34 utc | 60
they make it look as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not in this case. You suffer from TDS. What on Earth are you talking about here? Plenty of that? Say what? Why do you undercut your entire point in your article with this little piece of utter nonsense?

Name one thing that Trump that has done that is illegal. Name one thing that is crazy. Stop apologizing to the crazies by denigrating Trump. Your entire article was all about how none of the bs is true. And then you put your own brand of bs in there at the end. Cut it out.

james , Oct 27 2019 3:44 utc | 61
@ 54 jadan... thanks for your comments... i am feeling more philosophical tonight, as i don't have a gig and have some time to express myself a bit more here.. first off, i don't like any of these characters - trump, biden, and etc. etc.. i have no horse in the game here, and it sounds like you don't either.. your comment- "The issue is Trump's extortion of Ukraine, not Biden's extortion of Ukraine." i can go along with that until i reflect back onto what increasingly looks like an agenda to get trump even prior to when he was elected, at which point i want to say why are we only examining trump in all of this? who gets to decide what the issue is, or as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the ordinary USA persons mind...

let me back up... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc..

so, i don't think it is fair to only consider the latest boneheaded thing trump did when i consider the bigger picture unfolding here.. now, maybe you think i am a trump apologist... i am just saying what the backdrop looks like to me here.. i am sure biden is small potatoes in the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage, it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam when i was a teenager..

i suppose it depends on the time frame one wants to take.. my time frame will be considered an evasion of the moment to some, but it is how i see it.. sure, trump is scum, but the bigger issue to me is the usa's foreign policy agenda.. anything that can pull back the covers on that would be an extremely good thing... now, perhaps this is the straw that broke trumps back and the deep state will not tolerate being scrutinized.. that i could understand, but i am not going to be putting it all on trump as the reason the covers have to remain on all the shit the usa has been responsible for on the world stage to date and especially the past 10 years.. i am not able to blame trump for all of that.. and as you can see, i would prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of who is zooming who here... the msm for all intensive purposes is complicit in duping the american public.. that to me is the gist of b's comment here, not that he is cheer-leading for trump.. i just don't see it that way...i'm definitely not!

[Oct 19, 2019] Trump seemed far more determined in that conversation to find out what happened in the Ukraine that caused the 2016/17/18 Russia hoax.

Oct 19, 2019 | www.unz.com

anastasia , says: October 8, 2019 at 3:57 pm GMT

Yeah, but look what happened to JFK. And we are pretty well know who did it.

Looks like they are going to try to put Trump out of commission too, one way or the other.

anastasia , says: October 8, 2019 at 4:04 pm GMT
Biden did not figure "prominently" in the transcript of the conversation. He figured "prominently" only in the minds of the people trying to impeach Trump. . Trump seemed far more determined in that conversation to find out what happened in the Ukraine that caused the 2016/17/18 Russia hoax.
anon [113] Disclaimer , says: October 8, 2019 at 5:16 pm GMT
@anastasia Right, and Biden figured prominantly in what happened in the Ukraine that caused the 2016/17/18 Russia hoax.
Michael888 , says: October 14, 2019 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Ozymandias A dictator arising in the banana republic that is the US would most likely be from an Intelligence Agency, such as Brennan. The MSM clearly worships such authority, which is why we have had an evidence-free coup in motion since 2016. Elections no longer are even pretended to matter.
Michael888 , says: October 14, 2019 at 5:28 pm GMT
@TellTheTruth-2 The bigger issue which no one in the MSM wants to touch is Crowdstrike. Supposedly Crowdstrike "made its reputation' by showing that the Russians hacked the Ukraine artillery, then later found the same type of evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. Although it turned out that there was no Russian hack of the Ukrainian artillery, and likely no Russian hack of the DNC. There is a reason the 17 Intelligence Agencies have never showed any evidence; Crowdstrike and New Knowledge seem to be "the Russians".

[Sep 28, 2019] In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which was never forensically examined by the FBI.

Sep 28, 2019 | www.unz.com

Buck Ransom , says: September 27, 2019 at 12:51 am GMT

In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden & Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?

[Sep 27, 2019] Did Crowdstrite transrefered DNC disk images to Ukraine for the analysys?

Sep 27, 2019 | southfront.org

Another point was CrowdStrike, hired by Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the last election to analyze an infiltration of DNC email networks. He asked if the CrowdStrike servers are in Ukraine.

"Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation."

"Zelenskiy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government You are a great teacher for us and in that."

"Zelenskiy: Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to assure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation."

Zelensky was applying the tried and true formula of flattering Trump until he agrees to fulfill a request. The summary of the conversation is quite limited, and US Congress asked for the whistleblower complaint to also be unclassified.

[Jul 29, 2019] CrowdStrikeOut Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims by Aaron Matι

Notable quotes:
"... The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it. ..."
"... The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers. ..."
"... It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe. ..."
"... The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust. ..."
Jul 25, 2019 | off-guardian.org
Vaska
Originally by Aaron Matι, July 5, 2019 First published by RealClearInvestigations .

At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate hearing.

While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report's evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks. The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them. There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores. Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA). Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity. John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report: potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.

Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails

The Mueller report's narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.

In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:

Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC's mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [ Italics added for emphasis.]

The report's use of that one word, "appear," undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment , which contained no such qualifier:

"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusing assertions in court, he didn't have to worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations in question."

The report also concedes that Mueller's team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."

Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:

Contrary to Mueller's sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best, suggesting that the GRU, via its purported cutout Guccifer 2.0, may have transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

A Questionable Timeline

Mueller's uncertainty over the theft and transfer of Democratic Party emails isn't the only gap in his case. Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

As the Mueller report confirms, on June 12, 2016, Assange told an interviewer, "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great." But Mueller reports that "WikiLeaks's First Contact With Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks" comes two days after that announcement:

If Assange's "First Contact" with DC Leaks came on June 14, and with Guccifer 2.0 on June 22, then what was Assange talking about on June 12? It is possible that Assange heard from another supposed Russian source before then; but if so, Mueller doesn't know it. Instead the report offers the implausible scenario that their first contact came after Assange's announcement.

There is another issue with the report's Guccifer 2.0-WikiLeaks timeline. Assange would have been announcing the pending release of stolen emails not just before he heard from the source , but also before he received the stolen emails . As noted earlier, Mueller suggested that WikiLeaks received the stolen material from Guccifer 2.0 "on or around" July 14 – a full month after Assange publicly announced that he had them.

In yet one more significant inconsistency, Mueller asserts that the two Russian outfits running the Kremlin-backed operation -- Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks – communicated about their covert activities over Twitter. Mueller reports that on Sept. 15, 2016:

The Twitter account@guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the personas. During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.

Why would Russian intelligence cutouts running a sophisticated interference campaign communicate over an easily monitored social media platform? In one of many such instances throughout the report, Mueller shows no curiosity in pursuing this obvious question.

For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017. "WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the Russian government."

Guccifer 2.0: A Sketchy Source

While Mueller admits he does not know for certain how the DNC emails were stolen or how they were transmitted to WikiLeaks, the report creates the impression that Russian intelligence cutout Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen material to Assange.

In fact, there are strong grounds for doubt. To begin with, Guccifer 2.0 – who was unknown until June 2016 – burst onto the scene to demand credit as WikiLeaks' source. This publicity-seeking is not standard spycraft.

More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian has reported for The New Yorker, the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks. For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, "but which were almost surely not," Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a "dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC." The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was "Felix Dzerzhinsky," the Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.

WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists "to send me their questions via Twitter Direct Messages." And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer 2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017 interview, Assange said he "didn't publish" any material from that source because much of it had been published elsewhere and because "we didn't have the resources to independently verify."

Mueller Didn't Speak With Assange

Some of these issues might have been resolved had Mueller not declined to interview Assange, despite Assange's multiple efforts.

According to a 2018 report by John Solomon in The Hill, Assange told the Justice Department the previous year that he "was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties" in the leaking of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. Given Assange's previous denials of Russia's involvement, that seems to indicate he was willing to provide evidence that Moscow was not his source. But he never got the chance. According to Solomon, FBI Director James Comey personally intervened with an order that U.S. officials "stand down," setting off a chain of events that scuttled the talks.

Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these overtures, though it does cite and dismiss "media reports" that "Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an 'inside job,' and purported to have 'physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange."

Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation.

No Server Inspection, Reliance on CrowdStrike

Before he nixed U.S. government contacts with Assange, Comey was implicated in another key investigative lapse – the FBI's failure to conduct its own investigation of the DNC's servers, which housed the record of alleged intrusions and malware used to steal information. As Comey told Congress in March 2017, the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves." Instead, he explained, the bureau relied on CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."

While acknowledging that the FBI would "always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves, if that's possible," Comey emphasized his confidence in the information provided by CrowdStrike, which he called "a highly respected private company" and "a high-class entity."

CrowdStrike's accuracy is far from a given. Days after Comey's testimony, CrowdStrike was forced to retract its claim that Russian software was used to hack Ukrainian military hardware. CrowdStrike's error is especially relevant because it had accused the GRU of using that same software in hacking the DNC.

There is also reason to question CrowdStrike's impartiality. Its co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the preeminent Washington think tank that aggressively promotes a hawkish posture towards Russia. CrowdStrike executive Shawn Henry, who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia for the DNC breach, previously served as assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.

And CrowdStrike was hired to perform the analysis of the DNC servers by Perkins Coie – the law firm that also was responsible for contracting Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson declined a request for comment on its role in the Russia investigation.

The picture is further clouded by the conflicting accounts regarding the servers. A DNC spokesperson told BuzzFeed in early January 2017 that "the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers." But Comey told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee days later that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," but for unknown reasons, he explained, those requests were denied.

While failing to identify the "different levels" he consulted, Comey never explained why the FBI took no for an answer. As part of a criminal investigation, the FBI could have seized the servers to ensure a proper chain of evidentiary custody. In investigating a crime, alleged victims do not get to dictate to law enforcement how they can inspect the crime scene.

The report fails to address any of this, suggesting a lack of interest in even fundamental questions if they might reflect poorly on the FBI.

The Mueller report states that "as part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But it does not specify how much "later" it received those server images or who provided them. Based on the statements of Comey and other U.S. officials, it is quite likely that they came from CrowdStrike, though the company gets only passing mention in the redacted report.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton's emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained , CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC's legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

According to an affidavit filed for Stone's defense by Binney, the speed transfer rate and the file formatting of the DNC data indicate that they were moved on to a storage device, not hacked over the Internet. In a rebuttal, Stone's prosecutors said that the file information flagged by Binney "would be equally consistent with Russia intelligence officers using a thumb drive to transfer hacked materials among themselves after the hack took place." In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Binney could not rule out that possibility. But conversely, the evidence laid out by Mueller is so incomplete and uncertain that Binney's theory cannot be ruled out either. The very fact that DoJ prosecutors, in their response to Binney, do not rule out his theory that a thumb drive was used to transfer the material is an acknowledgment in that direction.

The lack of clarity around Mueller's intelligence community sourcing might appear inconsequential given the level of detail in his account of alleged Russian hacking. But in light of the presence of potentially biased and politically conflicted sources like CrowdStrike, and the absence of certainty revealed in Mueller's lengthy account, the fact that his sourcing remains an open question makes it difficult to accept that he has delivered definitive answers. If Mueller had the invasive window into Russian intelligence that he claims to, it seems incongruous that he would temper his purported descriptions of their actions with tentative, qualified language. Mueller's hedging suggests a broader conclusion at odds with the report's own findings: that the U.S. government does not have ironclad proof about who hacked the DNC.

Social Media Campaign

Mueller's other "central allegation" regards a "Russian 'Active Measures' Social Media Campaign" with the aim of "sowing discord" and helping to elect Trump.

In fact, Mueller does not directly attribute that campaign to the Russian government, and makes only the barest attempt to imply a Kremlin connection. According to Mueller, the social media "form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled."

After two years and $35 million, Mueller apparently failed to uncover any direct evidence linking the Prigozhin-controlled IRA's activities to the Kremlin. His best evidence is that "[n]umerous media sources have reported on Prigozhin's ties to Putin, and the two have appeared together in public photographs." The footnote for this references a lone article in the New York Times. (Both the Times and the Washington Post are cited frequently throughout the report. The two outlets received and published intelligence community leaks throughout the Russia probe.)

Further, in a newly unsealed July 1 ruling , a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having "improperly suggested a link" between the IRA and the Russian government. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Mueller's February 2018 indictment "does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government" and alleges "only private conduct by private actors." The judge added the government's statements violate a prohibiting lawyers from making claims that would prejudice a case.

Even putting aside the complete absence of a Kremlin role, the case that the Russian government sought to influence the U.S. election via a social media campaign is hard to grasp given how minuscule it was. Mueller says the IRA spent $100,000 between 2015 and 2017. Of that, just $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the 2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05% of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined -- which is itself a tiny fraction of the estimated $2 billion spent by the candidates and their supporting PACS.

Then there is the fact that so little of this supposed election interference campaign content actually concerned the election. Mueller himself cites a review by Twitter of tweets from "accounts associated with the IRA" in the 10 weeks before the 2016 election, which found that "approximately 8.4% were election-related." This tracks with a report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that found that "explicitly political content was a small percentage" of the content attributed to the IRA. The IRA's posts "were minimally about the candidates," with "roughly 6% of tweets, 18% of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts" having "mentioned Trump or Clinton by name."

Yet Mueller circumvents this with what sound like impressive figures:

IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts. In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled account.

Upon scrutiny, Mueller's figures are exaggerated, to say the least. Take Mueller's claim that Russian posts reached "as many as 126 million" Facebook users. That figure is in fact a spin on Facebook's own guess, as articulated by Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch's congressional testimony in October 2017. "Our best estimate ," Stretch told lawmakers, "is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a page associated with the IRA at some point during the two-year period ." And the "two-year period" extends far beyond the 2016 election, to August 2017. Overall, Stretch added, posts from suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook's News Feed comprised "approximately 1 out of [every] 23,000 pieces of content."

Yet another reason to question the Russian operation's sophistication is the quality of its content. The IRA's most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a gun-wielding Yosemite Sam . On Instagram, the best-received image urged users to give it a "Like" if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election that mentioned Hillary Clinton was a conspiratorial screed about voter fraud . Another ad featured Jesus consoling a dejected young man by telling him: "Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together."

Mueller also reports that the IRA successfully organized "dozens" of rallies "while posing as U.S. grassroots activists." Sounds impressive, but the most successful effort appears to have been in Houston, where Russian trolls allegedly organized dueling rallies pitting a dozen white supremacists against several dozen counter-protesters outside an Islamic center. Elsewhere, the IRA had underwhelming results, according to media reports: At several rallies in Florida " it's unclear if anyone attended ," the Daily Beast later noted; "no people showed up to at least one," and "ragtag groups" showed up at others , the Washington Post reported, including one where video footage captured a crowd of eight people .

Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports suggest that Russian troll farm workers engaged in futile efforts to spark contentious rallies in a handful of states. When it comes to the ads, they may have been engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as " a social media marketing campaign ." Mueller's February 2018 indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold "promotions and advertisements" on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. "This strategy," a Senate report from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project observes, "is not an invention for politics and foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing."

That, in fact, was Facebook's initial conclusion. As the Washington Post first reported , Facebook's initial review of Russian social media activity in late 2016 and early 2017 found that the troll farm's pages "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a foreign government." That view only changed, the Post added, after "aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama" developed "theories" to help them "explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events" in their loss of the 2016 election. Among these theories: "Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas." Despite the fact that "these former advisers didn't have hard evidence," the Democratic aides found a receptive audience in both congressional intelligence committees. Democrat Mark Warner, the Senate intel vice chairman, personally flew out to Facebook headquarters in California to press the case. Not long after, in the summer of 2017, Facebook went public with its new "findings" about Russian trolls. Mueller has followed their lead – just as the FBI followed the leads of other Democratic sources in pursuing both the collusion (Fusion GPS) and Russian hacking (CrowdStrike) allegations.

John Brennan and the ICA

As it falls short of proving its case for a "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference campaign, the Mueller report also fails to support its claim regarding the motive behind such efforts. In the introduction to Volume I, Mueller states that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." But nowhere in the ensuing 440 pages does Mueller produce any evidence to substantiate that central claim.

Instead Mueller appears to be relying on the intelligence community assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 – four months before his appointment – that accused the Russian government of running an "influence campaign" that aimed "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," and hurt Hillary Clinton's "electability and potential presidency" as part of what it called Russia's "clear preference for President-elect Trump."

But the ICA itself produced no evidence for any of these assertions. Its equivocation is even more blunt than Mueller's: The ICA report's conclusions, it states, are "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

On the core conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump, there is not even uniformity: While the FBI and CIA claim to have "high confidence" in that judgment, the NSA makes a conspicuous deviation in expressing that it has only "moderate confidence."

As it casts doubt on a core allegation of Russia's alleged motives, the NSA's dissent debunks the oft-repeated claim that the ICA represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

Moreover, it would even be misleading to portray the ICA as the product of the three agencies that produced it – the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Instead, there are multiple indications that the ICA is primarily the work of one person, who would spend the next two years accusing Trump of treason: then-CIA Director John Brennan.

A March 2018 report from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee says that Brennan personally oversaw the entire ICA process from start to finish. In December 2016, the GOP report recounts, President Obama "directed Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 elections." The resulting ICA "was drafted by CIA analysts" and merely " coordinated with the NSA and the FBI." The GOP report observes that Brennan's CIA analysts were "subjected to an unusually constrained review and coordination process, which deviated from established CIA practice ."[ Italics added for emphasis.] A lengthy Democratic rebuttal to the GOP members' report does not refute any of these findings.

Echoing the NSA's dissent, the House GOP questions the ICA's conclusion that Putin interfered to secure Trump's victory. The committee, they write, "identified significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the U.S. election." [ Italics added for emphasis.]

The Brennan-run process may have also excluded dissenting views from other agencies. Jack Matlock, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, has claimed that a "senior official" from the State Department's intelligence wing, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), informed him that it had reached a different conclusion about alleged Russian meddling, "but was not allowed to express it." An INR spokesperson declined a request for comment.

The ICA's production schedule also raises a red flag: The outgoing Obama administration tasked Brennan with churning it out in seemingly unprecedented time. "Ordinarily, the kind of assessment that you're talking about, there would be something that would take well over a year to do, certainly many months to do," former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told the House Intelligence Committee in June. " [S]eems to me, in this instance, there was a rush to get that out within a matter of days."

But even if Brennan had been given all the time in the world, the very fact that he was placed in charge of the intelligence assessment was a massive conflict of interest. Brennan was handed the opportunity to validate, without independent scrutiny or oversight from unbiased sources, serious allegations that he himself helped generate.

Efforts to reach Brennan through MSNBC, where he is a commentator, were unsuccessful.

Months before he oversaw the intelligence assessment, Brennan played a critical role in the FBI's decision to open the probe of Trump-Russia collusion. "I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," Brennan told Congress in March 2017, "and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred."

On top of his self-described role in generating the investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion, Brennan also played a critical role in generating the claim that the Russian government was waging an influence campaign. According to the book "The Apprentice" by the Washington Post's Greg Miller, the CIA unit known as "Russia House" was "the point of origin" for the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion during the presidential campaign that "the Kremlin was actively seeking to elect Trump." Brennan sequestered himself in his office to pore over the CIA's material , "staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night." Brennan "ordered up," not just vetted, "'finished' assessments – analytic reports that had gone through layers of review and revision," Miller adds, but also "what agency veterans call the 'raw stuff' – the unprocessed underlying material."

Anyone familiar with how cherry-picked, false intelligence made the case for the Iraq War will recognize "raw material" as a red flag. Here's another: According to Miller, one piece of intelligence that was "a particular source of alarm to Brennan," was the "bombshell" from "sourcing deep inside the Kremlin" that Putin himself had "authorized a covert operation" in order to, "in his own words damage Clinton and help elect Trump" via "a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." A former CIA operative described that sourcing as "the espionage equivalent of 'the Holy Grail.'"

Undoubtedly, a mole within Putin's inner circle – able to capture his exact orders – would indeed fit that description. But that raises the obvious question: If such a crown jewel of espionage exists, why would anyone in U.S. intelligence allow it to be revealed? And why hadn't that "Holy Grail" source been able to forewarn its American intelligence handlers of any number of Putin's actions that have caught the U.S. off-guard, from the annexation of Crimea to the Russian intervention in Syria?

Brennan was the first to alert President Obama of a Russian interference campaign, and subsequently oversaw the U.S. intelligence response.

Since leaving office, Brennan has laid bare his personal animus towards Trump, going so far as to call him "treasonous" – an unprecedented charge for a former top intelligence official to make about a sitting president. In the weeks before Mueller issued his final report, Brennan was still predicting that members of Trump's inner circle, including family members, would be indicted. Given Brennan's bias and consistent patterns of errors, Mueller's unquestioning, apparent reliance on a Brennan-run process is suspect.

Although Mueller seemed to accept the ICA's explosive claims at face value, Brennan's work product is now facing Justice Department scrutiny. The New York Times reported on June 12 that Attorney General William Barr is "interested in how the C.I.A. drew its conclusions about Russia's election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered that operatives help Mr. Trump." In what is most likely a direct reference to Brennan, the Times adds that Barr "wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign," as well as about "the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016."

Until Barr completes his review of the Russia probe, the April 2018 report from GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee remains the only publicly available assessment of the Brennan-controlled ICA's methodology. One reason for this is the fact that President Obama personally quashed a proposed bipartisan commission of inquiry into alleged Russian interference that would have inevitably subjected Brennan and other top intelligence officials to scrutiny. According to the Washington Post, in the aftermath of the November election, Obama administration officials discussed forming such a commission to conduct a sweeping probe of the alleged Russian interference effort and the U.S. response. But after Obama's then chief-of-staff, Denis McDonough, introduced the proposal, he:

began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress. Obama then echoed McDonough's critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.

With Obama having killed "any chance that a Russia commission would be formed," there has been no thorough, independent oversight of the intelligence process that alleged an interference campaign by Russia and triggered an all-consuming investigation of the Trump campaign's potential complicity.

New Opportunities to Answer Unresolved Questions

Barr's ongoing review, and Mueller's pending appearance before Congress, offer fresh opportunities to re-examine the affair's fundamental inconsistencies. Authorized by the president to declassify documents, Barr could shed light on the role that CrowdStrike and other sources played in informing Mueller and the Brennan-directed ICA's claims of a Russian interference campaign. When he appears before lawmakers, Mueller will likely face questions on other matters: from Democrats, his decision to punt on obstruction; from Republicans, his decision to carry out a prolonged investigation of Trump-Russia collusion despite likely knowing quite early on that there was no such case to make.

If the U.S. government does not have a solid case to make against Russia, then the origins of Russiagate, and its subsequent predominance of U.S. political and media focus, are potentially even more suspect. Given that allegation's importance, and Mueller's own uncertainty and inconsistencies, the special counsel and his aides deserve scrutiny for making a "central allegation" that they have yet to substantiate.

Correction:


Steve Hayes

The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it.
Tim Jenkins
That's an excellent brief summary description of events ongoing, Steve & very telling. I have the feeling that most of the moral indignation is from those with most to hide !
Roberto
The takeaway of 2 1/2 years of nonsense, succinct version:

The congressman asks:
"When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?"
"I am not familiar with – with that," Mueller replied.
"It was. It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS," Chabot retorted.
The Congressman then asked whether Mueller was familiar with the owner of Fusion GPS.
"That's outside my purview," Mueller replied."

Tim Jenkins
It seems likely, that Trump planned to discredit Robert Mueller's integrity, from the very beginning. Think about it: Robert (d'Mule) Mueller and his history:-

1) Heavy involvement in Uranium One deal, with the Russians.

2) Cover up of all investigations 9/11, as FBI Boss.

3) Clean up of Epstein's abhorrent dealings, last time around.

4) The Great Russia-Hoax, by Magic Mueller & Co.

For my mind, I can imagine BTO -"You ain't seen nothin', yet "

GRAFT
But the lunatics still believe millions upon millions of people believe it still
Cesca
This is just one of the events where the psychopathic scum show how divorced they are from humane consciousness.

They are thick as sh.t when it comes to hiding what they do, have the power to make it hard to find the truth tho.

Tim Jenkins
Coulter was calling for him to be in solitary in a 'SuperMax', as if that would protect him. Meanwhile, Priti Patel wants to bring back the death sentence
(stoooopid woman, not interested in learning, better said, in others learning) 😉

Off with their heads: Final Solutions ? Judge Priti Patel ?

Personally, i'd love to see Epstein in a safe cell, in between Cardinal sinner George d'Pedo Pell & Harvey Weinstein: all with webcams & wifi LIVE & pay per view:-

VIP Big Bro. Chokey & the Bandits, (online Live 🙂 )

I would actually pay to view that, even if only briefly on the BBC, though I've never given a penny to the BBC, since 1979 I swear m8 🙂

mark
The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers.

The poor chap is obviously suffering from advanced Alzheimer's. You'd think they could come up with a better front man for their conspiracy theory.

It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe.

Roberto
It wasn't [the dreaded, one-day] Alzheimer's. It's a Modified Limited Hangout version of 'I don't recall', 'What page is that on?', 'What page?', 'Oh I see it now', 'Can you repeat the question?', and 'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is' (well, OK, everything except that – it's copyrighted).
Add dozens of 'That's not my purview' or some variation of it, and 5 hours magically shrinks.
Question This
Why not write an article why so much time, effort & money has been wasted on this subject. Is it a surprise to anyone that competing super powers (I use the term loosely) attempt to interfere in election results? Frankly i take it as given that Russia, USA & US of Europe do so at any & all possible opportunity.

And asking if politicians are corrupt is like asking what colors the sky, we all know the answer.

binra
The lie accuses its own sin in the other – as intent at sustainability of power by deceit. Unravelling to source is the nature of a true harvest.
Each unto its own.
UreKismet
Well IMO you'd be wrong. English elites have been saying "the evil russian other" for at least 200 years. Even in the islands no one sees as a good earner, Aotearoa, has an 'anti russian fort" It was built in the 1880's when some pommie pols beat up a "Russia is trying to steal our empire" scare.
Tim Jenkins
Get Mifsud, Now !
****************

"Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation." with an unlimited budget to investigate !

What more than that did you need to know ? Alles Klar and if you are still unsure, then just ask yourself why Bill Binney & Kurt Weibe, ex NSA programmers of "Parallel Platforms", have NOT been called to testify, either ! The technical end 'stuff' proves that Mueller has been lying all along on his 'Witch Hunt' & Russia-Hoax and has NOT been addressing any one of the most important questions & problems that lead to further investigations & indictments of many key figures: which include potentially prosecuting the murderer of Seth Rich and why Mueller charged all others for lying to him during his pathetic investigation, but NOT Jo' MIFSUD ! Mueller himself should be prosecuted for his omissions & failure to prosecute Mifsud & question Richard Dearlove more intensively !

Get Mifsud under Oath immediately: he started all this who the hell is MIFSUD? Why is MIFSUD being protected? What the Fuck were Steele & Mifsud & Dearlove thinking to conspire & concoct on behalf of Deep State Governors & Operatives, who transcend both the USUK Governments combined ! ? !

This is an old article that helps you comprehend something of the background of the lies & deceptions of Mueller's pathetic efforts, & yesterday's statements confirm that he never intended to reveal anything at all, including yesterday, but why do we not have some brief qualification of Mueller's Testimony just yesterday, as an addendum here @OffG ?

How does OffG expect the Brits. to keep up to speed ? Especially, what will happen next with Boris Johnson and his dilemmas @home with GCHQ ? Coz' GCHQ were wholly involved in this TREASON USA attempt & Russia-Hoax, as were Italian Secret Services and the Ukrainian S.S. !

These matters can no longer be resolved behind closed doors, unless you wish to live continuously & forever onwards, under a corporate Fascist Dictatorship of "Parallel Platforms" & Pedophile Politicians ! it's that simple, so take 5 minutes and listen to Jim Jordan cross question Mueller, just yesterday, and you'll begin to see that Mifsud is being protected and we need to know WHY? HOW? & What from ? & by whom Logic, the wholly zionist owned & controlled mainstream media, surely! Coz' the ball is still rolling and it will not stop @Mifsud's desk, nor the boss of GCHQ's desk heads are gonna' roll, when this ball gets finally kicked into the annals of a very pissy secret service "History of the National Security State" and BoJo has some serious thinking to do about how he deals with the nameless cnuts in the British not so civil service, who used orphans kids in Ireland to entrap politicians and leverage any future political discussions with British Pedophile Politicians fully controlled !!!
E.G. GARY HOY !

It should be noted that yesterday, before Bill Barr stepped into his bullet proof vehicle, after answering a few questions to journalists, he beamed the biggest smile I ever saw on his public face and uttered the words "it goes with the territory". Bill Barr has clearly grown more comfortable with where he stands, today and he has no intention of kicking this can of worms down the road, including Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell, charges will be brought, thankfully finally and Boris Johnson will be forced to reveal much more than he would likely wish regarding "The History of the National Security State" and it will help mask his inevitable blunders, down the road.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KNIipT35Eh4

You should have, after watching Mueller !

I have pasted three links deliberately so that Admin must read this 😉

DunGroanin
Superb post Tim and a great catch! I missed David Nunes bit yesterday. The PM of GB and Mifsud in full colour! Lol

The Guardian live reporting missed every mention of Steele, Dearlove, a 'Russian' how very suspicious! Lol

I do believe the Russian State is capable of hacking – as is every such capable state in the world. I surmise they did hack – that is the most likely source of the Integrity Initiative / Institute of Statecraft material.

We will see how many independent news sites and bloggers actually exist by their journalism and blogging on this revealed conspiracy.

Tim Jenkins
My pleasure, thanks DG & I honestly 'almost choked' early morning, when sifting through the guardian script writers & their video editing efforts for today's 'damage limitation': (no doubt, on command of GCHQ), just how much key info. was truly omitted, scandalous clearly, 'The Lobby' is working hard on distractions, for not just all the government politicians, but also all journalists & editors: and therefore, Operation Charlemagne never gets mentioned, so that the 'Mifsud confusion' prevails and a disconnect is established from GCHQ, Steele & Treason USA & Epstein Island & Ghislaine Maxwell's historic sexual endeavours to control key political figures' future decision making: which includes Judges, down the line, as well as key figures working on "Parallel Platforms" of computing, within the National Security State throughout NATO nations !
And this all presents a prime opportunity for OffGuardian. 🙂
It will be a tough ole' cookie for Kit to crack: maybe in bite sized pieces, step by step

It's a very real tangled web that transcends borders of governance and forces one to not shy away from the words Corporate Fascist Dictatorship, with zero privacy & total control of all flows of Knowledge,

Not just Scientific . . .
Mercer & Cambridge Analytica ? the tip of the iceberg,
as UreKismet rightly points out below, Carole d'Cad certainly has much to answer for, in the biggest internet Psyop sting & string of distractions from the Key issues of programming our futures, collectively.

UreKismet
AFAIK there is zero evidence that the russian state was involved in the pathetic beauty contest which the US elites use to distract the more credulous citizens every 4 years. Why would they? They know damn well this quadrennial farce is a crooked game from start to finish. A game that only allows the same two contestants, the republican tweedledee and the democrat tweedledum to compete – both sides cheat like f++k on a massive scale so whatever skullduggery the Russian state could insert into that rigged crapshoot would have two chances of success, Buckley's and none.

But more important than even that is, even if the Russian State – oops sorry. . . "Putin" {said quickly with all emphasis on vowels none on consonants so it sounds more like a hoick & spit than a word} by some miracle did succeed so what? You cannot push a decent spliff skin between the dems & rethugs on the stuff which really matters.

Disagree? Check out the Tufts alumni diary entry for yesterday . The article tells us how the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who are the mob allegedly responsible for devising and implementing amerika's foreign policy, actually had a falling out on monday, a disagreement between a dem senator and a rethug member of the old boys steamroom and bar club.

This was the first public contretemps in decades. Wow I bet that was over something vital!

Nah, the dispute was over the murder of that Kashoggi creep, they reckon the dems wanted to slap Saudi with a wet bus ticket, whereas the rethugs preferred a damp feather as the instrument of corporal punishment.

Why on earth would anyone who hadn't bought a seat at the table e.g. the invaders of occupied Palestine waste energy, let alone the $30,000 that crowdstrike claimed Russia had spent on a forlorn hope of trying to get something up like sanctions relief, when everyone knows the correct way to do it is to bribe both sides with tens of millions?

Now "tens of millions" may seem a lot until you understand you will get it all back plus a lot extra for the hassle. Yep the amerikan pols become dependent on your 'donation' real quick. So from then on out, they find a way to give you money for some nonsense program which you then give back to 'em all as donations – less about 95% for expenses natch – but everyone is cool with that, they know there are considerable overheads in the lobbying biz.

That is why just about all of them plan on getting into lobbying themselves – just as soon as their little black books are chocka with the foibles of all the other congress-creeps and senate-slugs.

I watched the netflix doco "The Great Hack" which tries a camera eye view of the Cambridge Analytica investigation. IMO It reveals graun contractor Carole Cadwalladr to be the sort of deeply dedicated journo not too proud to let the facts stand in the way of a good beat up/fit up.

Shockingly for the graun, the target of this character assassination is a 'sister', yep another member of the victimised by patriarchy club.

A young woman by the name of Brittany Kaiser whose parents were financially destroyed by the cfc. After the family home was seized in 2014 she had to quit being an unpaid worker for the dems in DC & took an extremely well paid gig (VP) with CA. Apparently her conscience got the better of her so when the stories about what they and facebook had been doing came out she whistle blew in the US inquiry and the english parliament enquiry.

Too bad Cadwalladr decided she (Kaiser) would be useful in yet another graun attack on Julian Assange.

Kaiser had sent Wikileaks a couple bit coins back in the noughties when she was an idealistic Obama intern and bit coins weren't worth much. Years later she visited Julian at the Ecuador embassy on CA business and she insists that neither Russia or H Clinton's email were discussed, but Cadwalladr ran this article claiming she did both, without a scintalla of watchamacallit – evidence, proof whatsoever.

Of course in reality Kaiser may be nothing like the possum trapped in the headlights she presents as; this is a TV show (all over the torrent and usenet sites if like me, people prefer not to pay for the fibs they are told) in which both Cadwalladr & Kaiser get lots of time. For me Kaiser came across as someone acting more like a human than, the bigger the front, the smaller the back, Cadwalladr did.

None of us can ever know for sure who did what to whom during prez 2016, so we are left with considering the mountains of bulldust using our sense of humanity mixed with the few facts we can be sure of. In that light IMO, it makes zero sense for the Russian state to try on something that is so obviously doomed to fail, so they didn't.

Antonym
Good to see a factually well informed author here ATL void of ideology or theory. Mueller has bended truth when ordered since decades while looking like Eliot Ness. A good fella.
Martin Usher
The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust.

I've always maintained that any connections Trump has with Russia are going to be based on money. As in "there are people who have lots of money who need some kind of investment vehicle to launder it" and "a tangled web of casinos and real estate holdings is a perfect laundromat for money of dubious origins". This doesn't automatically suggest that Trump's a money launderer for the Russian mob but rather there's no clear cut line between what's clearly criminal and what's clearly totally legal and a lot of businesses operate in the gray between the two.

(Politically, though, the last word on Trump support was spoken to me by a Hungarian/American colleague who intended to vote for him. He lived in Budapest and his interest wasn't in US domestic politics so much as not being caught in WW3. He thought Hilary was going to start a war, Trump would keep us out. I thought he was being a bit naive (and have been proven right) but you couldn't blame him for exercising an abundance of caution.)

[Jul 09, 2019] Crowdstrike - Cashing in on a scam

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe you saw this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably remember that, but you've probably forgotten this ..."
"... Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation? ..."
"... Ignoring that for a moment, look at how competent Crowdstrike is since the DNC hack ..."
"... So in the past three years Crowdstrike: ..."
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
"... CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one ..."
"... Wonder if they were worried they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something ..."
"... It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." ..."
"... If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 12:09am

Maybe you saw this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably remember that, but you've probably forgotten this .

TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's "period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server breach -- which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor Megyn Kelly -- were issued in June 2016, when the contract was still active.

OK. Nothing suspicious here. Just a harmless coincidence. NOT! Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation?

Ignoring that for a moment, look at how competent Crowdstrike is since the DNC hack.

The National Republican Congressional Committee was hacked during the 2018 election after hiring CrowdStrike, the cyber-firm that the Democratic National Committee employed that allowed DNC emails to be stolen even after the 2016 hack was detected.

The emails of four top NRCC officials were stolen in a major hack that was detected in April -- eight months ago, Politico reported Tuesday.

So in the past three years Crowdstrike:

a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired

In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million.

So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO .

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

Alligator Ed on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:23am
CS neither got it right nor did a good job

CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one.

gj, with your trove of sources, why do you think CS redacted their own report--it's all fiction anyway?

Inquiring gators want to know.

Dalum Woulu on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:47am
Wonder if they were worried they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something.
Alligator Ed on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:49am
Good point

@Dalum Woulu Now if only Adam Schiff would subpoena CS and make them testify as to this...and then unicorns will graze on the grass in my back lawn.

Dr. John Carpenter on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 7:06am
I think this is most of the IT biz right here

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job."

If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring them they don't need to waste their beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

[Jul 09, 2019] So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO

Notable quotes:
"... So in the past three years Crowdstrike: ..."
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

So in the past three years Crowdstrike:

a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired

In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million.

So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO .

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

[Jul 09, 2019] Crowdstrike mode of operation:

Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

I think this is most of the IT biz right here

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job."

If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring them they don't need to waste their beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

[Jun 20, 2019] FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced – Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible, blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be president. ..."
"... "In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very little. The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents) ..."
"... Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0 has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis – and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to – and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian – than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives. ..."
"... You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign. ..."
"... Adam's linguistic analyses – endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian speaker communicating in English. ..."
Jun 20, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 16:04

I don't think this all that hard to understand.

1) The available metadata on the email files showing Hillary/Democrat election corruption that Wikileaks received indicates an in-office leak (maybe copying to a USB thumb drive drive), not an internet hack. That's what Binney is talking about, and he points out that as such, there is no EVIDENCE of Russian intelligence passing the email files showing Hillary/Demo party election corruption to Wikileaks.
Therefore, there is no EVIDENCE of Russia and evil Putin doing this "act of war on the US", as numerous media and politicized fools have claimed.
In normal human dealings, EVIDENCE, not just an accusation, is required before making judgments of guilt and invoking punishments.

2) If that metadata on the subject email files was faked to make it look like an in-office leak (by the Russians), then the FBI could request that NSA make available its data on hacked internet trace routes of packets of data from DNC servers to Russia, then show internet trace routes of packets of data from Russia to Wikileaks.
But apparently, Comey's FBI "investigation" didn't want to do that.

3) The subject DNC computer(s) were never turned over to the FBI. The first thing done in most investigations nowadays by local police, Federal authorities etc., is to seize relevant computers or any other comm. devices for forensic analysis.
No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of the election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by an entity (the Clinton machine, Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation, as was done in this "investigation".

4) The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview in criminal investigations – they have had enormous leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came into Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows a lot of what went on in the matter.

5) Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, the FBI, the CIA had roles in paying British intelligence agent Steele (and others?), generate a fake dossier about Trump having Russian prostitues urinate on a bed the Obamas had used during a visit Russia, and depravely rolling around in it.
Top level FBI people used that fake dossier to get a FISA court judge to issue surrveilance warrants on Trump campaign/administration personnel in order to spy on them in hope of getting incriminating evidence. Among other things, that's a felony – that is, unless we live in a degenerated police state. That dossier was also leaked to the information media, which then widely gave it wide airing.

6) The attempted destruction of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, by assorted intelligence operatives and the FBI, brings things down to an individual level.
Papadopoulos has been doing some interesting interviews. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggNWpNZJjNg

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 20:21

Thank you for this:

We have Comey, close to the Crowdstrike chief forensics man (ex-FBI), we have Brennan pushing the Steele Dossier as THE evidence. And we have Mueller using these as main sources while being highly selective with witnesses. And we have FBI agents with Russian origin/double agents working people like Papadoupolis. Given Mueller must have known it was all going nowhere two years ago why the delay? Well, for one thing that delay certainly assisted brainwashing the American public into this hoax.

Bill , June 19, 2019 at 02:59

It looks like Mueller used the Crowdstrike report and just assumed it to be true.

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:57

The crowdstrike report was reviewer and verified by many IT security firms, and their conclusions were collaborated by the CIA, NSA, and every other national security agency in the country. What reason would he have had to doubt it?

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 08:30

You're still trying to sell the "17 agencies" lie too? Unbelievable.

CitizenOne , June 19, 2019 at 01:11

Yup. In the game of disinformation what single characteristic of electronic documents would purveyors of disinformation make sure they did? Would it be to make sure they spell checked the document? Perhaps but more importantly they would be concerned about the ability to test the document by exploring the metadata. In fact since metadata is seldom questioned and is used as evidence for a documents origin it would naturally be a chief concern of the purveyors of disinformation. To not care about it would be the same possible misstep of a person that used a gun in some capacity which required forensic analysis of the weapon to determine who fired it.

Since everybody and their grandma knows that law enforcement looks for fingerprints on the recovered weapon there is generally not anybody who commits an illegal act with a gun who also does not scrupulously wipe down the weapon so it is sure to be free of any fingerprints. The actual occurrence of finding fingerprints on a weapon used in a crime is extremely low approaching zero.

The reason is everybody knows they have to wipe off the gun after firing it to remove their fingerprints. It is the same with metadata which are the electronic fingerprints on a document. Before publishing a document to be attributed to another party everybody knows that the metadata must be dealt with to pull off the con job. To leave this step out is the same thing as leaving ones fingerprints all over the document. Thus it would be a priority in any protocol to deal with this problem and I am sure there are folks in the government intelligence agencies that are skilled at manipulating the metadata on a bit by bit level to wipe off the real origin and to place fake electronic "fingerprints" on the document in order to attribute it to some other author or source.

Any investigation that concludes that a document comes from one source versus another based on metadata overlooks the similar capacity of a man with a gun that shoots another man killing him and then wipes off his fingerprints from the weapon, places the gun in the hands of the victim and claims after a "careful investigation" that the death was a suicide based on the fingerprints found on the gun.

Knowing this is possible the conclusions based on the metadata either assume that the author was an ignorant idiot lacking even the most basic understanding of criminal investigations not even knowing that the electronic fingerprints would get them in trouble or vastly more likely would have known such basic information about how electronic documents are tagged and would do their best to hide the truth by messing with the little ones and zeroes in the document to hide their involvement. They would even likely try to frame the victim as the perpetrator.

We call these situations kangaroo trials or witch hunts. They ignore the plausible reasons for the observed facts and just railroad the process with blind assumptions that the evidence presented is factual like believing a child that accuses the defendant "the bad witch" who cast a spell on her instead of looking at the possible ability and motives of the child to lie and then place appropriate weight on what are essentially unprovable accusations for what they are; impossible to prove.

Maxwell Quest , June 19, 2019 at 13:28

Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible, blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be president.

Just like the evening news, this requires the expertise of keeping any facts which do not support your goals safely locked away, while others are manipulated or created out of thin air.

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:38

I am no fan of Mr Stone, but I wonder if his attorneys have the authority as a defense, to bring in Crowdstrike personnel and talk about their funding (I can hear the judge say 'inadmissible) and their full unredacted report. To whom did they give their research? Are the FBI that stupid or are they part of the plan?

While they are at it, bring in William Binney as a witness to talk about hacking in general, and the DNC servers in specific. Bring in Guccifer 2.0 himself as a witness, what the heck. Have a witness clarify on the record the very people Mueller never interviewed and make some very valid points as to why he didn't.

If Mr Stone wanted to spend some of his ill-gotten gains by blowing this ruse wide open I'm for it. He would probably recoup a lot of his money on a GoFundMe account if he did it correctly.

Of course he is against a corrupt judge who probably will not let it get that far, but why not try?

hetro , June 18, 2019 at 15:36

Many thanks to Ray's persistence; plus to Norumbega and Mark McCarty in comments below.

Particularly important (updated June 9, 2019), thanks for this link Mark McCarty!

http://g-2.space/

As to the puzzle of Guccifer 2.0 as false GRU hacker revealing damaging info on Clinton (a seeming inconsistency) I found the following (from the link just sited) helpful:

"In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very little.
The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents)

"The DCCC documents didn't reveal anything particularly damaging. It did include a list of fundraisers/bundlers but that wasn't likely to cause controversy (the fundraising totals, etc. are likely to end up on sites like OpenSecrets, etc within a year anyway). – It did however trigger 4chan to investigate and a correlation was found between the DNC's best performing bundlers and ambassadorships. – This revelation though, is to be credited to 4chan. – The leaked financial data wasn't, in itself, damaging – and some of the key data will be disclosed publicly in future anyway.

"All of his 'leaks' have been over-hyped non-controversies or were already in the public domain – the only exception being the apparent leaking of personal contact numbers and email addresses of 200 Democrats – and really that was more damaging to the reputation of Wikileaks than causing any real problems for Democrats. – Ultimately, it only really served to give the mainstream press the opportunity to announce that 'leaked emails include personal details of 200 Democrats', again, seemingly an effort to undermine other leaks being released at the same time by legitimate leak publishers."

Mark McCarty , June 18, 2019 at 18:32

Thanks for drawing further attention to Adam Carter's work and wonderful website – he has done a really heroic job of cataloging multiple lines of evidence pointing to Guccifer 2.0 being the furthest thing from a GRU hacker.

Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0 has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis – and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to – and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian – than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives.

You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign.

Adam's linguistic analyses – endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian speaker communicating in English.

Adams' website also includes the Forensicator's discoveries showing that G2.0 intentionally placed "Russian fingerprints" in the meta-data of some of his postings. Beyond all this, if a GRU hacker were responsible for the Wikileaks releases, why on earth would he emerge publicly to brag about his exploit while intentionally leaving clues of his Russian origin? Would the GRU employ total nutcases?! Whereas G2.0's behavior makes perfect sense if his intention was to falsely incriminate Russia as the source of the Wikileaks releases.

I have to confess that I have little expertise in computer science, and hence would be susceptible to being bamboozled in this regard by propagandists. It's therefore important to note that I have gained the impression that both Adam Carter and Forensicator are functioning as honest scientific analysts, ready and indeed eager to disavow any of their previous conclusions when they realize they have erred. Intellectual integrity is a very valuable commodity, and my sad observation over the last several years is that it is far, far rarer than intelligence. So I commend Adam's website to those who seek an in-depth understanding on these matters, and are willing to cope with a measure of technical complexity.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:42

Adam Carter and Foresnicator are frauds.
– "Forensicator" and Adam carter are both fake ID's created by created by a right-wing activist named Tim Leonard with a long history of working on disinformation campaigns.
– The "analysis" he did was gobbledygook to any seasoned IT engineer: Presumption of use of methods, tools and techniques nobody actually uses; essential variables glossed over, etc.
– The data file he "analyzed" was fabricated after the fact
– its creator also posted instructions on how to use it to "prove it wasn't a hack".
– The website where Leonard got the file from was managed by the GRU.

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:32

I would be very interested in following you information on this matter, so no need to hesitate longer on presenting whatever it is you have with the details we need to evaluate what you're saying, including links to authoritative sources. And–just a suggestion–leaving off the name-calling and overall emotional presentation you're offering would be a tad more persuasive. At this point, sorry to say, your arguments are thin and unconvincing.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:04

You're citing debunked bullshit invented by Duncan Campbell.

1. I'm left-libertarian, not right-wing.
2. Foreniscator is an American, I am a Brit. Although I write for a US audience, British spellings do sometimes slip into my articles. This doesn't happen in Foreniscator's work. An objective analysis of corpuses of both our work will make clear we're separate people.
3. Campbell is yet to actually debunk Forensicator's work as where Forensicator has debunked Campbell's "Forensicator Fraud" conspiracy theory and just recently dismantled Campbell's "Timestamp Tampering" technical theory too.
4. The NGP-VAN archive has long been available as a torrent (since the time the files were announced/released at a security conference in London), you're reference to "fabricated" here can only relate to Guccifer 2.0's releasing that evidence (though Campbell does try to engage in wordplay to mislead readers into thinking Forensicator or I may have fabricated something and even distorts Binney's testimony to try to make it look like Binney was accusing me of that – it's not true and, thankfully, Binney has cleared this up in an interview for anyone interested in reality.)
5. I got my copy of the NGP-VAN archive from a torrent posted to PirateBay, I don't think the GRU operate TPB.

For full details on how Campbell's nonsense has fallen to pieces, see: http://d3f.uk/duncan-campbell.html

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 15:39

Yes, it is saddening to see the intellectual integrity you speak of disappearing. In this respect I would like to acknowledge one more commenter below, deep in this thread–Eric32.

Seems to me Eric's statement here pierces the faηade we've been discussing very well:

"No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation."

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:36

hetro – I just got to this material. Does any of it mention what happened to the man who was originally arrested as Guccifer 1.0?

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:33

It's my understanding that the original "Guccifer"–at just that, Guccifer, there is no 1.0 on it–, a Romanian, has been in jail for several years and is about to be released, or perhaps has been released. Someone may know.

As an aside (for some amusement only) I can't help noticing in studying this site indications the impersonator G2 was behaving a lot like David Atlee Philips, for those of you who have been looking into the JFK murder, and realize the significance of that name. Philips was fond of theatrics, as was G2 here according to the info on the site. This might suggest CIA creativity in play for this persona.

Again the site is:

http://g-2.space/

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:15

hetro – Yes, I know there is no 1.0 on the original Guccifer's name. I only put it that way to make clear the individual I was timelining (look, I also just made up a new word).

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:19

And ahh, yes. David Atlee Philips. A name that I recall quite well. I started my research into the JFK assassination in 1966.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 15:15

The many excellent, informed and very educational, comments on this thread are much appreciated.

Reasoned, comprehensive, and thorough comments, fashioned by articulate, considerate commenters are stellar hallmarks of this site.

My deepest respect to all who contribute to maintaining such standards.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:15

Especially, I thank, Adam Carter, Mark McCarty, and Norumbega for the education and insights you have provided on this thread and through other links.

Ray McGovern , June 18, 2019 at 21:06

Thanks, DW Bartoo.

And I add my thanks to what you have just expressed for the excellent, data-filled comments appearing under my article. I find the comments rich and instructive and, not for the first time, have learned a lot from them. Even most of the technical info comes through loud and clear to what Bill Binney calls, with sympathy, a "history major."

Dare I express -- again -- my frustration that we cannot get this story into any media that most folks access for their "news" about what's going on. Clearly, there are a lot of smart, knowledgeable people commenting here. Are none of us smart enough to figure out a way to get this story up and out?

I mean, DOJ, in an official Court filing, has just soaked James Comey in deep kimchi; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC. And we can't get that info out? Forgive me, but I fear the fault may not be so much in the stars, as in ourselves.

Let's address this key challenge like right here.

Ray

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 08:03

Ray, I read your response to my comment rather late last evening, well after eleven, and decided that although I quite agree with you, that the fault may very well be in ourselves and not our stars, that I ought sleep on it.

Odd as this may seem, for well over a decade, I have been chastising myself for having failed in the task I set for myself some sixty years ago.

I have long held it my responsibility to encourage people to think, not what to think or even how, but why, as human beings, living a finite life, on a planet that, for our purposes is paradise, we must engage in thought and consideration, not occasionally, not simply while in school or at work, but as our fundamental expression of consciousness.

Many of us, of a certain age have witnessed the harm our species may inflict upon the air, the water, the very soil around us.

Yet many are unable or unwilling to consider the the inner terrain may be as readily savaged, as callously ignored, as superficially dismissed as extraneous, as some internal "externality", if the thrust of society is dominance, unfettered acquisition, and narcissistic egoism.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, the current "narrative" that Russian hordes, genetically warped and mindlessly indifferent to all that is good, noble, and exceptional, have wrest "control" away from our natural betters, have infiltrated the empty minds of the deplorable, susceptible many, and hijacked the throne away from the anointed one, has led to a plethora of outrageous consequences.

Clearly, to some of us, this is obviously absurdity, but to those whose paychecks depend upon maintaining the tottering status quo, of Full Spectrum Dominance, over all aspects of life and especially over the thought processes of the many, this canard is as necessary as breathing if they are to go on with the comforts and perks of life they have come to depend upon, not merely for bodily well-being, but as proof that they are special, that they deserve to rule and lord it over the many.

So pervasive is this "sensibility", so deliberately inculcated is this sense of righteousness, this "right" to dominate and control,that it is nothing less than pathological.

That means that the larger narratives are shaped by a media owned by a handful of corporations, not just in the U$, but over much of the world, even as corporations, again a small and shrinking number, "own" and control governments, including the legal systems of those governments, readily control institutions of higher learning and so on.

Corporations control the voting systems of our pretend democracy making mock of the very notion of democracy itself, permitting a rising chorus to sing that the very idea of democracy is foolish.

In other words, our culture, our very language is being used to circumscribe thought, to delimit imagination and the formation of new, different, or alternative narratives of how to construct and maintain a sane, humane, and sustainable human future.

Frankly, in the U$, we have no longer even the pretense of an intellectual heritage, of any true openness to new thoughts or perspectives, and those who would dare expose the larger, more pervasive corruption that permits and sustains false narratives such as "Russia did it!", such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and others, not least the members of VIPS and the commenters here are, at worst, hounded, threatened, imprisioned, at best ignored, maligned, and dismissed as "too negative", or "conspiracy theorists".

Nonetheless.

I see few give up or knuckle under.

I have known more than a few who have died, while still trying.

Yet we still are, overall, a few.

So, what shall we do?

Realizing that our task is neither financially nor socially rewarding, how shall we become more effective at getting some necessary messages across or through walls of fear, indifference and, frankly, induced ignorance?

What, specifically, is our goal?

Is it "simply" to find some way past Mark Twain's observation that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled, about some specific narrative?

Or does it require some broader examination of the means by which such narratives are induced, promulgated, and enforced?

Is it both these things and more?

If the inner terrain of consciousness is exploited, savaged, and ravaged, then how shall there be healing sufficient to combat the "learned helplessness" which is the overall intent of those who seek to control, generally not with outward brutality, but with subtle psychological coercion, the many?

It would seem, it would appear, that what we face, the manipulation of consciousness, the internalization of submission, dressed up to appear like patriotism or "common sense" that cannot, rationally, be argued with, an inculcated mesmerization of compliance and diminished curiosity, these things require far more than simply pointing out fallacious narratives to a society convinced that it is so special that it is beyond question of any sort, no matter what might be done in the name of the many.

What do we do?

Perhaps we should try to actually get together, meet each other, sit down and talk to one another.

For are we not vulnerable if we use an electronic, digital media subject to the control of those who may "ban" us, "de-platform" us, determine that we are unworthy of even having a voice, especially as larger "authority" moves to undercut the rule of law to such a degree as to render "law" into an empty form with which it may bludgeon any or all of us into silence whenever it feels like doing so?

Further, if we debunk narratives that need such debunking, what narratives of a better future have we prepared, have we honed, that might inspire a willingness to explore the possibilities of meaningful and vitally necessary change?

Who has coherent ideas about creating a more healthy and rewarding society based on something more like common empathy and mutual support?

Who is articulating visions that might encourage the young to feel that this world that we bequeath them is not royally fucked for the dubious benefit of a mere handful of individuals who care about nothing but themselves.

Certainly it must be appallingly obvious that those who seek dominance and wealth at the expense of others are not the best and brightest, that they are among the least able and least compassionate, in fact, the very ones whose pathology is detrimental to the continued existence of the human species, and that of many other species, as well.

How do we undo the madness, disarm the learned hostility and violence?

Do we simply TALK LOUDER?

Do we simply TOOT OUR OWN HORNS or BEAT OUR OWN DRUMS more obnoxiously?

Or, do we dare continue on, seeking ever more effective connection, ever more opportunities of one to one conversations, where we not only talk, but also, listen?

I agree, let us not curse our stars.

Let us not blame fickle fate, as so often do those who lead the many into war or privation, into precarity, or famine.

Let us not claim that the deteriorating environment is caused by Sun Spots or desperate peoples driven to the brink by exploitation and avarice.

However, let us not imagine that the many who still are comfortable, who still believe the nonsense, may not yet succumb to the siren calls for war, for punishment, however brutal, of those who would expose the secrets of power while exposing the comfortable to their own complicity – which might well be what the still-comfortable might consider to be the greater "crime".

Do I have answers?

No. However I do have questions that might suggest some ideas.

I am very certain that the same is true for most every one of us.

Let us share these ideas, even as we seek to debunk the deceits, as we provide the elite with opportunities to expose and reveal their lies and corruption.

No single one of us will solve much of anything. No one has all the answers.

Those who await saviors, wait in vain.

Our future is very iffy.

If someone has a theory or a plan, beyond keeping on, then please share it.

Do not prattle on about "hope".

Do not say, "Well, we have always muddled through before, and shall do so again."

For we are in territory, outwardly, because of our "abilities" to destroy ourselves unlike anything our species has confronted heretofore.

Yes, "Russiagate" must be debunked before it leads to war.

Yes, humanity is fast approaching a place where it can take no more ..,
for granted and without thought, from a finite world.

Neither can our species long endure further empires of brute power or subtle manipulation.

Do not say, "Well, that is just human nature", for it is learned attitude and prejudice to claim so.

To continue such excuse, for that is what it is, ensures extinction, even for the idiots who "get off" the First Strike.

Now, my intent is not to depress, nor to impress, merely to suggest that such future as we might have is up to us.

So, it might be of worth to not spend too much time cursing ourselves for failing to make much headway.

It might take calamity to shake the complacent from their happy stupor, it may well require catastrophe.

Perhaps, just perhaps, patient reason might prepare the way for changing minds.

It is the internal terrain that must be pondered, quite as much as the outer manifestations of behavioral absurdity.

Why do so many believe absolute nonsense?

Perhaps they simply cannot access enough imagination to consider anything else, especially if the external mythologies bolster their internal emptiness?

What do you think?

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:01

You write well. A rarity.

Mark McCarty , June 19, 2019 at 17:20

The challenge we face, Ray, is that most MSM simply will refuse to report FACTS that contradict the official Russophobic Deep State-driven narrative. Note, for example, that the recent revelation that the OPCW censored its own technical experts in preparing its politically-biased conclusions on the Douma "gassing" incident, simply isn't being reported in MSM. Our MSM are now practicing a type of criminality that one would have expected from the "journalists" in Nazi Germany.

There may be one small ray of hope. Tucker Carlson at Fox has been notably contrarian on some issues, and has featured such luminaries as Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, and Tulsi Gabbard. Tucker is definitely skeptical about arguments driving us into needless wars and conflicts – he got Iraq wrong, and, unlike most of the journalists who did, he is sincerely penitent – and just a couple of nights ago he actually dared to question whether there is real evidence supporting the "Russian meddling" claim, reporting the essence of THIS ESSAY of YOURS! It is not inconceivable to me that you or Bill Binney might be able to get onto his show. And this might become more likely if prosecutor John Durham begins to look seriously at the "evidence" which Brennan, Clapper, and Comey used to justify their fraudulent ICA.

Tucker's show has the highest ratings on Fox, and he is very skeptical of the rampant Russophobia of our day – he views China as a truer rival. I have no idea how you might get through to him, but perhaps Mate, Greenwald, or Tracey – all major Russiagate skeptics – might have some insights.

And let me take his opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks for your wonderful essays and your political activism over the years. I've been following your work diligently ever since VIPS emerged in the run up to the Iraq catastrophe.

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:54

The corruption is well documented on the internet- Comey is immoral.

Carolyn , June 18, 2019 at 09:24

Guccifer 2.0 was another trick of the Dems, created to provide substantiation of Russian hacking of DNC computers. It was the Democrats who produced Guccifer 2.0.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:51

By that logic, it was the Democrats who sabotaged Hillary Clinton's Convention by releasing supposedly anti-Clinton documents on Wikileaks a day before. That makes no sense.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:41

It makes complete sense, and is the origin of "RussiaGate". They knew Wikileaks was going to release the data they got from a LEAK, so they made up G2 to shift the story and blame it on Russia. With their MSM lackeys playing along it worked like a charm. No MSM ever mentions the damning CONTENTS of the DNC and Podesta emails, just RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA! Only I think it was Brennan's baby, with DNC complicity.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:50

Guccifer 2.0 may well have been Brennan's baby, Skip Scott, although I am more inclined to consider 'twas Crowdstrike which hatched the wee tyke, though Brennan could well have been Godfather.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:22

Does anyone here have any evidence that Crowdstrike or Brennan created G2?

Stygg , June 19, 2019 at 15:15

Does anyone have any evidence that they didn't? If he's real, surely his existence rests on solid ground.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:20

CrowdStrike claimed Russians hacked in and grabbed opposition research from DNC. Next day Guccifer 2.0 turns up with the opposition research (with files apparently tainted by Russian metadata).

However we learned that the research (and the other document it was mangled with) really came from Podesta's attachments rather than the DNC and we know the Cyrillic metadata/stylesheet entries/etc were introduced through a process that was deliberate and not the result of simply mishandling the files.

So we know Guccifer 2.0 was fabricating evidence and doing so in accordance with the claims CrowdStrike had made the previous day.

Not hard proof but certainly a strange symbiosis. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:56

Two words: Seth Rich.

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 11:08

You're right Carolyn, and Bill Binney can prove it. See video in previous post

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:40

Clearly, Carolyn, Guccifer 2.0 was a confection. If not of the DNC, then, most likely, of CrowdStrike.

Just as clearly, Guccifer 2.0's announcement of being the "hacker" would be mightily useful for those claiming Russia did it, especially if incriminating little identity clues pointing toward unprofessional clumsiness, "Oh my Gawd! The Russians are hacking!", could be strewn about.

Determining such things, seizing upon contrived "sloppiness" and such things, is well beyond my knowledge base. However, imagining the means, the subterfuge that would be used to psychologically manipulate the many, especially considering both "manufactured consent" and "learned helplessness" are both part of the "methodology", we have all long observed, comes far more readily to mind.

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 08:34

This article is also available at information clearinghouse and accompanied by a valuable video presentation and exchange that further clarifies what has happened. It also includes yet more insight by William Binney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51776.htm

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 08:48

Bill Binney, in that video, makes two very important points 1) That it's important to realize that when this began the opposition research assembled by the Hillary team was being assembled against all possible opposition including the Democrats own Bernie Sanders. And 2) Bill Binney extends the ultimate blame way back to President Ford pardoning Richard Nixon for his Crimes, thus creating the concept of pardoning all previous administrations of guilt. Keep in mind that Cheney and Rumsfeld were on that staff

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 13:24

Thank you for the link to that Bill Binney – Larry Johnson interview, Bob Van Noy.

It is absolutely a must-view history of what occurred around the Russiagate idiocy that was intentionally contrived to mislead, not only US citizens, but also British subjects and Europeans generally, with the deliberate intention of rekindling the Cold War and building a lock-step willingness among the people to engage in official hostile behavior by the governments involved toward Russia, specifically, but China as well, from the imposition of sanctions and tariffs, to the claims of the "necessity" of First Strike "options", all the way to nuclear warfare.

Beyond that, there are substantive questions that raise issues of criminal behavior, on the part of US intelligence officers, and others, ranging from the sedition of an attempted coup to outright treason.

Yes, it is that serious.

The CIA, the FBI, Brit intelligence, and possibly other "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, "very likely", conspired to undermine the US election process of 2016 to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton, which many of the actors obviously considered would be a "slam dunk". Meaning simply that their illegal and unConstitutional activities would never be discovered or held to account.

My continuing appreciation to the members of VIPS, to Consortium News, and to other sites that have consistently dared examine, consider, and seek to hold to account those, including members of the political class, who have sought to undermine truth, justice, democracy, and trust for political power and financial gain. The degree of corruption, which must be exposed, held to account, AND punished, is of such a level and destructiveness that, were our society to fail to do these things, we would guarantee the likelihood of our future being nasty, brutish, and short.

OlyaPola , June 18, 2019 at 01:24

" the unintended consequence of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to minimize the impact of Washington's sanctions."

Unintended consequences are functions of both formulation and implementation both of which do not necessarily restrict the unintended consequences to the " the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice", a component part of formulation being predicated on notions that " the U.S. dollar (was/is) as the world's currency of choice (rather than a function of coercion in myriad forms).

"Unintended consequences" are consequently functions of intended consequences – an example of the mantra that "The United States sometimes does bad things, but always with good intentions".

John Drake , June 17, 2019 at 21:03

Good follow up on your previous revelations Ray.
"I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president."(Comey) Certainly demonstrates the FBI director's lack of integrity and objectivity. A ladder climber not a real cop, only interested in his career trajectory; willing to fix the intelligence to get along.
So much for serving his country; but it speaks also to the incredible negative influence the Clintons have had on our nation.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:51

Has anyone ever asked Comey whether he sought, or why he didn't seek, a court order to seize the DNC server and other relevant hardware? Even the members of Congress who seem inclined to interrogate him a little on this subject are content to let him act like some helpless guy who would've liked to have gotten the computers, but aw shucks, he just couldn't swing it.

(I'm not sure a court order would even have been necessary: cops and the FBI take custody of evidence at crime scenes all the time on their own authority.)

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:46

the fbi also claims, to this day, that it never looked at seth rich's phone or computer.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:16

You mean, "Why didn't the FBI try to cripple the DNC, but not the RNC, several weeks before a Presidential election, by seizing all the computer systems the national party uses to coordinate political activity and communicate with state party workers?"

Or do you mean seize them after the election, when the systems were already cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt, all viable evidence long gone?

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:06

I mean what I asked: why has no one ever put the question directly to Comey?

I'm not sure if your answers to the question I would like to see put to Comey make sense, but they're not an explanation of why he has been spared the effort of supplying such rationales (or possibly better ones) on his own.

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:42

While you evaded the question I actually asked, your answers might be something like what Comey would say if he were ever confronted on the subject. Of course the only way to find out for sure

In any case, while they're not ridiculous answers, especially compared to what Russia-gate has accustomed us, I'm not ready to buy them either.

The Clinton campaign in its final weeks wasn't being run out of the DNC HQ in DC. It was being run from – brace yourself – the Clinton campaign HQ in Brooklyn (albeit dysfunctionally). The DNC fulfilled its key role months earlier when they rigged the race against Sanders. If you think some disruption at the DNC in the final weeks of the race would have unfairly crippled Hillary's campaign, you should explain exactly how.

For your second point, part of what one might ask Comey is why he didn't get a court order forbidding the DNC from having their systems "cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt" before the FBI could get a look at them. I don't suppose any operation wants to keep malware (assuming such actually was present) on the premises, but law enforcement isn't known for being super solicitous about such inconveniences when conducting investigations, and the DNC are big boys and girls with more resources than most would have had to draw on to keep the lights on in a pinch – especially if it was for the *patriotic* cause of gathering evidence of the dastardly attack on Democracy Itself by the nefarious, onion-domed, Muscovite menace bearing down on every apple pie and baseball game in the land!

John , June 18, 2019 at 23:46

I didn't evade squat. I answered your implied comment, because your explicit "why didn't Comey" question had no explicit answer.
– No third-party can realistically know "why" anyone does anything, unless that person tells you. Comey didn't. And you asked the question at US, not him.
– Since the explicit question was unanswerable, that meant your question only had implicit answers.

When you asked why didn't Comey try to get a court order to seize the DNC computers, you implied he SHOULD HAVE attempted to seize them, (with a lesser implication that only some guilt or nefarious purpose was behind Comey's decision not to.)
– I simply provided some of the very realistic reasons why the FBI should NOT have atttempted the acts you implied Comey should have done.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:00

And let me remind you – the DNC was not just assisting with the Clinton campaign.
– They were supporting Congressional, State and even local elections up-and-down the ticket.
– They were coordinating canvasing groups, running polls and supplying resources to all sorts of down-ticket efforts.

So your FBI seizing the DNC computers would have hamstrung EVERY Democratic candidate, not just Clinton.

And all your "big boys and girls" comments disregards the big problem – the DNC would have be DOWN. For a while.

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 11:40

Interesting assertion, John, that Hillary and the DNC were supporting local and state committees and candidates.

Likely you have neither seen nor heard of FEC (Federal Election Commission) records which paint a rather different picture?

The "Hillary Victory Fund" claimed that Clinton raised big "bundled" checks of $350,000.00, and more, some $84 million in total, of which the states got to keep 1% (such an elite number), according to the FEC, which regarded this money as "laundered" through "legal loopholes", using the state committees to pass the cash on to the Clinton Campaign.

Further, the FEC, revealed that the DNC has paid Clinton $1.65 million to rent access to her email list, voter data, and software produced by "Hillary For America" during her 2016 presidential campaign.

Now, you can argue an number of things.

You can just say, "It ain't so!", offering nothing to support your contentions, thus implying that the Legacy Political Parties AND the status quo are simply above question or reproach. That such parties are not only above the law, but owe no allegiance, in any way, to the many, that these two parties are Private Clubs, not public institutions, and can do, or not do, anything that they wish.

Or, you could say that the DNC owes Hillary because she financed the DNC, in 2016, and that the "Victory" funds and the "rental fee" are merely her due.

Of course, were you to claim the latter, then you would have to make clear that such financing involved neither control nor guid pro quo, that it was simple generosity in theone instance and merely "business", in the other.

Following on with quo, do you imagine, "looking forward", that Biden will win in 2020?

Should the Dems seriously fight for medical care (not insurance) for all?

Should the Dems call for an end to endless war, or go all in for drone, AI, and robots to further "humanitarian interevention" (of course, we have to kill some folks, how else to ensure peace)?

Should the Dems have interest in preserving the environment (you know, for the kids)?

Should the Dems be for an actual, functioning rule of law (not lip service; think Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, are the receiving justice)?

Or, should the Dems just run on, "We ain't him!"

I realize that you would likely not wish to presume what the Dems should or should not do, that being speculative and not "normal"
procedure.

Having said all that, John, and realizing that your perspective differs greatly from the perspectives of many, here, I appreciate the civility of your comments. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

John , June 19, 2019 at 12:49

Nice cherry picking and misrepresentation, DW Bartoo.

The DNC did a whole bunch of other fundrasing besides the "Hillary Victory Fund".
– The "Hillary Victory Fund" was setup to take money excplicitly just for Clinton, and raise ~$85 million.
– However the DNC in total raised about $350 million for the 2016 campaign. The rest of the money went elsewhere.
– You cherry-picked the "Hillary Victory Fund" spending and made it look like it represented the entire DNC spending, when it didn't.

Misrepresnetations like this do nothing to boost your credibility. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 14:01

So, John, you are going with, "It just ain't so!".

Yet you have nothing to say about the Democrats being a Private Club which has no allegiance, of any sort, to the many?

That is the essential aspect which 2016 revealed.

2020 presents a perfect vision of total failure for the Di$mal Dollar Dem$.

A rallying cry of, "We ain't Trump, we Biden!",
will take you, all, down and out.

The Dustbin of History awaits, truly s most well-deserved, well-earned fate.

BTW, your accusatory comment, some distance up-thread, reveals not skill in honest debate, the factual refutation of or challenge to the perspective of others, but the slander of
ad-hominem assault. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 14:24

With the resources the DNC had at its disposal, the down time could have been minimal. Your telling me they couldn't afford to replace the equipment and have it set up and keep the down time to a matter of hours or less? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

philnc , June 19, 2019 at 18:31

" the DNC would have been DOWN. FOr a while." Doubtful. Any enterprise of the DNC's size, whatever e-mail service it uses, should maintain (or contract for) regular backups of their data and have a DR (Disaster Recovery) plan to restore service in the event the existing servers go offline without warning. If they failed to take those measures then it should raise questions about whether there was anything "big" about the people running that operation. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:35

I love you, the way you write anyway. Yer probably a one-toothed old shit living out in the middle of Kentucky, but you turn a nice phrase.

tom , June 19, 2019 at 16:24

Wasnt that a crime scene?

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 17:28

With respect to the creation of the Marble Framework program, I would like to ask: What can be the legal or ethical basis of creation of a tool that enables hacks to be falsely attributable to others? Such an action, even if used against a foe, would be intolerably vile. I suggest that anyone who engaged in the creation of this program should be fired, stripped of all pensions, indicted, tried, and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Indeed, anyone in our government who would tolerate such conduct should be finding another line of work.

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:48

i'm willing to wait on that trial if we can expedite the mass murder trials of 9-11. trump has said it was bombs not planes that destroyed the wtc.

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:43

Good one, Jeff. We should start where this all started.

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:08

To my understanding Marble Framework was a subset of tools within the what has been called Vault 7. One of the tools within that subset, I forget what its name actually is, is the language "obfuscation" tool that everybody talks about.

I would say "it just goes with the territory". Hacking as such is illegal by definition and it stands to reason that hackers will take what steps they can to disguise their own identity. Conversely, solid attribution to particular actors is said to be generally very difficult.

But see my reply to John, below, reporting a new discovery of fraud in the malware samples CrowdStrike put in its report. If confirmed, that would indeed be vile and shocking conduct. We're talking about ratcheting up tensions toward war as a result of this, and fundamentally deceiving the American people.

And see my reply to John A giving my opinion that the focus on Vault 7 misdirects attention that would better be directed toward the actual steps that were used to put those "Russian fingerprints" into some Guccifer 2.0 metadata, as already fairly well understood by analysts like Adam Carter.

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:44

FIRED???

Firing SQUAD more like.

That'd be MY pleasure, but I'm kinda warped.

Jim Glover , June 17, 2019 at 16:54

Well this helps explain why Pelosi knows that Impeachment of Trump will not only fail but blow up in their face.

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:53

Only because of their utterly imbecilic reliance on this made-up scenario. The Dems are obviously convinced that the made up crap about Muslims that has led to the outrage of the Muslim ban, the lies about the border emergency, the savaging of all of our laws by ICE on the border, the self-dealing, etc. etc. ad infinitum, though obviously impeachable offenses, wouldn't play well among soccer moms or hockey dads or whatever group it is counting on in 2020.

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:50

donald trump is a lucky man, but perhaps his greatest good fortune is history's choice of his opponents.

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 16:29

The Federal "justice" system can create crimes that never happened, avoid collecting evidence that would prove these crimes didn't happen, issue subpoenas and warrants, force people into bankruptcy hiring lawyers, interrogate people until they can entrap them in statements and actions that they can pretend are lies or obstructions to "justice", put innocent people in lockups with violent street criminals, into solitary confinement to debilitate them mentally and physically.

And why not? If you can publicly murder a President and then obviously cover it up and pin it on a patsy, with no consequences, then the Clinton coverups and political destruction operations are a small thing.

Washington networks have long deep histories.
Or is it just a coincidence that Mueller's wife is from the Cabell family – one of whom was the assistant CIA director who John Kennedy fired after the failed Bay of Pigs operation, and whose brother was mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was ambushed in rifle attacks, and was revealed in FOIA document releases to have been a CIA associate.

jaycee , June 17, 2019 at 16:26

From manufacturing consent to manufacturing reality There's been a determined effort to use portions of the Mueller Report to not just buttress the notion that an official Russian government operation indeed "hacked" the DNC to support the opposition candidate, but to assume this information as Established Fact. The revelation that the US government investigators relied entirely on a redacted draft from a private firm with huge conflicts of interest severely challenges this concept, and this obvious weak link now joins the sad list of unprofessional conduct including use of the Steele dossier to establish surveillance on a political campaign, and the description of a State Dept informant as a GRU agent even though Mueller's office had the proper information.

As exhibited in comments below, the partisan divide in America is as wide as it has ever been, with two camps hurling insults while believing only what they want to believe irregardless of factual evidence, and a third camp just trying to navigate through what can be objectively determined. In my observation, commentary over the past three years on this story by groups like VIPS have held up pretty well, while most of the legacy media and partisan bloggers such as empty wheel have embarrassed themselves.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 01:53

The funny thing is that people who buy into this Russian propaganda nonsense is that they excuse Hillary for actually working with people from foreign countries. Steele who wrote the dossier is from the U.K.. He worked with people in Russia and elsewhere to create it. Hillary paid for him to get 'dirt' on her opponent which is against the law. Taking information or anything from a foreign country to advance her campaign. But the biggest stink here is that she used her party's intelligence agencies to spy on her opponent. This sure seems like shades of what Nixon did

But her supporters don't have any problem with that

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 16:18

Google has a cozy $100 million "shared kindred spirit" with "best in class" Crowdstrike.

In this video, Google Capital's Gene Frantz and Dmitri Alperovitch's buddy George Kurtz discuss what led to Google's decision to back Alperovitch and the Keystone Cops at Crowdstrike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRMPZp70WVI

CrowdStrike received funding of $156 million from Google Capital, Accel Partners, and private equity firm Warburg Pincus.

According to the company, CrowdStrike customers include three of the 10 largest global companies by revenue, five of the 10 largest financial institutions, three of the top 10 health care providers, and three of the top 10 energy companies. CrowdStrike also keeps "Partners" like Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud Platform out of the clutches of invisible bears.

CrowdStrike still "stands fully by its analysis and findings" (aka evidence-free allegations) of "Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network" in 2016.

Crowdstrike and Bellingcat benefactor Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Meanwhile, Crowdstrike is growing very fast. It achieved $250 million in revenue in fiscal year 2019 compared to $119 million in fiscal year 2018, 110% year-over-year growth.

In May 2019, Crowdstrike, filed a SEC Form S-1 to raise $100 million for their initial public offering. It is the first American cybersecurity company to file and IPO in 2019 and second overall after the Israeli company Tufin.

Crowdstrike believes it is creating a new category called the "security cloud."

Given the enormous cloud of smoke blown by Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, there definitely is truth in advertising.

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 23:53

Thanks, Abe. Keep the truth coming -- while we are yet able.

"The funding of "The Trust Project" -- coming largely from big tech companies like Google; government-connected tech oligarchs like Pierre Omidyar; and the Knight Foundation, a key Newsguard investor -- suggests that an ulterior motive in its tireless promotion of "traditional" mainstream media outlets is to limit the success of dissenting alternatives.
Of particular importance is the fact that the Trust Project's "trust indicators" are already being used to control what news is promoted and suppressed by top search engines like Google and Bing and massive social-media networks like Facebook. Though the descriptions of these "trust indicators" -- eight of which are currently in use -- are publicly available, the way they are being used by major tech and social media companies is not."
" .Even if its effort to promote "trust" in establishment media fail, its embedded-code hidden within participating news sites allow those establishment outlets to skirt the same algorithms currently targeting their independent competition, making such issues of "trust" largely irrelevant as it moves to homogenize the online media landscape in favor of mainstream media."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-trust-project-big-media-and-silicon-valleys-weaponized-algorithms-silence-dissent/259030/?fbclid=IwAR26cfboaHlUptEt4Lnt4NToqFRRLfmC5xzqqJx6DAAgZTqZD8PDSJADwvQ

michael , June 18, 2019 at 07:17

Their more competent (and dangerous) partner:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/business/media/democrats-disinformation-election-interference.html

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/28/new-knowledge-just-raised-11-million-more-to-flag-and-fight-social-media-disinformation-meant-to-bring-down-companies/

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 15:58

The trolls/propagandists are arriving again with their silly BS about being patriots and not "communists" etc. plus assuming they're in a nest of Trump supporters and Putin lovers. Their ignorance of CN, and the pathetic, childlike quality of these comments, resembles the five year old disappointed with his birthday party.

I'm looking forward to a complete narrative of details on what has been revealed, piece by piece, going back to at least when Assange announced he had a leak on the Podesta emails and the DNC.

The case, in general, and putting it mildly, indicates Official Bias to discredit Trump–clung to, expanded, drummed home in the daily news, and given the semblance of seriousness by an already compromised Mueller investigation.

I realize that to want this case detailed, as part of the question what US official credibility is left, if any? is to be a horrible commie freak SOB supporter of Putin, when I should be saluting the flag and genuflecting toward Washington.

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:50

Actual espionage and infiltration of election systems by Israeli intelligence, not to mention direct interference in US electoral politics by the pro-Israel Lobby organizations backed by the Israeli government is being assiduously ignored by most mainstream and independent journalists, as well as veteran intelligence professionals.

Not a peep, nary a whisper from our vaunted VIPS about such matters as this:

"Following the 2016 election and the heavily promoted concerns about 'Russian hackers' infiltrating election systems, federal agencies like the NSA have used that threat to lobby for greater control over American democracy. For instance, during a 2017 hearing then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers stated:

"'If we define election infrastructure as critical to the nation and we are directed by the president or the secretary, I can apply our capabilities in partnership with others – because we won't be the only ones, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI – I can apply those capabilities proactively with some of the owners of those systems.'

"With Rogers – who is now employed by the Microsoft-funded and Israeli military intelligence-connected company Team8 – having lobbied for the direct involvement of U.S. government agencies, including the NSA and DHS, in supervising elections, it seems likely that ElectionGuard will help enable those agencies to surveill U.S. elections with particular ease, especially given Microsoft's past of behind-the-scenes collaboration with the NSA.

"Given that ElectionGuard's system as currently described is neither as 'secure' nor as 'verifiable' as Microsoft is claiming, it seems clear that the conflicts of interests of its developers, particularly their connections to the U.S. and Israeli militaries, are a recipe for disaster and tantamount to a takeover of the American election system by the military-industrial complex."

Microsoft's ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections
By Whitney Webb
https://www.mintpressnews.com/microsoft-electionguard-a-trojan-horse-for-a-military-industrial-takeover-of-us-elections/258732/

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 07:29

Remember when Karl Rove (aka turd blossom) had his meltdown on fox news over the Ohio vote count. He just knew Romney was going to win that state, but somehow his fix got "unfixed" by the counter hacking group "anonymous". Well, now our so-called "Intelligence" agencies and their corporate sidekicks are going to make sure there are no more surprises. Elections are going to be even more of a useless show than they already are. Zappa was truly prescient when he said "politics is the entertainment division of the Military Industrial Complex."

Here's a good story on Rove in 2012:
https://truthout.org/articles/anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix/

Realist , June 18, 2019 at 16:25

Good recollection, Skip. I had completely forgotten that little nugget, as probably did most other people. Our brains are so slipshod, we create our own memory holes big enough for the villains to drive a dumptruck through.

I can also appreciate your caution about all further elections. Will they be entirely orchestrated by the string pullers who make the final choice by simply creating the numbers out of thin air? If so, will the candidates themselves also be clued in to prevent a meltdown like Hillary Clinton's never-ending tirade?

John Hawk , June 17, 2019 at 15:06

Comey: lying through his butthole!, longtime bagman for the Demorat elites and a traitor to boot!

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:02

"Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016 revealing that the DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination" notes veteran intelligence professional Ray McGovern.

Can't Say Why:

Two weeks ahead of the Democratic National Convention, celebrating a "revolution" worthy of the CIA, sheepdog Bernie pledged his fealty to Hillary: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Hillary crowed, "Senator Sanders has brought people off the sidelines and into the political process. He has energized and inspired a generation of young people who care deeply about our country."

She imperiously declared, "To everyone here and everyone cross the country who poured your heart and soul into Senator Sanders' campaign: Thank you."

Bernie had performed his sheepdog function by exciting the Democratic Party's liberal base and winning young voters by large margins during the primary.

The Sanders campaign won primaries and caucuses in 22 states.

But Bernie spat in the face of his "revolution" by not energetically fighting efforts at black voter suppression, and not effectively contesting the votes in states like California and Arizona, as was his campaign's right by law.

Long after Hillary clinched the nomination with California, sheepdog Bernie continued to hold rallies and advocate for his "revolution", which not only served the interests of the Trump campaign, but very effectively delayed incensed Sanders supporters from migrating to third party tickets.

Green Party leader Jill Stein correctly remarked: "A revolution that goes back under Hillary Clinton's wing is not a revolution."

Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford described the debacle:

"Bernie Sanders did not lie to his followers; they deceived themselves, just as most of them – the ones that were old enough – had fooled themselves into believing that Barack Obama was a peace candidate and a political progressive back in 2008, although Obama's actual record and policy pronouncements showed him clearly to be a corporate imperialist warmonger – a political twin of his principal primary election opponent, Hillary Clinton and her philandering, huckster husband.

"Back then, phony leftists like Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden swore on their mothers' honor that Obama's campaign was really a people's movement, a prelude to revolution – as if the Democrats, a militarist corporate political party, could give birth to an anti-corporate, anti-militarist people's revolution.

"Real Fascist vs. Trump Cartoon Version

"Bernie Sanders threw around the word 'revolution' quite a bit. He was still using it in his surrender speech on Tuesday [July 12, 2016], assuring his flock that the revolution would continue as he marched arm in arm with the most dangerous person in the world, today – far more dangerous than Donald Trump [ ] Sanders' job is to shepherd his flock into a little leftwing corner of Hillary's Big Tent, right next to the latrine and alongside her loyal Black Democrats, who are so meek in the presence of power that they won't even complain about the smell."

https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie_endorses_greatest_evil

Bernie's own behavior during and after the "revolution" belies this prattle about CIA "derailment" of a "Sanders insurgency".

A guy who once urged once urged abolishing CIA, Bernie now can't get enough of fact-free claims by "intelligence agencies".

Bloviating with Wolf Blitzer in CNN's Situation Room on 10 May 2017, Bernie declared: "Our intelligence agencies all agree that [Russia] interfered significantly in the American election."

"This is an investigation that has to go forward," he said.

Bernie wasn't so keen on investigation when American votes were at stake during the "revolution" in 2016.

To summarize:

What better way for the CIA to thwart a "revolution" against "intelligence agencies" than to have the Dems front an "insurgent" sheepdog candidate who would not only throw the "fight" at critical moments, but turn around and praise the BS produced by the very "intelligence agencies" he previously sought to abolish.

Put that in your vape and smoke it, kids.

And why is it that all these "intelligence agencies" have nothing whatsoever to say about Israeli intelligence operatives and Israeli interference in the US electoral process?

Let's hear our vaunted veteran intelligence professionals 'splain' that.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:01

Again, Abe -- Keep bringing it while we still can.
Thanks for your courage and honesty.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:14

Outstanding comment, Abe! This is exactly who and what Bernie is and here he is doing it again. People who were upset with him doing that last time are once again getting ready to back his candidacy and when he betrays them again they will wonder why.

Bernie has signed on to the Russian interference nonsense and tells people that Vlad is controlling Trump and he also says that Madura must step down. He was asked after the election if Hillary had won it fair and square and he said yes knowing damn well that she rigged it against him.

As for the big elephant in the room no one ever talks about how Israel has congress in its pocket.

Maxwell Quest , June 18, 2019 at 23:03

Abe, thanks so much for ripping off Bernie's little revolutionary fig leaf and stomping it into the dirt. It really made my day.

EchoDelta , June 17, 2019 at 14:55

Garbage, embarrassing garbage and magical thinking from an Ahab with a fan club.

Address why Roger Stone is now claiming Russians did hack the DNC? And https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/05/15/cloud-computing-and-the-single-server/ splain this?

Otherwise admit you're a red hat brownshirt or profiteering like Alex Jones from gullible chuckleheads.

well oh boy , June 17, 2019 at 15:22

Emptywheel? Isn't this the same person who still thinks Russia elected Trump..? The one who revealed her source to the FBI? Doesn't seem like a journalist at all. What are her credentials?

certainquirk , June 17, 2019 at 15:28

Troll. Starve.

nwwoods , June 17, 2019 at 17:32

Indisputable fact:
Comey has committed purgery under oath
Clapper has commited purgery under oath
Brennan has commited purgery under oath
This is a matter of public record that is beyond dispute.
Your faith-based belief in the Russiagate conspiracy theory is entirely grounded in the baseless assertions of three confirmed liars who have provided precisely zero evidence in support of their claims.

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:34

That is a completely inappropriate comment. Stone's lawyers filed a discovery request for the documents. That is not the same thing as expecting to believe their contents.

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 18:58

This is a garbage comment. @EmptyWheel is just another blue-check pseudo-left journalist who outright promoted the idea that Trump is Putin's puppet before the Mueller Report revealed that to be untrue https://mobile.twitter.com/emptywheel/status/821348649108205569 . I don't know how much CN pays but I'm sure Ray isn't making the big bucks of conspiracy theorist Jones, let alone conspiracy theorists David Corn and Rachel Maddow.

Even the Democratic Party is focusing on propping up their neoliberal leader, Biden, and is not wishing to defend a failed theory exploited by the DNC as an excuse for why they failed to defeat Donald Trump. Their rigging of the primaries, detailed in the WikiLeaks documents, ensured a Trump victory which has seen massive ecological devistation, right-wing ghouls appointed to the Supreme Court, and multiple wars or war scares. I get that they want to hide their and Hillary's personal responsibility, and that the elite as a whole wants to cover up the failed system they have established, but we should be focused on the Sanders campaign and beating Trump in 2020, or grassroots work on saving the environment and helping organize working people.

I thought RussiaGate was false from the moment Hillary blamed Putin for the leaks this time three years ago. It's good to be vindicated, but I'm not really interested in the Trump-Barr counterinvestigation, either, I, like probably most other people, just want the whole thing to be over with.

But the fact that this fake narrative continues to be perpetuated makes me have second thoughts, sometimes.

Robbin Milne , June 17, 2019 at 19:37

Empty wheel Marcy wheeler isn't a credible source.

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

She forgot to keep her chastity belt on when she went to Mueller. Still not sure why.

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:39

No such claim dimwit.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:17

lol! You're quoting emptywheel? Oh boy she is so far out there on this Russian propaganda nonsense I don't recognize her from when she was sane back on daily kos. But then they have bought into too.

I think that you are the one who needs to wake up. Tell us what evidence Mueller or anyone has shown us that proves Russia did the deed? I'll wait

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 18:14

Actually, Echo Delta, according to a link Realist has provided on the thread of a later article, here at CN, Stone and his attorneys are insisting that the government must provide actual proof that Russia hacked the DNC, and the government is claiming, apparently, that it is not subject to any such burden as providing actual proof.

This will be very interesting to observe.

Either the rule of law demands actual proof, or the "rule" has become so very bent that it has broken and disappeared entirely, leaving behind merely an empty nothing that may be shaped, twisted, or sculpted into whatever "authority" may wish, to whatever ends power desires or insists upon.

Vera Gottlieb , June 17, 2019 at 14:28

Oh, enough of this already. Keep distracting people so as not to pay attention to more important matters. Enough!

jmg , June 17, 2019 at 17:07

Vera, "this" is what started the "Russia has attacked us!" hysteria, the new McCarthyist xenophobia, the new Cold War, the new arms race, the Doomsday Clock's current "two minutes to midnight" (first time since 1953), etc. So, if in fact Russia didn't attack, it has some importance.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:21

Ikr? And this when people have already stopped arguing about the Game of Thrones finale. Get your priorities straight, everybody talking about things corporate media isn't instructing you to!

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:33

Go away and be an obedient believer then.

jb , June 17, 2019 at 13:33

Has VIPS said anything about the possibility of a hack first, followed by a leak? (The Nation?)

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:23

Password was used to enter DCCC and then DNC. George Webbs theory. So that would put us somewhere in between a hack and leak?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFbCiVzbVYE&t=426s

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:30

In fact, VIPS had some evidence (since discredited as falsified) of a possible leak. They hyped it as "disproving" any hack. If you want nuanced analysis, don't go to VIPS.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:06

"YOU" say–without any backup to your assertion.
Nice.
New around here, aincha?
I wonder why

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:05

Some parties did make broad and sweeping assertions on evidence that really only related to Guccifer 2.0's releases and they probably should have been more cautious.

However, the underlying research (showing that Guccifer 2.0 moved files around via thumbdrive and then archived them almost 2 months later with Eastern timezone settings in effect) has not been discredited as falsified.

Someone did cook up a highly speculative conspiracy theory and a flawed technical theory to try to support the premise that there was a conspiracy and that files were tampered with but it didn't work out too well for them. (Forensicator debunked their primary conspiratorial claims within a month and just recently dismantled their timestamp tampering theory too.) :)

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:04

Tim Leonard (real name for Adam Carter): The "research" was gobbledygook.
– Even if someone believed every word of your "analysis", it still disregards many variables about how data is handle, and presumes that people used tools, methods and communication techniques no one actually uses in real life, making it stink to high heaven.
– And,of course, nothing can be realistically "proven" from a data file whose source cannot be verified.

And stop referring to yourself as "forensicator" in the third person. It's embarrassing.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:32

As my other response to your defamation here made clear. Forensicator and I are separate people and even a basic corpus analysis of our work outputs would make that clear.

Also, where have I (or Forensicator) "presumed that people used tools, methods and communication techniques no one actually uses in real life" specifically? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Eric32 , June 18, 2019 at 13:53

You're not very good at this.

The NSA probably has the greatest computer forensics capability in the world – Comey's FBI investigation never asked them to analyze these leaks?/hacks? by internet tracking and hard drive analysis.

No real investigation would depend on consultants paid by interested parties when it could do it itself or through the NSA.

As for hard drive forensic analysis, people who actually know about computer forensics say that the way to make hard disk data irretrievable is to PHYSICALLY destroy the HD plates. Drilling multiple holes through the HD including all the plates is what most of them do. "Cleaning"? No.

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:22

Actually A LOT of investigations rely heavily on computer security consultants and non-FBI security staff. It happen every day. Banks hand off forensic data collected by consultants all the time to the FBI. The word for it in court is "expert witness".

And while the only surefire way to destroy data is to destroy the HD, simply deleting and overwriting it would mangle the **** out of it, making it hard to determine what file the scraps of data are from, when they were written, and if they were ever executed. Basically making it useless to anyone wanting to build a case with it.

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 12:51

No, what you're saying does not hold up to analysis or common sense.
There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates figured it out early on.

No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation.

The Clinton / Democrat party story line was Russian hacking, Russian influenced President Trump, poor victim Hillary.

Private businesses often do leak/hack investigations through private consultants because they fear the (business) consequences of the investigative information becoming public or into criminal prosecution, just like the people controlling the Democrat party feared having the actual method of the email data showing Clinton corruption and Democrat party corruption becoming public was due to an internal leak, not an over the internet hack.

The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview for info – they had enormous leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came into Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows lot of what went on in the matter.

There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates figured it out early on. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:48

If it was a hack, or even a partial hack the NSA would have the forensics and the copies. Please explain why they have not released this information to anyone in authority.

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:20

Seth Rich

Lorri Strawser , June 17, 2019 at 13:18

If I hide someone who is being sought for murder, I will still be charged with harboring a fugitive, even if they later decide that the person Ic was hiding, didn't do it.
And instruction is Justice, is obstruction of Justice, no matter how the lawyers and politicians try to spin it.

LJ , June 17, 2019 at 19:22

Bill Walton, NBA Hall of Fame, sports announcer, dad and all that was once heard to utter on National Television, shortly after winning an NBA Title with the Portland Trailblazers, regarding possible guests of an A-Frame he owned out in the sticks somewhere (As I recall regarding SLA alums Jake and Emily Harris >), " I would never Co-operate with a Fascistic Organization like the CIA". Oh the Times they are a Changin' and have been for what 45 years now.

Pablo Diablo , June 17, 2019 at 11:45

All of this has been an effective distraction to WHAT was in those emails. Far worse than WHO hacked/leaked them.

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 12:34

So very true, Pablo. And distraction from the content – so well managed by the MSM – was the intent behind this whole lying farrago.

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:21

Amen!

Ruth , June 17, 2019 at 14:04

That is so true.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:16

Can't be said too often. And the media misdirection began immediately after the DNC docs were published, largely crowding out coverage of the substance from then until today. Among other things, this is why it's so wrong to even credit/blame Wikileaks for Trump's victory.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile took one for the team, but the big story of DNC dishonesty was relegated to the vast sea of true things that, as Harold Pinter put it, "never happened".

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:56

WHAT was in those emails was basically nothing. No coordination with Clinton, no orders or actions to deliberately sabotage Sanders. Just a handful of snarky comments by a few staffers.

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

No. DNC emails evidence crimes of money laundering and entering into agreements with state officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million

https://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/leaked-emails-prove-dnc-suppressed-voters-favor-clinton-rhode-island

http://linkis.com/wikileaks.org/dnc-em/zxSHn

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 6:30 PM To: CaucusGroup; Wilson, Erin; Wei, Shu-Yen; Miranda, Luis; Pratt Wiley; Jefferson, Deshundra Subject: Problem brewing in Rhode Island New report shows RI gov't opening only a fraction of polling locations: http://www.bustle.com/articles/156771-why-is-rhode-island-closing-its-primary-polls-voters-need-to-check-their-polling-locations Bernie leads Hillary by 4 in the latest poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/04/clinton-sanders-close-in-ctpari-trump-headed-for-big-wins.html If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They'll probably complain regardless, actually. We might want to get out in front of this one with an inquiry to the RI Gov, even though she's one of ours.

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 15:03

The DNC emails include evidence of crimes of money laundering and of entering into agreements with state officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million

http://linkis.com/wikileaks.org/dnc-em/zxSHn

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 06:55

John-

This comment, more than any other, exposes your goal to obfuscate the truth and further a propaganda narrative. They were not "basically nothing". They showed that Clinton holds "private" positions separate from her "public" positions, and is therefore a self-confessed liar. They showed that she used her position as SoS to get large donations from foreigners for the Clinton Foundation. They showed she was involved in cheating and given debate questions ahead of the actual debates. They showed coordination with the DNC to sabotage the Sanders campaign. They showed she had inside connections to quash the investigation into the use of her private server and mishandling of classified information as SoS. They showed her own staff was worried about her health and found her "often confused". I could go on. Here is a link with some of the more serious findings thanks to Wikileaks.

http://www.trueactivist.com/the-20-most-damning-revelations-from-wikileaks/2/

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:38

HEY JOHN .. HEY JOHN .. Crickets.

John , June 17, 2019 at 11:06

Did anyone here actually read Crowdstrike's publicly issued report? The traffic patterns, malware examples and code samples were MORE than enough to conclude Russia did the hacking.

I doubt Crowdstrike even MADE a "unredacted" report everyone here is asking for.

Some data may have been excluded, like sniffed usernames and passwords, but a good security company never publishes use4rnames and passwords of their clients.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 12:58

RE: your question, "Did anyone read Crowdstrike's report?" Ray McGovern read it and so did the rest of VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I read parts of it, but don't know anything about computer hacking, so I have to depend on what experts say about it. You say you've seen enough evidence, can you help me understand how you know that Crowdstrike did not plant that evidence? I'm skeptical. Doesn't it bother you that the FBI did not do their own investigation? Why not? It seems to me that it's like me telling the police, "My house was robbed, and I know the Russian guys who live next door did it" "My evidence? Well, I destroyed the actual evidence, but I do have this report from my own private security company and they are really reliable. The best people." I'm sure in that instance, you would not accept my word for it- how is this situation different? I don't understand how a private security firms report is evidence. Why weren't the servers examined by law enforcement, which the FBI admits would have been best? Why wasn't Assange interviewed? There was not a thorough investigation-why not? I still need more evidence to draw a conclusion-Can you answer my questions?

michael , June 17, 2019 at 13:43

Essentially the DNC destroyed any evidence of a crime. As Hillary herself has said "No evidence, no crime". As federal judge Zloch noted, the DNC is not a government agency, it is not a public company, it is essentially like a yacht club or country club (that can do whatever it wants as far as backstabbing members and determining candidates). It follows that any crime against such a club is inconsequential, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have been all over it. Since it was trivial, why bother?
And Crowdstrike may not have had the skills to mimic Russian hacking, they sound like total incompetents (perfect for muddying the water).
But New Knowledge, which was reported by the New York Times to have interfered in the Alabama Senate Election by pretending to be Russian hackers, DID have the skills, as well as having former NSA employees familiar with Vault 7 tools. They're likely Guccifer 2.o and possibly the "only Russians" involved.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 14:08

Thank you. I'll google more about "New Knowledge" and Alabama Senate Election.

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 14:37

Notice how John ignores questions he has no answer for. Typical acute TDS. Also examine who Crowdstrike is and ask yourself how they could ever be trusted.

John , June 17, 2019 at 14:12

I am exactly ZERO surprised the servers were not sent to the FBI.
– In 25 years of IT security and many virus/hack cleanups, I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen servers shipped to the FBI for investigation.
– IN ALL CASES the hacked equipment was cleaned and reused. Even at Microsoft. THIS IS THE NORM.

I can't imaging the DNC shutting down all their systems, spending piles of money on new duplicate hardware, and terminating all campaign operations for a week while they recover on new hardware, weeks before a Presidential election.
– Especially since the systems were ALREADY CLEANED, and there was essentially nothing new for the FBI to learn from them.

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 17:11

LOL. From the FBI's site:

Computer Forensic Science

Computer forensic science was created to address the specific and articulated needs of law enforcement to make the most of this new form of electronic evidence. Computer forensic science is the science of acquiring, preserving, retrieving, and presenting data that has been processed electronically and stored on computer media. As a forensic discipline, nothing since DNA technology has had such a large potential effect on specific types of investigations and prosecutions as computer forensic science.

Computer forensic science is, at its core, different from most traditional forensic disciplines. The computer material that is examined and the techniques available to the examiner are products of a market-driven private sector. Furthermore, in contrast to traditional forensic analyses, there commonly is a requirement to perform computer examinations at virtually any physical location, not only in a controlled laboratory setting. Rather than producing interpretative conclusions, as in many forensic disciplines, computer forensic science produces direct information and data that may have significance in a case. This type of direct data collection has wide-ranging implications for both the relationship between the investigator and the forensic scientist and the work product of the forensic computer examination

Piotr Berman , June 17, 2019 at 17:23

If the virus/hack cleanups you have witnessed lead to indictments. then I imagine it would be imperative to establish a custody chain for evidence. As a semi-layman, I imagine that it would suffice if FBI made copies of the content of the storage, confirmed that it has "hack signature" described by the private experts and made their own determination if this signature does constitute a proof. However, tracing a hacker is usually pointless and fruitless, so the systems are cleaned and that is that. NEVERTHELESS, Mueller made indictments based on the evidence that had no chain of custody but rather was "hearsay".

At least some elements of the "signature" were very suspicious to me. For example, using name Felix which is not a Russian name, but which belongs to Feliks Dzier?y?ski, a Pole who was the first head of a Soviet internal security and who died in 1926. Far a young Russian hacker it would be somewhat improbable, but to a foreigner who knows very few facts about Russia, Felix is easy to remember. Same with Bear. It was totally a trademark how a Western foreigner images Russians to behave. Same with switching from Latin to Cyrillic keyboard mode in the middle of coding to type a single Russian word.

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 19:00

Hell, Felix's name is probably known among many hardcore Sanders supporters as a key Soviet socialist figure. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

John , June 17, 2019 at 23:01

Crowdstrike's technology for tracking hackers is impressive.
– They can follow every single command and data flow between hackers' command systems and the hacking victim's systems and security log it with timestamps in audited and access-controlled systems.
– Those logs follow chain-of-custody rules, and constitute some of the most powerful evidence a hacking victim can bring to court. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:57

Those may be reasons the DNC wouldn't have wanted to give their hardware to the FBI, but they aren't reasons for the FBI not to have sought a court order and seized it.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:21

So, if the FBI had crippled the DNC a few weeks before the election by seizing all the computers running their email systems, calendars, contacts, planning and legal documents, group schedules and coordination plans with state and local party workers, you would have happier? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Will , June 17, 2019 at 20:47

stop making sense John.

Andy W , June 17, 2019 at 21:10

You're missing the point, John. This has been portrayed as "an act of war against the United States of America" on par with the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The normal procedures for virus/hack cleanups don't apply because this isn't a normal event.

This isn't about some clown planting malware to mine bitcoins. This is supposed to be a dire threat to our national security, and it calls for a different response.

This isn't about normal IT work like removing malware and patching vulnerabilities so everybody can get back to work. This is about attribution and accurately identifying the hackers -- and since a nuclear superpower is the suspected culprit it's especially important that we get this right.

The investigation should have been led by the FBI, not by CrowdStrike. The FBI should have been the one sharing images of the DNC's servers with CrowdStrike, not the other way around. The FBI should have been the one sharing it's redacted findings with CrowdStrike, not the other way around.

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:40

Wrong – the behaviour of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and the FBI was completely about "normal IT work" for several quite a while.

It was not until WEEKS later, when Wikileaks began publishing internal DNC documents the day before the Convention that this became an issue.

HINDSITE IS 20/20. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:49

On April 11, 2019, NPR,
Nation Public Radio, carried story about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange by David Welna.

"12 Years of Disruption:
A WikiLeaks Timeline".

I am curious about your perspective about Jillian Assange, primarily because you said this.

"It was not until WEEKS later, when WikiLeaks began publishing internal DNC documents the day before the convention that this became an issue."

Would "this" be what you consider to be "normal IT work", John?

Essentially that any rigorous examination of the claim of "Russian hacking", BY the FBI, would have hindered what might be termed, based on your assertion, "business as usual"?

Especially, if the computers were to be considered evidence, as that, if I understand your grave concern, would have cost Crowdstrike too much time and money and would have harmed Hillary and the DNC, is that the gist of it?

Frankly, that seems quite akin to notion of "too big", too important, to be treated to an actual rule of law, reminiscent of "too big to fail, too big to jail".

Of course, as soon as the claim was made, not by WikiLeaks, but by politicians, that Russia had "hacked" those computers, some later even called the alleged "hack" an "act of war", then, at the moment of the assertion, the comfortable (and convenient) "normal IT work" perspective has, and had, no validity.

Under a functioning rule of law, a chain of evidence, not hearsay, is required.

Unless we accept either an empty form of law or a multi-tiered legal system, both of which make mock of rule of law, then evidence, genuine and actual, must take precedence over comfort, convenience, or convention.

The lack of substantive evidence regarding the "hack" is quite as destructive to the whole Russia did it BS as is the use of the Steele Dossier to establish "collusion".

For both taint the two cases, long held to be so related as to be conjoined.

The lack of evidence of hacking, cannot be made something by mere assertion, and the Dossier is evidence of what is known as a "poison tree" and all things growing from are known as "fruits of the poison tree.

So, John, my question for you is this.

Should Jullian Assange be locked up, not merely for offending official authority, but also for causing so much embarrassment for "normal IT work"? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:51

The comment above is addressed to, John. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Andy W , June 18, 2019 at 17:32

@John – No hindsight was needed. The DNC should have brought in the FBI the second they realized their internal files and communications had been compromised regardless of who did it or why. The theft of this data is the digital equivalent of Watergate, and the Democrats should have turned the matter over to the FBI to figure out who was responsible, not to some private IT company that they paid for themselves.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if internal documents from the Trump Organization had shown-up on Wikileaks. Suppose Donald Trump said the Democrats stole the documents and used that accusation to justify punitive measures against them. Then suppose Trump wiped his servers so the only evidence anyone had to go on was what a private cyber security company that he was paying provided. And suppose the co-founder of Trump's private cyber security company also happened to be a senior member of the Heritage Foundation. Would any of that arouse your suspicion, because that's basically what we're looking at here.

CrowdStrike's co-founder is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which has a long standing animus towards Russia. CrowdStrike's findings are being used to justify sanctions and other punitive measures against Russia and nobody can independently corroborate CrowdStrike's findings because the servers have been wiped.

The Democratic party is a political organization with a political agenda, and so is the Atlantic Council. You can't just take them or their surrogates at their word. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:41

If you clean and reuse, you lose the license to make statements and allegations based on what you just bleachbitted.
Nice try to shift focus.
You're a believer and are out of line here on VIPS.
You're not even a competent IT professional, with your 'clean' and 'reuse'-mantra.

John , June 18, 2019 at 10:59

Actually, just telling you what I see. Nobody spends the money to buy new hardware after a hack attack.
– To my knowledge, only a handful of multi-billion dollar banks and defense contractors have ever preserved hardware after an attack, and only in exceptionally rare cases.
– Even when I have recommended full rebuild on new hardware, I was overridden by the customer or management.

Seeing something nefarious in the DNC having acted just like any other organization of its size in a similar situation is a sign you don't understand the subject. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

LJ , June 18, 2019 at 15:53

Oh brother? Are you a clown? Don't be silly. That is a leap of faith when Bill and Hillary were meeting publicly on a plane on a tarmac with Attorney General Lynch after an investigation was in progress. The reason there was an immediate investigation going on and Comey was compelled to intervene and whitewash the situation was to try and save the validity of the electoral process , the credibity of the Department of Justice and the credibility and objectivity of investigations by the FBI. And just what of the precedence of using an absurd and obviously phony and unverifiable dossier attributed to a BRIT Clown from MI6, hired by the Clinton Campaign, to secure a FISA warrant to investigate and hopefully discredit the campaign of the presumptive, no the actual nominee of the opposition party? Let's just forget all that. Your point is ridiculous and your experience is of no value in the real world that we all witnessed in real time. No doubt, the people and corporations that paid for your services and expertise knew what they were getting when they hired you and I have no doubt you did a bang up job. Keep it in your own lane. It's safe there. We don't want none of that Seth Rich business unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

Deniz , June 18, 2019 at 19:19

My guess is that John is here to protect the value of his stock options. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 18:43

Bravo, Ruth. (I got a good chuckle from your straight-ahead, quite civil rebuke of what *John* posits.)
Now will he respond at all, let alone without deflection and/or obfuscation?
Yer move, Johnny

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:51

I am fairly confident Crowdstrike did NOT falsify claims or evidence based on a combination of the following reasons:
– Their reports, analysis and conclusions were made public, and were reviewed by several competing security firms. No firm with experience in IT forensics disagreed.
– Their report on tools and files found, infection and control methods and pwershell coding were technically viable and reasonable for a hacking attack. No "Where did they get this" moments you find in flimsier analyses.
– The reports were fat with background and supporting info to read as a "evidence leads to conclusions" report instead "conclusions lead to evidence" reports which tend to be fat with conclusions and skimpy on background info.
– There have been no murmurs or leaks of "they faked this" from inside Crowdstrike. All the "faking" claims are coming from people far outside the company with no security expertise.
– IT Security people tend to be pretty libertarian, so I doubt Crowdstrike could have actually "faked" anything without generating a mini-revolt by the people involved.
– Crowdstrike has MASSIVE incentives to deal honestly in the IT Security field. They do criminal and fraud investigation work for banks, and anything that risks that would be very stupid. (Note: motive evidence tends to be weak, but I included it anyway.)

Now if someone can present evidence that DID fake it, beyond association or speculation about motive, I'm willing to listen.

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:08

Traffic patterns as in how Wikileaks has already shown the CIA can create false trails?

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:48

The CIA's ability to "create false trails" maybe somewhat interesting in itself, but I would urge caution in drawing a connection, even just a speculative one, between this capability and the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of some of the files released by Guccifer 2.0. As far as I can see, the two situations are completely different. This is a point on which I disagree with Ray McGovern, insofar as his repeated emphasis on the point has the effect of misleading many into looking in a direction which is very unlikely to be related to the actual solution of the Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" issue. Most of the rest of his excellent article I agree with.

The CIA clearly has computer hacking capabilities. And one of the tools in its Marble Framework toolbox is software specifically engineered to _disguise its own hacking activities_ by leaving accompanying "clues" in several foreign languages (namely, ones spoken in so-considered adversary states).

With the G-2 materials, are we then possibly presented with something that was actually hacked by the CIA, the said hack having been disguised as the work of Russia by means of "Russian fingerprints" added by means of the automated software program revealed in Vault 7?

I cannot see how this could be so, given that I don't believe that the G-2 materials were obtained by means of a remote hack (even though Guccifer 2.0 did _claim_ to be a "lone hacker" and to have obtained his materials by that means). And if the G-2 materials were not obtained by a hack at all, then ipso facto they were not obtained by a CIA hack. Furthermore, although I am not an expert, it seems to me that researchers like Adam Carter have analyzed the series of steps that were actually taken to produce the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of the documents that G-2 released, and produced a plausible account of how this was done. This account does not include anything that relates to Vault 7 software. In my opinion, Ray McGovern would do well to direct people toward Adam Carter's work instead of misdirecting them toward Vault 7.

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:12

Are you aware that Bruce Leidl has claimed in the last few days to have discovered clear evidence that the malware samples CrowdStrike produced were fraudulently recycled from an earlier hack of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

He wrote on Twitter, June 12: "There was no APT29 hack of the DNC at all. I know this because crowdstrike produced fraudulent malware samples, you know, like they always do."

"The seaduke samples are recycled from the joint chiefs incident. I (and others) know bc they dun goofed stripping the relevant metadata."

And (June 12): "I'll be deleting this tweet and the prior one soon due to suspected lurks on my TL. It's too late in the game for me to sock up."

"The samples were compiled (by cozybear) on 7/30/15 and 8/4/15"

"JCS email hack was 7/25/15 – 8/6/15"

"Not much room for plausible deniability there."

There followed some exchanges with Stephen McIntyre and Larry Beech, which may be of interest to people with technical backgrounds.

There are many other public reasons to suspect that something is amiss in the official version of the timeline, notably the highly implausible claim that WikiLeaks only received the supposedly hacked emails from Guccifer 2.0 during July 14 -18, 2016, leaving far too little time for WikiLeaks to review them for authenticity and publication value before they actually did release them on July 22, and after Julian Assange had already announced more than a month earlier that WikiLeaks already at that time possessed "leaks" related to Hillary Clinton, in the form of "emails" which it planned to publish.

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 18:45

For those who are technically proficient, this essay by Adam Carter provides evidence that 2/3 of the "Fancy Bear (APT28)" malware which Crowdstrike claimed had been implanted in the DNC in spring of 2016 had in fact been compiled AFTER the date on which Crowdstrike was brought into the DNC servers in early May 2016. In other words, this suggests that Crowdstrike may have created this supposed hack.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/12/fancy-frauds-bogus-bears-malware-mimicry/

Crowdstrike's claims also appear absurd in light of the fact that the latest DNC email published by Wikileaks was written on April 25 – three weeks AFTER Crowdstrike installed its Falcon anti-hacking program on the DNC computers.

I reason as follows: Adam Carter, Forensicator, and VIPS have provided a range of compelling evidence that, far from being a GRU hacker, Guccifer 2.0 was a construct, operating within US time zones and most likely controlled by Crowdstrike, intended to falsely incriminate Russian hackers as the source of the DNC emails subsequently released by Wikileaks.

http://g-2.space/

As Norumbega indicates, Mueller's tale of how G2.0 allegedly transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks is absurd on its face.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/mueller%E2%80%99s-new-indictment%E2%80%8A%E2%80%94%E2%80%8Ado-feds-take-us-idiots

But there is a conundrum – Assange stated on June 12 that Wikileaks would soon be releasing "material related to Hillary" . But he did not indicate that this material was DNC emails (indeed, many may have thought he was referring to Hillary's erased SOS private server emails). It is clear that, when Crowdstrike and G2.0 made claims in the next 2-3 days that the DNC server had been hacked and that G2.0 had provided the hacked emails to Wikileaks (note the inconsistency with Mueller's claims!), that they had GUESSED that Assange had been referring to DNC emails. I propose that this was a very educated guess, and that our intelligence agencies had tipped the DNC off to the fact that someone at the DNC was proposing to send leaked emails to Wikileaks. This indeed seems likely if Sy Hersh's informant inside the FBI is correct, and Seth Rich had offered sample emails to Wikileaks, asking for payment for a subsequent large trove. It's reasonable to suspect that the NSA had been attempting to capture all communications to and from Wikileaks, and thus could have intercepted this communication. They could then have informed the DNC that someone on their staff was planning to leak to Wikileaks. That's when Crowdstrike was brought in, and the strategem hatched to fake a GRU hack and attribute the subsequent Wikileaks release to the Russian state.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/how-did-crowdstrikeguccifer-20-know-wikileaks-was-planning-release-dnc-emails

This scenario makes sense only if the DNC was not initially informed that Seth Rich was the source of the impending leak, presumably because he had not been legally unmasked at the time. Otherwise, Seth would have been summarily fired.

The creators of the G2.0 farce were betting Hillary's campaign on it. Which means that the real source of the leak would have to be silenced to prevent unmasking of their hoax. If the perpetrators of the hoax subsequently learned that Seth was the source, eliminating him would have been a high priority.

If someone has an alternative explanation of these facts, of equal or greater plausibility, I would be pleased to read it.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 08:06

Norumbega and Mark-

Thank you for your comments. I have seen this "John" around here before, and he always tries to make the case for Crowdstrike. I also notice that whenever there is something he can't account for he goes silent, or just goes back to regurgitating the same garbage.

One of the underlying themes of RussiaGate is that those evil Ruskies made Trump president, and that he is somehow beholden to them. This is an obvious psy-op with the purpose of distracting from the CONTENTS of the emails, which are mind blowing for their exposure of the shameless duplicity of the Hillary campaign and the DNC. And of course the secondary purpose is to prevent Trump from seeking detente with Russia. In my opinion, even if the Russians were the source, we'd owe them a big THANK YOU.

I believe in freedom of speech, and I think I should be free to speak my mind to anyone on any subject. I also believe that even the Russians have the same right. There is no way that freedom of speech can subvert democracy. In fact, it is essential.

The MSM's job is to control the narrative, and the internet is giving them fits. Sites like CN are a big thorn in their side. Thanks for being part of it. Your comments are invaluable.

Mark F. McCarty , June 18, 2019 at 11:21

Many thanks Skip. You make a point that I've also raised.

As you can imagine, I've quite a number of times been labeled a "Putin puppet" or "Russian troll" while trying to shed some light on the Russiagate hoax on social media. My response is that, if in fact I were in thrall to "the Russians", then I would be eager to give them CREDIT for doing the job that our MSM failed to do, revealing the crass bias of the DNC against Bernie. But I only give credit where credit is due! I suspect our thanks are due to poor Seth Rich.

As to all the "progressives" who are so enraged about the DNC/Podesta Wikileaks releases, may they rot in Hell. The REAL reason that Trump was elected was not the journalism of Wikileaks – revealing TRUTH that the public was entitled to – but to the DNC's efforts to ram Hillary – the most blood-drenched woman in history, a mega-grifter lacking in any intellectual integrity whatever, reviled by a high proportion of the American public – down the throats of the Democratic Party and the American people <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 21:46

These are interesting speculations, worth thinking about.

Two quick thoughts:

Bruce Leidl and Larry Beech are working on the hypothesis that the people behind G-2 didn't actually know (or have) what was in WikiLeaks' possession, until just prior to July 14, when the FBI reported results of its examination of SR's computer.

About possible NSA involvement and possible use of "masked" records. I would consider what we are now hearing regarding NSA database abuses by private FBI contractors, and their use in "unmaskings" of US citizens. I have even read one claim that CrowdStrike was among those private FBI contractors. The names are redacted in Judge Rosemary Collyer's April 26, 2017 FISA court opinion.

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:47

I think this is a very important point, and explains motive for SR's murder, and for the timing of the creation of the G-2 propaganda ploy. If Barr really does pursue all possible leads, I think it will end up tying into SR's murder. However, I've seen this type of play before, and I expect more theater and very little truth from Barr. I pray I'm wrong. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:48

The first shift to using attachments that were later found in WikiLeaks' DNC emails observed in Guccifer 2.0's releases came at the very end of June 2016.

A few days later (July 6, 2016) he published a batch that was entirely DNC email attachments (including a document that revealed it had been edited using LibreOffice 6 by someone with Eastern timezone settings in effect). ;)

Source attribution and leak attachment correlation information is available at: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs/ <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

There were a bunch of out-of-context IOCs produced by CrowdStrike and when researching the malware samples, we learned most of the APT28 malware was compiled while CrowdStrike were installing Falcon at the DNC.

Putting questions that raises aside, the existence of the Marble framework shows us that relying on code and malware samples for attribution alone isn't entirely reliable.

More significant than all the above, though, is that we saw no incident specific evidence (evidence relating to email exfiltration events) or even had confirmation of the dates on which exfiltration of the DNC's emails occurred and these are things that CS, with Falcon installed across the network, should have recorded and been able to accurately report on.

The report lacked critical information regarding events and any observed/recorded malware activity (not much beyond identifying presence/discovery and what the malware was theoretically capable of).

Brian James , June 17, 2019 at 10:49

May 26, 2019 Trump Scares Swamp with Declassification Move

Ohr-Fusion GPS caught deleting emails; and yet ANOTHER Clinton email cover-up .Latest Judicial Watch Update

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/trump-scares-swamp-with-declassification-move-ohr-fusion-gps-caught-deleting-emails-and-yet-another-clinton-email-cover-up-latest-judicial-watch-update/

Jeff Harrison , June 17, 2019 at 10:12

So much for the so-called "rule of law". The government has been playing Calvinball for some time now. Making up the rules as they went to make sure that they win and you lose.

dag , June 17, 2019 at 09:45

Regardless what people might think about Russia, Vladimir Putin, WikiLeaks, Donald Trump, Roger Stone or anyone else, it should be a major cause of concern that the FBI's "investigation" relied completely on the incomplete findings of a private tech company contracted by the DNC.

Had anyone even heard of CrowdStrike before Election 2016? It's absurd that some unknown IT company would be trusted to do forensic analysis of an alleged crime of any sort, much less one that has been described as an "act of war" by a "foreign adversary" and has sent the US political system into a perpetual state of crisis.

James Comey testified that "best practices" would have dictated that the FBI actually physically access the computers. That's the understatement of the century. In fact I would call it gross misconduct and malpractice for the FBI to outsource this responsibility to a private contractor paid for by the DNC. It calls the entire premise of Russiagate into question and anyone who can't see that is being willfully obtuse.

Thanks Ray McGovern for this report and keeping this fundamental issue in the spotlight.

worldblee , June 17, 2019 at 13:22

Like Bellingcat, the genius of CrowdStrike is that they can instantly confirm the results their paymasters have requested. It's so much more efficient than, you know, actually investigating evidence and following the information to an unbiased conclusion.

Noncomunist American Patriot , June 17, 2019 at 13:28

That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with Putin's wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton, as well as the fact that Trumps campaign welcomed the help and had more secretive encounters with Russian agents than all other campaigns combined.
I remember when the Republicans DIDN'T like Russian meddling, and deeply distrusted Russian intentions. Yet less than a year after Russia HELPED Trump get elected – president Trump announces his great new epiphany to put Russia incharge of American cyber security?
Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand them all of our greatest Intel!
Vote Trump/Putin for 2020!!

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:11

You call yourself a noncomunist. What is a comunist?

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 15:52

I think he/she cannot spell. But he/she clearly is Russophobic as well as being ahistorical, not seeming to be aware that Russia is no longer communist, no longer the USSR. But in that he/she hardly differs from the rest of the neo-liberal, Demrat/Republirat crowd.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 15:01

I don't see Russia as "our greatest enemy" and this Russia hysteria is a kind of resurgence of neo-McCarthyism. I think "Russian meddling" was a very minor issue compared to problems that exist within our own system. I'm more worried about voter suppression via "Cross Check", gerrymandering, etc. I'm more worried about campaign financing, and the fact that our elections are controlled by two political parties that apparently are under no obligation to hold fair and open primary elections. I think the Russian threat has been exaggerated and it distracts us from other issues with our election process. I couldn't find anything when I googled "Trump puts Russia in charge of American cyber security" Can you tell me more about this?

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:14

Absolutely, Ruth the Truth. And that's even assuming that Russia did meddle (Russia, of course, seeming to "mean" the Kremlin always).

Yes, voter suppression, especially in the usual southern states is appallingly undemocratic (even assuming that what exists in the western world is, in fact democracy, which is questionable); gerrymandering, too.

And the corporate-capitalists together with two other nations, well, three, in fact: SA, IS and the UK, have far too much sway, one way or another the former two via money the latter via the cozy relationship between the secret services in our politics (and those of other nations).

The money should be stripped away – no lobbying, no donations, none of that. Simply a certain and small sum of money per candidate from the taxes and an electioneering period that is short. And candidates picked by the people, *not* by the party insiders.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 21:12

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-grand-illusion-of-imperial-power/ <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:04

Your proof that the "IRA" interfered with the election in the Strumpet's favor?

Clearly you would seem to think that dearest Killary would have won but for the Russians – never mind that she ignored the three crucial swing states that determined the Electoral College outcome which in its turn decided which candidate won. The problem lies in both Killary's court and in the existence of the Electoral College – a deliberate stumbling block, erected by those much fawned over FFs to ensure that the great bewildered herd would *not* be the ones to decide, ultimately, who won the presidency.

Your proof that Russia is "our greatest enemy"?

Oh – they're Russian and they won't allow us, god's gift to humanity, to plunder and pillage their natural resources for our benefit not theirs. They want a multi-polar world in which every nation state is sovereign and not at under the hegemonic boot of the Anglo-Americans. Of course, they're our enemy, silly me for thinking that they have sensible people in their government and we have bloodthirsty, hypocritical psychopaths who are all linked arm in arm with the corporate-capitalist elites in ours.

And – talking about interfering in our election??? The sheer hypocrisy of menacing Russia over something that this country has done on a regular basis to other nations is, well, bloody mind-blowing.

Paul Merrell , June 17, 2019 at 17:54

@ "That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with Putin's wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton "

Why so? Robert Mueller has a huge credibility problem and particularly so in his Internet Research Agency ("IRA") indictment, from the day of its announcement. See e.g., https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/mueller-indictement-the-russian-influence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html

It was downhill from there. Mueller apparently assumed he would never have to prove his case since the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia and the indictment charged only 13 Russians and 3 Russian corporations. But surprise for him! One of the Russian corporations (Concord Management and Consulting ("Concord") showed up in court and asked to plead not guilty. Mueller immediately began backspinning, arguing that the court could not accept the plea because Concord had not been served with the indictment. The Court had no difficulty shutting down that spurious argument, properly ruling that it could attain jurisdiction over the defendant by accepting its not guilty plea.

Then Mueller began trying to avoid providing mandatory discovery allegedly because of an alleged threat to national security and because counsel for Concord might show the documents to other defendants who had not been served (more likely because he could not prove his case). That effort to deny discovery is still continuing. See e.g., government's June 12 motion. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.24.0.pdf

Then it turned out that another of the charged corporations did not even exist. Mueller had indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.

No one yet knows how that case will turn out, but I would certainly not bet that Mueller got it right, particularly in a case he never thought he would have to prosecute.

@ "Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand them all of our greatest Intel!"

Has it ever occurred to you that Russia is only our "greatest enemy" because our government has made it so? The fact that the Democratic Party has teamed with the Deep State and military/industrial complex in a glaringly obvious propaganda campaign against Russia counsels restraint and suspicion in regarding Russia as an enemy, unless, of course, you're an unwitting target of the propaganda.

Or didn't you get the memo from Mueller about no collusion with the Russians?

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:30

Not to mention that those charged Russians showed up in court to the surprise of Mueller.

Matt , June 17, 2019 at 23:40

Yes, the IRA agency ran the Face Book Ads that did encourage Democrats to "stay home." But this is not an election "hack," it is a very successful influence campaign. I find it incredulous that Mueller failed to follow the money to the most obvious entity that purchased the services of IRA in the first place- maybe the guy that bought the firm that created the FB targeting algorithm . used to select very specifically the right voters in the right states?

Cambridge Analytica Bannon Mercer

It might be uncomfortable to admit that American Oligarchs and their henchmen exerted the lions share of election "influence."

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

Indeed! When will the free peoples be rid of Putin and the plague of cute puppy pictures he loosed on the poor, helpless U.S.?

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/04/the-mystery-of-the-russia-gate-puppies/

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:49

In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't exactly the place for dimwits.

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 19:50

So much of Comey's schtick is predicated on his Boy Scout image that he has cultivated in his many years as an insider Beltway creature and the same goes for Mueller. At least insofar as Mueller can pull off the choirboy effect with his own physical countenance.
As both are former Fibbie Directors (and significantly, buddies,) just think of what kind of dirt they likely hold over so many D.C. pols in their toolkits. J. Edgar Hoover showed the way for his successors and in incestuous D.C. its top sharks always win. Between them they likely have a threatening wherewithal that many careerists in Foggy Bottom fear. And in that incestuous temple we have Comey's brother employed as an attorney with the firm that's keeping financial score for Clinton Inc -- a "charitable" swamp of its own that has broken virtually every rule on what constitutes a legal U.S. non-profit.

It is patently absurd that an FBI Director would allow an outside entity to substitute for the Bureau's criminal investigation authority and its unparalleled means to attain "honest" and complete answers. If it were indeed 'justice' being sought.
Comey's time at the ultra-crooked HSBC bank must have yielded an interesting harvest of favors owed as well, let alone his $ six million dollar salary for his one year working for Lockheed-Martin.

Both of these guys are cover-up artists, 'fixers' frequently in demand, and for good reason, so the powerful can continue their systematic, multi-generational pillage of not only the U.S., but the world as well.
I think this is one of the largest scandals ever in the history of the United States, along with the Kennedy brothers' assassinations, and that of Martin Luther King. The knaves of both parties with their asses hanging out are going all-out to keep the lid on it. Because what's at stake here is the sanctity of the Empire's Matrix of Woo. Our perception of "exceptionalism" and all that rah-rah jazz. For if the believers that glue this country together get wind of the magnitude of its interior rot and far-advanced decline
A lot of people are doing anything and everything (inventing and exacerbating, inviting and callously so) even potential nuclear destruction in a craven attempt to salvage their dubious-already reputations and their place in their lifespan's pecking order. It's screw us and screw the country; and while they're at it: screw the world too.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

https://digwithin.net/2018/04/08/muellers-history/

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 09:18

Also take a look at:

"And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: 'This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party .. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor'."

And:

"Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-16/us-governments-entire-russia-dnc-hacking-narrative-based-redacted-draft-crowdstrike

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 09:01

I am trying to figure out how Julian Assange could prove that it was not Russia without revealing Wikileaks' source for the DNC emails. It is simple enough to prove that it was a leak instead of a hack, but how do you prove the person wasn't a Russian agent without disclosing their identity?

If they could prove that Guccifer 2's stuff was an intelligence agency "vault 7" ploy, it would lend a lot of credibility to the real leak being a disgruntled DNC employee, probably Seth Rich.

Ron , June 17, 2019 at 10:33

Silly. It was Seth Rich who leaked -- the LATE Seth Rich, killed as he recovered from Clinton/Podesta's assassin in an ICU unit that was invaded by a suspicious SWAT team. Craig Murray has broadly hinted so; so has Kim Dotcom.

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 11:44

I am not saying that I believe it was a Russian spy, I am asking how anyone would prove it without divulging the actual leaker, which Wikileaks has claimed they will never do. How do you prove a negative?

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:39

Skip: Julian Assange could provide evidence that WikiLeaks possessed the DNC emails it published already early June 2016, i.e. by the time he announced that WikiLeaks would soon be publishing leaked emails related to Hillary Clinton.

He could provide internal WikiLeaks communications documenting that work was being done to review these materials for publication between early June and the July 22 release (and specifically prior to their alleged transfer by G-2 on July 14).

These could be done even if the lawyers for Seth's brother Aaron Rich refuse to release Assange from confidentiality obligations, as requested by Ed Butowski's attorney Ty Clevenger.

And, yes, exposure of the persons behind G-2 would certainly help, though I doubt WL will be the one to do that. But people need to stop thinking of "Vault 7 ploys" in this connection, and look instead at the actual work on G-2. My reasons are elaborated in a previous response to John A, above.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:52

I understand that revealing the timing would undercut the G2 story, but without identifying the source how could they prove that the leaker wasn't a Russian spy who infiltrated the DNC staff? I haven't heard them try to sell that one yet, but they might try it when the G2 story and the hacking story falls apart.

Norumbega , June 19, 2019 at 07:22

Comey has already testified that they "think" the "Russians" used a "cut-out". The Mueller report admits in passing that emails (in that context the Podesta emails or the second batch of DNC emails) may have been passed to WikiLeaks by an intermediary in the late summer of 2016. So some, at least may be contemplating such an allegation as a way out. Nevertheless, further information that underlined the falsity of the official timeline would be significant, I think.

Sally Snyder , June 17, 2019 at 07:44

As shown in this article, the entire anti-Russia narrative was built on a lie:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/washingtons-duplicitous-approach-to.html

Here are, however, serious repercussions that are a result of this lie; the unintended consequence of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to minimize the impact of Washington's sanctions.

[Jun 18, 2019] Crowdstrike Never Produced Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking by Ray McGovern

Jun 18, 2019
Notable quotes:
"... In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government. ..."
"... In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense." ..."
"... Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired." Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC. ..."
"... Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief – clues an amateur might leave. ..."
"... But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten . ..."
"... VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company. ..."
"... More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics: ..."
"... On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example. ..."
"... The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | original.antiwar.com

The revelation came in a court filing by the government in the pretrial phase of Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative who had an unofficial role in the campaign of candidate Donald Trump. Stone has been charged with misleading Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a witness.

The filing was in response to a motion by Stone's lawyers asking for "unredacted reports" from CrowdStrike in an effort to get the government to prove that Russia hacked the DNC server. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," the filing says.

In his motion, Stone's lawyers said he had only been given three redacted drafts. In a startling footnote in the government's response, the DOJ admits the drafts are all that exist. "Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked 'draft,' counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced," the footnote says.

In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government.

These drafts were "voluntarily" given to the FBI by DNC lawyers, the filing says. "No redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors," the filing quotes DNC lawyers as saying.

In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense."

The DOJ responded: "The government does not need to prove at the defendant's trial that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant made false statements, tampered with a witness, and obstructed justice into a congressional investigation regarding election interference."

Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016 revealing that the DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination. The U.S. indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents in 2018 for allegedly hacking the DNC server and giving the emails to WikiLeaks.

Comey Can't Say Why

At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain and others were calling Russian "hacking" an "act of war," the FBI settled for three redacted "draft reports" from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court document shows.

Then FBI Director James Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he chose not to take control of the DNC's "hacked" computers, and did not dispatch FBI computer experts to inspect them, but has had trouble explaining why.

In his testimony, he conceded that "best practices" would have dictated that forensic experts gain physical access to the computers. Nevertheless, the FBI decided to rely on forensics performed by a firm being paid for by the DNC.

Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired." Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC.

Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief – clues an amateur might leave.

But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten .

CrowdStrike's Early Role

In a Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity referred prominently to this instructive time sequence:

VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed an affidavit in Stone's case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive."

Preferring CrowdStrike; ' Splaining to Congress

Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.

Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.

Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:

BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics:

HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on – getting on WikiLeaks.

COMEY: Yes, sir.

HURD: when did the DNC provide access for – to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.

HURD: So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on WikiLeaks and when – you have still been – never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were – that were hacked by the Russians.

COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this – my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

Comey Spikes Deal With Assange

Director Comey's March 20, 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee came at the same time he was scuttling months-long negotiations between Assange and lawyers representing the DOJ and CIA to grant some limited immunity for the WikiLeaks founder. In return, Assange offered to: (1) redact "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," and (2) "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases."

Investigative journalist John Solomon, quoting WikiLeaks ' intermediary with the government, broke this story, based on "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks ' source of the DNC emails, something Assange has repeatedly said.

That, of course, would have been the last thing Comey would have wanted.

On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example.

The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.

Two weeks later, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo branded WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service," and the U.S. put pressure on Ecuador, which had given Assange asylum, to expel him from its London embassy. He was on April 11 when British police arrested him. On the same day he was convicted of skipping bail on a Swedish investigation that had since been dropped. Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in London's max-security Belmarsh prison.

Comey, it seems a safe bet, still worries that Assange or one of his associates, will provide "technical evidence" enough to prove "who did not engage in the DNC releases."

What Were They Thinking?

At the March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy heaped effusive praise on then-FBI Director Comey, calling him "incredibly respected." At that early stage, no doubt Gowdy meant no double entendre . He might now.

As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not.

It is proving very difficult for some of my old FBI friends and others to believe that Comey and other justice, intelligence, and security officials at the very top could have played fast and loose with the Constitution and the law and lived a lie over the past few years.

"How did they ever think they could get away with it?" they ask. The answer is deceivingly simple. Comey himself has explained it in a moment of seemingly unintentional candor in his pretentious book, "A Higher Loyalty." He wrote, "I was making decisions in an envi