The controversial public (CRWD) cybersecurity firm heavily funded by Google investment subsidiary CapitalG, that was the sole source of the Russia hacking of the DNC server conspiracy. The DNC chose to hire this shady firm rather than going to the FBI in 2016 to examine its compromised computer servers, and never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to according to the DOJ. The FBI had an open contract with Crowdstrike at the time (VIDEO). William Binney has debunked the lie. A 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 (a gov’t funded media outlet) that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion and disavowed any connection to the report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
Tooltip Tags: Democratic National Convention/DNC
An illegal Obama administration FBI, DNC, Clinton campaign, British GCHQ and media coup d’état to disrupt and overturn American democracy and oust President Trump because, as Newt Gingrich explained,”He didn’t belong to the secret society“. The liberal media news organizations tried to keep the crumbling narrative alive even after Mueller exonerated him due to zero evidence. Throughout the Republican-controlled 115th Congress, the DOJ and FBI did not cooperate with congressional investigators, and stonewalled requests for information citing the Mueller investigation. Documents were very slow in coming forth, and redactions were not to protect national security, but rather to obstruct investigators, obscure government wrongdoing, and shield high-level officials and stall past the 2018 Midterm elections. (Conservapedia) Mueller’s investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of nothing (There was no Russian hack of the DNC server. Seth Rich downloaded files sent to Wikileaks). It paralyzed the country for more than two years. More…
(TGP) Roger Stone tried to obtain information in his trial that the Mueller team had evidence that Russia gave the emails they hacked from the DNC to WikiLeaks but corrupt Obama Appointed DC judge, Amy Berman Jackson, wouldn’t let him bring this up in his case, even though his charges were based on the entire scam. President Trump indicated that he knew Crowdstrike was at the center of the Russia collusion scam when he made his infamous phone call with the Ukraine’s new President Zelinsky. The President reportedly said the following:
Clearly if you read the call transcript you can see that the President’s request was regarding Crowdstrike and the Bidens only came up after their corrupt actions were mentioned by the Ukrainian leader. This must have hit a nerve because on February 16, 2020, 60 Minutes had a report authored by Scott Pelley, regarding Crowdstrike’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC in 2016. Pelley and 60 Minutes made an effort to clear Crowdstrike’s name in their piece where the far left media outlet suggested The Gateway Pundit (TGP) pushed conspiracy theories and flashed an image of a 2017 TGP report.
60 Minutes went on to push the discredited Trump-Russia conspiracy. Pelley, from 60 Minutes, used former anti-Trump Ambassador Bill Taylor, from the sham impeachment fiasco, as his expert witness on the Ukraine. Taylor claims he knew of no connection between Crowdstrike and the Ukraine. Pelley then shared the following in his report [emphasis added]:
Robert Johnston dealt directly with the FBI as an investigator of the DNC hack for CrowdStrike, a leading cyber security company hired by the Democrats. He told us the FBI didn’t physically examine the DNC servers because CrowdStrike gave the bureau copies of the data from the servers.
“If there is a server or a computer system of any kind that’s involved in the incident you can take an exact bit for bit digital copy of what’s on that system. Now that digital copy is just as good as having the real thing,” Johnston said.
“As far as you know, the FBI got what it needed and what it wanted?” Pelley asked Johnston.
“Exactly and evidence of that is you don’t hear the FBI complaining,” Johnston said.
He’s right. A former senior government official, familiar with the investigation, told us the FBI would have preferred to work alongside CrowdStrike’s investigators, but the Democratic National Committee decided to give the bureau digital copies of its servers instead. The official told us this was “acceptable,” in fact even typical in FBI investigations.
But this was not accurate and it was pathetic for 60 Minutes to spread the ridiculous Crowdstrike statements.
There are many holes with the ‘Russia hacked the DNC emails’ claim, much of what has already been posted here at TGP.
Several individuals previously shared they have sources who claim that the DNC servers were never examined by Crowdstrike:
After speaking w/ my @FBI sources & a @nytimes reporter with direct knowledge of the handling of the @DNC server it’s true – there was no direct examination or physically custody of the DNC server – an “image” (i.e. copy) of the server was examined only: https://t.co/yDJKCYmUQC
— Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) May 12, 2019
It was also uncovered in the Roger Stone case that CrowdStrike gave the US government three “draft reports” on the so-called hack by Russia which were full of redactions and the FBI just took their word for it. It was also reported that the DOJ never received the unredacted copies of Crowdstrike’s reports:
I missed the previous DOJ filing, but this seems significant.
The DOJ informed the court it doesn’t have the unredacted Crowdstrike reports. https://t.co/xJHC6ntroc
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 15, 2019
Former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney previously reported he has evidence the DNC emails were not hacked but copied most likely on to a flashdrive or something similar.
NSA Whistleblower and longtime intelligence analyst Bill Binney on continuation of #RussiaGate fever: “The problem with the Mueller Report & the Rosenstein indictment is it’s based on lies.”
— Status Coup (@StatusCoup) June 3, 2019
(Binney is brilliant. See the documentary on Binney entitled: “A Good American” – it will astound you.)
Binney has proof for his assertion but Crowdstrike and the DNC to date have provided no support that it was Russia who hacked the DNC.
Binney also claims that the Mueller gang wouldn’t even look at his data because they knew it would show something different than what they presented in their final bogus report (i.e. Mueller’s dossier as referred to by Devin Nunes).
Cyber expert Yaacov Apelbaum says the 60 Minutes and Crowdstrike claims are completely false:
If Crowdstrike gave the FBI any data it was drive images (we don’t even know which ones). This did not include memory dumps, network pocket captures, firewall activity, etc. This additional data is crucial and should have been examined in real-time by the FBI. If indeed any drive images were given to the FBI, these would have been contaminated because they continued to use these drives for weeks after the alleged hack.
Crowd Strike was completely wrong (most likely intentionally) about the Russian hack of the Ukrainian Artillery allegation. And we know for a fact that they used the same forensic techniques to reach that conclusion as they did on the DNC hack.
Apelbaum posted a report in January 2019, with information basically proving that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians. Apelbaum’s first argument is this –
According to the WaPo (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek who allegedly crafted a malware called X-Agent and used it to get into the network and install keystroke loggers on several PCs. This allowed them to see what the employees were typing and take screenshots of the employees’ computer.
This is pretty detailed information, but if this was the case, then how did the DOJ learn all of these ‘details’ and use them in the indictments without the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC/HRC computers? And since when does the DOJ, an organization that only speaks the language of indictments use hearsay and 3rd parties like the British national Matt Tait (a former GCHQ collector and a connoisseur of all things related to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or any other evidence lacking chain of custody certification as a primary source for prosecution?
A second point by Apelbaum is –
… that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ “Wanted by the FBI” list were allegedly working concurrently on multiple non-related projects like interfering with the 2016 United States elections (both HRC and DNC) while at the same time they were also allegedly hacking anti-doping agencies (Images 2-3).
Above are pictures of the individuals the FBI says were working on both the DNC/HRC email hacking and the Olympic doping projects.
The same guys were working on both projects which is all but impossible. (Do we really know if they’re even real people or even real Russians?)
The fact that the three had multiple concurrent high impact and high visibility project assignments is odd because this is not how typical offensive cyber intelligence teams operate. These units tend to be compartmentalized, they are assigned to a specific mission, and the taskforce stays together for the entire duration of the project.
Next Apelbaum questions the Mueller gang’s assertion that the ‘hacker’ named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian –
Any evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian should be evaluated while keeping these points in mind:
He used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address, but did not use TOR. Using a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] agencies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]
He used the AOL email service that captured and forwarded his IP address and the same AOL email to contact various media outlets on the same day of the attack. This is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and seems like a deliberate attempt to leave traceable breadcrumbs.
He named his Office User account Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Dzerzhinsky), after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Devices and accounts used in offensive cyberspace operations use random names to prevent tractability and identification. Why would anyone in the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the obvious reason) is beyond comprehension.
He copied the original Trump opposition research document and pasted it into a new .dotm template (with an editing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the “Last Modified by” field from “Warren Flood” to “Феликс Эдмундович” and the creation of additional Russian metadata in the document. Why waste the time and effort doing this?
About 4 hours after creating the ‘Russian’ version of the document, he exported it to a PDF using LibreOffice 4.2 (in the process he lost/removed about 20 of the original pages). This was most likely done to show additional ‘Russian fingerprints’ in the form of broken hyperlink error messages in Russian (Images 4 and 5). Why bother with re-formatting and converting the source documents? Why not just get the raw data out in the original format ASAP?
Apelbaum next discusses Guccifer 2.0 –
In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed a person who identified himself as “Guccifer 2.0”. During their on-line chat session, the individual claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview below). His poor Romanian language skills were later used to unmask his Russian identify.
…I’m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know where to find one if my life depended on it, but I’m certain that you can’t reliably determine nationality based on someone impersonating another language or from the use of fake metadata in files. This elaborate theory also has the obvious flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence services are dumb enough to show up to an interview posing as Romanians without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian.
After providing a couple more examples of why the Russian story doesn’t stick, Apelbaum closes with this –
The bottom line is that if we want to go beyond the speculative trivia, the pseudo science, and the bombastic unverified claims, we have to ask the real tough questions, mainly: is Guccifer 2.0 even the real attacker and how did he circumvent all of the logs during several weeks of repeated visits while downloading close to 2 GB of data?
Most importantly, we know that WikiLeaks has stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange has stated that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.
But of course the Mueller gang never interviewed WikiLeaks or Julian Assange in an effort to determine how they received the Clinton emails. Of course the Mueller team could not risk WikiLeaks saying the emails were not received from Russia which would destroy their Russia hacked the DNC fairy tale.
Crowdstrike’s New Efforts to Save Face
Yesterday we discovered that Crowdstrike has reportedly obtained a PR firm to help backtrack their bogus claims.
In the article ‘Editor’s Notes’ were added in places where the LA Times piece reported fake news. One of the editor’s notes concerned the MSM trope that “Russian intelligence operatives stole and released thousands of internal emails and other documents in an effort to boost Trump’s chances, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.”
The Editor’s note was as follows:
This is fake news. While it’s oft-repeated by the propagandists in the MSM legacy corporate media, there is no evidence that the emails were stolen and released by “Russian intelligence operatives.” The emails were released by WikiLeaks and an entity called Guccifer 2.0. WikiLeaks denies it got them from any Russians, and Julian Assange has hinted that they were stolen by murdered DNC operative Seth Rich. The FBI was denied access to the emails and the conclusion that they were stolen and released by “Russian intelligence operatives” was made by the DNC-hired cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which has ties to Ukrainian oligarchs and the Council on Foreign Relations. –BL
A few days later, this past Tuesday, Personal Liberty reportedly received an email from John Eddy, Executive Vice President of the PR firm Goldin. The email follows:
My firm works with CrowdStrike and we read your article titled “Trump seeks to boost Sanders and foment discord among Democrats” (https://personalliberty.com/trump-seeks-to-boost-sanders-and-foment-discord-among-democrats/ [personalliberty.com]). We need to request important updates to the article.
The article states that the “FBI was denied access to the emails and the conclusion that they were stolen and released by ‘Russian intelligence operatives’ was made by the DNC-hired cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which has ties to Ukrainian oligarchs and the Council on Foreign Relations.” This is incorrect.
CrowdStrike’s founders have no connections to Ukraine. The company also provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI that they requested, and the conclusions have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/). Additionally, CrowdStrike was hired by the DNC to respond to the suspected breach of its servers, and did not do any investigations around the release of the information.
Could you please update the article for accuracy to clarify that CrowdStrike does not have ties to Ukraine, and that the company was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack of the servers?
Note the phrase from Crowdstrike’s PR firm, stating that Crowdstrike “did not do any investigations around the release of the information.”
TGP contacted the Crowdstrike’s PR Firm Goldin Solutions and they confirmed their email to Personal Liberty.
Now after three and a half years of the fraudulent Russia collusion scam being repeated so often that half of America believes that Russia hacked the DNC and gave their emails to WikiLeaks, Crowdstrike announces that it had nothing to do with assessing that Russians gave the emails to WikiLeaks??!!
So why is Crowdstrike announcing this now? Are they liable for fraud by not announcing this years ago? Their lack of a response allowed the coup against the President of the United States to progress! If they didn’t confirm the Russians gave the emails to WikiLeaks, then who did?
The Mueller report clearly states that Russians hacked the DNC and gave the hacked emails to WikiLeaks:
So if Crowdstrike now claims they didn’t confirm that Russians gave emails to WikiLeaks, then who the hell did?
We believe that both Mueller and Crowdstrike are lacking candor!
Per an illustration from Apelbaum, Guccifer 2 is depicted as the red devil icon below:
This illustration shows that Crowdstrike was obviously false in its claims that Russia hacked the DNC.
This is because:
- If Guccifer 2 did it from Romania (the red devil icon on the left of the illustration), he needed a 23 Mbit/s transfer rate. At the time of this hack in 2016, Romania was only supporting 16Mbit/s speeds. But to do that he had to go through all of the red hell in the middle of the illustration, which I don’t believe he did based on the poor technical skill set he demonstrated during his interview with Motherboard vice.
- If the leak came from the inside (the half green half red icon in the right side of illustration), he had the full 23 Mbit/s transfer rate because he just plugged-in a USB drive to the computer. He also didn’t need any hacking skills because he most likely had full system access.
Finally, we know that WikiLeaks stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange stated that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.
But of course the Mueller gang never interviewed WikiLeaks in an effort to determine how they received the Clinton emails. Of course the Mueller team could not risk WikiLeaks saying the emails were not received from Russia which would destroy their Russia hacked the DNC fairy tale.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
Chronological History of RussiaGate: The Coup to Oust Trump from the Oval Office
DOJ Quietly (Midnight, Election Eve) Releases Docs Showing Mueller Investigated and Chose Not to Charge Assange, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone For DNC Hacks
Joe Biden becomes the Subject of Federal Criminal Investigation Into His Role in Spygate and Activities in Ukraine
A discredited political work originally put together as opposition research by the Clinton campaign and Democratic party, with significant backing and early work by Glenn Simpson, which was funneled to the Obama FBI and used to justify illegal surveillance on candidate and President Donald Trump. On Jan 10, 2016, ten days before Trump’s inauguration, Obama DNI James Clapper leaked the phony dossier to CNN and BuzzFeed. The dossier is named after former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, who was paid $168k by Hillary Clinton (info withheld from FISA court) and the Democrats for smears and by the Obama DOJ to perpetrate a fraud upon the FISA court, the media, and American people. Obama approved declassification and widespread dissemination of the made-up dossier. Steele had been terminated as an informant for lying to the FBI about his contacts with the media. More at Conservapedia…
In July 2020, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) accused the far-left-leaning Brookings Institution think tank led by Strobe Talbot and its leadership in disseminating the discredited anti-Trump dossier, defending its credibility and possibly even being involved in its very creation. Speaking with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo, Nunes highlighted how a court case in London involving Christopher Steele — the former MI6 agent who created the debunked Russia-Trump dossier — exposed direct links between Steele and the leadership of the Brookings Institution, and the possible creation of the dossier between Steele and the Brookings Institution leadership.
Nunes cited text messages between Steele and Strobe Talbott, then president of Brookings, leading him to question “what on earth was the president of Brookings doing texting back and forth to Steele, why was he accepting the dossier?” .1
FBI Official Goes Under Criminal Investigation for Altering Surveillance Document of Carter Page – Allowing Agency to Spy on Trump Campaign
Report: CNN enlists help of fraudster Browder & Integrity Initiative ‘experts’ to fan Russia meddling claims in UK
Judicial Watch: New State Department Documents Reveal Last-Minute Efforts by Obama State Department to Undermine President Trump
Newly Released Nellie Ohr Documents Indicate Obama Deep State Involved in Scheme to Set Up Trump with Hillary Emails Using Italian Spies
Final Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election Released by the House Intelligence Committee
Mueller Report Released: Mueller and his 19 Democrat Attorneys Find No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion
Transcripts of Page’s closed-door testimony in July 2018 were Released Revealing that Obama’s DOJ Ordered FBI Not to Prosecute Hillary Clinton