Trump on releasing the JFK records

[Keven Hofeling]

26 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

KH:  Mr. Varnell, can you please explain why you are wasting our time

That's rich coming from you.

KH: Furthermore, the 8/3/2018 publish date of your article means that it was written prior to the 2020 declassification of Crowdstrike December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry which revealed that contrary to Crowdstrike's earlier fraudulent representations about having proven that the DNC server had been hacked by "Fancy Bear," CROWDSTRIKE ACTUALLY HAD NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF HACK OF THE DNC SERVER

You can lead a pedant to water but you can't make them think.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.

Mr. Varnell, those couple of lines of Schiff and Henry do not acquire any significance whatsoever from the fact that you paste them over and over. You have failed -- and miserably at that -- to post any evidence showing it to be significant in any way while I, conversely, have produced the following evidence demonstrating that "fancy bear" is just more Crowdstrike fraud:

As for your nonsense about "fancy bear": What fancy bear is really about are the allegations that Gucifer 2.0 was the hacker of the DNC server as declared by Robert Mueller in his report. "Fancy bear" is a term made up by Crowdstrike:

- Crowdstrike prejudicially renamed the APT28 and APT29 malware to the now infamous “Fancy Bear”, “Cozy Bear” and “Grizzly Steppe”. There was absolutely no reason to do that, other than for propaganda.

- Joint intelligence reports used the Crowdstrike report as a basis and extensively quoted from it, incorporating their bureaucratic language: “we assess” with “high [moderate in the case of NSA] confidence”. William Binney highlighted that phrases like these indicate a lack of evidence — if there was evidence, they would have stated “we have direct evidence that…”

- Joint intelligence reports repeated the Crowdstrike material in 2-3 pages without introducing any new evidence. Subsequently, the content was expanded to 12-13 pages by including criticisms of RT's exercise of their First Amendment rights, along with verbose explanations on the detection of malware.

- Which led to the discovery of malware on a non-connected laptop at Burlington Electric Co. (Bernie Sanders’ town — huh?) and the media erupts with claims about attempts to hack the power grid. APT28 and APT29 are everywhere, loose in the wild.

These are Aaron Mate documents (plus tweets) (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html, https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html) and other documents that bring up very important points which I will list below:

Under oath (https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf) Shawn Henry said that on 04/22/16 DNC data was staged for exfiltraiton but there was no evidence that it left.  Yet, Robert Mueller said that on 04/22/16  GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU controlled computers.  Mueller claims that Guccifer 2.0 stole the documents.

Julian Assange (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country) a guy that knows quite a bit about hacking, remarked about this in a 2017 New Yorker interview:

In public, Assange tried several things. He asserted that he was the only one who knew the source. He implied that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were likely not what they seemed, and were instead the manifestation of a crafty double game—possibly orchestrated by Ukrainian state hackers. (“Those look very much like the Russians, but in some ways they look very amateur, and they look too much like it.”) He also promoted a theory that Guccifer 2.0 was exactly what it seemed, an entity run by Eastern European hackers. By the time I met Assange in the Embassy, the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and the F.B.I. had jointly assessed that Russian military intelligence was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. When I asked him what he thought of this, he said, “The whole thing is extremely lame,” as if he were talking about the ramblings of a crazy uncle.

Assange also pursued a simpler rhetorical tactic. He argued that any attempt to associate WikiLeaks with Guccifer 2.0 was pernicious spin—trying to turn a coincidence into a conspiracy. Unlike documents that Guccifer 2.0 had published, none of the campaign e-mails that appeared on WikiLeaks contained traces of Russian metadata; therefore, he said, any links one could find binding the persona to Russia did not extend to his work. “There’s no forensic traces on our publications at all tying them to Russia—at all! It’s clearly completely different material, and there’s been a very sneaky attempt to conflate various hacks that have occurred with our publications.”

 Crowdstrike is not the neutral party it tries to appear (and brags about on that explanation page).  Its co-founder is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.  ---- the think tank that always has an extreme, hawkish, negative view of Russia.

Shawn Henry used to work for Robert Mueller.

James Comey was interviewed about why the FBI did not directly do the investigation and allowed Crowdstrike to provide some reports. Comey said he had confidence in Crowdstrike, which however, Comey said he had made multiple requests to Crowdstrike for the FBI to get direct access to the servers, but Crowdstrike says they never asked.

Someone is lying.  Mate says, "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 reports the FBI received from Crowdstrike were redacted:  "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 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."
(https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html)

Crowdstrike has been wrong before:  "But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had claimed to identify inside the DNC server." (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html)

https://hackernoon.com/the-big-fat-compendium-of-russiagate-debunkery-4278a753a3af

'LISTEN TO BILL BINNEY. RUSSIAGATE IS A LOT WORSE HOAX THAN YOU THOUGHT'

LaRouchePAC Videos | Published on Mar 4, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9TyASfZV0c

 

In this interview, former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney demonstrates that the most important premise for Russiagate, that Russian military intelligence conducted an internet hack of the DNC and then provided the purloined files to WikiLeaks for publication, is a fraud. If the Russians hacked the DNC, the NSA would be able to provide specific and detailed information tracing that attack as to times, dates, places, but no such proof has been provided. Binney created or supervised the NSA programs that provide this capability. Binney has now conducted two independent forensic studies of the DNC files: those released by Guccifer 2.0 and those published by WikiLeaks. Both studies, based on insights gleaned from file metadata and internet transfer speeds, point to the files' having been downloaded to a thumb drive or a storage device rather than transmitted over the internet in a Russian cyber attack. Binney’s findings support the WikiLeaks account of how the files were delivered to them. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray has stated that he met with someone who was not a Russian state actor at American University in Washington, D.C. and received a thumb drive of files.

 

In this interview, Bill Binney also discusses his 32-year career at the NSA where he was known as this nation’s premier codebreaker. Binney invented the NSA program that automates collection of internet based data world-wide and invented a program, Thin Thread, which used targeted acquisition methods for analysis while protecting the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and the privacy rights of others. When it became apparent that the Agency was engaged in bulk acquisition and massive constitutional violations following September 11, 2001, Binney left the NSA. After he left, Binney and his fellow whistleblowers proved that Binney’s program, Thin Thread, could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. When Binney and others blew the whistle on the NSA corruption and Constitutional violations by going through appropriate government channels, they were subjected to a years-long FBI investigation based on bogus and fabricated information.

 

"GUCIFER 2.0 IS TOTALLY A FABRICATION." Bill Binney

'MUELLER'S INDICTMENTS DEBUNKED BY NSA WHISTLE-BLOWER. W/BILL BINNEY'

The Jimmy Dore Show | Published on Aug 13, 2018 | https://youtu.be/JHZXVWUxxDU?si=jiazxTG8kLz7nT_U

 

VIPS Professional Bill Binney sets the record straight on Guccifer 2.0 and Mueller’s latest indictments.

 

 

Edited March 22 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

In any case, why would you trust something you read on Wikipedia?

 

I trust Wikipedia articles because they are sourced. By reputable sources, not far-right or far-left fake news sites.

Also because there are competing editors for each article, which helps ensure that BS doesn't get published. Or if it does, it gets challenged and then removed.

 

[Roger Odisio]

29 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

KH:  Mr. Varnell, can you please explain why you are wasting our time

That's rich coming from you.

KH: Furthermore, the 8/3/2018 publish date of your article means that it was written prior to the 2020 declassification of Crowdstrike December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry which revealed that contrary to Crowdstrike's earlier fraudulent representations about having proven that the DNC server had been hacked by "Fancy Bear," CROWDSTRIKE ACTUALLY HAD NEVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL OF ANY KIND OF HACK OF THE DNC SERVER

You can lead a pedant to water but you can't make them think.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.

That's the fourth time, Cliff, you have tried to mislead by posting Henry's opinion about something he thinks "Fancy Bear" did, while you ignore what is important--CS's *finding* that they found no evidence of an outside hack of the DNC by Russia or anyone else

You have been constantly using the term exfiltration as if it supports your claim of a hack.  It doesn't.  The term can be used to describe either a hack or leak:

Exfiltration:  to remove (data) from a computer, network, etc surreptitiously and without permission or unlawfully.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I doubt you can find a reliable source for that. Because I doubt it is true.

When challenged on their reporting of this story, Fox News retracted it without apology or explanation. Seth Rich's family sued Fox News in March 2018 for having engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct" by fabricating the story defaming their son and thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. Fox News reached a seven-figure settlement with the Rich family in October 2020

 

Expand  

 

 

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.84.1.pdf

___________

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf

___________

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Keven Hofeling

 

A guy named Brian Huddleston sues the FBI, and within his document he states his opinion regarding Seth Rich.

You consider that to be a reliable source for what you believe? This guy's opinion?

Oh Please!

So I was right... you can't find a reliable source for what you wrote about Seth Rich.

 

[Roger Odisio]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The problem with your timeline is that Wikileaks had ALSO been getting DNC e-mail leaks for several months prior to the time Julian Assange said on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton related e-mails.

You can check that out on the detailed timeline given in this article.

RO: Ok. WL had been receiving DNC emails before Assange said on June 12 he was going to release them. How is that a problem for the claim Rich was the source? So far It contradicts your claim that Rich couldn't have been the source because he was already dead before WL got the emails.

That article also lists DNC e-mails received by Wikileaks after Seth Rich's death. See the entry for July 14, 2016.

Which is the reason why Mueller reported that Seth Rich was not the source for those leaks. That he was already dead by then.

RO: You mean Rich could not have been the source for that one set of leaks on July14?  That's quite different than your original claim, via Mueller, that Rich couldn't have been the source, period, isn't it? I can't read the article you cite either.  Perhaps you can type out what they said about that. And start with their source for the dates the emails were received. Did that come from WL?

I'm not aware of WL saying anything about the dates they received the emails they published. WL did publish a second set of emails several months after the first set in July.  They have procedures they go through to insure authenticity, etc.  Publication date is not always a good indicator of when the emails were received

 

 

 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Below are two reputable sources reporting what I said.

I'll bet you have no reputable sources for your counter-claim.

 

NPR - Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale

"I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."

 

The Man Behind The Scenes In Fox News' Discredited Seth Rich Story

Hersh now says he was fishing for information from Butowsky. "I did not talk to anybody at the FBI — not about this," Hersh tells NPR. "Nothing is certain until it's proved. And I didn't publish any story on this."

 

Note the Butowsky is the person who took Hersh's story to Fox News. (Who, recall, went with it. The retracted it. Then was sued for it and had to pay six figures to settle the suit.)

 

Reputable sources? Surely you are familiar with CIA Operation Mockingbird?

And I'm a lawyer and very familiar with the fact that sometimes the process is the punishment, and sometimes people and organizations settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms just because it is cheaper to do so than to continue to sustain the costs of litigation.

Seymour Hersch said that his source, Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, allowed him to see an FBI report reflecting that Seth Rich's laptop computers were turned over to the FBI by the police investigating Seth Rich's murder because of the technical expertise of the FBI, and that Mr. McCabe and the FBI report indicated that both the DNC files and email communications between Wikileaks and Seth Rich were on one of the computers. We have what Seymour Hersch said about this in Hersch's own words. That it was Butowsky who taped Hersch doesn't change the fact that Seymour Hersch said everything that he said, right?

 

Now if you have done your homework then you know that ever since the Hersch tape was released, and all through the Butowski litigation, the FBI consistently denied having Seth Rich's laptops. Then in the current litigation, the FBI first denied having them, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files contained in Seth Rich's computer. The United States District Court Judge then ordered the FBI to turn those files over to the Plaintiff, Brian Huddleston, pursuant to his discovery request, and the FBI has repeatedly refused to do so, and is at this time in contempt of the Court's order. The FBI is now desperately trying to get the Court to allow the FBI to withhold the computers and the files from the public for SIXTY-SIX YEARS! That is where the case stands at this point in time.

Do you agree with the FBI that Seth Rich's computers and the contents thereof should be withheld from Brian Huddleston and the American people for sixty-six more years, Sandy?

Here is Brian Huddleston's Reply to the FBI's repeated efforts to withhold the discovery:

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf

And here is FBI Technician Michael G. Seidel's Sixth Declaration:

SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL: 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.84.1.pdf

 

Edited March 22 by Keven Hofeling

[Roger Odisio]

6 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Reputable sources? Surely you are familiar with CIA Operation Mockingbird?

And I'm a lawyer and very familiar with the fact that sometimes the process is the punishment, and sometimes people and organizations settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms just because it is cheaper to do so than to continue to sustain the costs of litigation.

Seymour Hersch said that his source, Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, allowed him to see an FBI report reflecting that Seth Rich's laptop computers were turned over to the FBI by the police investigating Seth Rich's murder because of the technical expertise of the FBI, and that Mr. McCabe and the FBI report indicated that both the DNC files and email communications between Wikileaks and Seth Rich were on one of the computers. We have what Seymour Hersch said about this in Hersch's own words. That it was Butowsky who taped Hersch doesn't change the fact that Seymour Hersch said everything that he said, right?

 

Now if you have done your homework then you know that ever since the Hersch tape was released all all through the Butowski litigation the FBI consistently denied having Seth Rich's laptop. Then in the current litigation the FBI first denied it, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files in question in Seth Rich's computer. The United States District Court Judge then ordered the FBI to turn those files over to the Plaintiff, Brian Huddleston, pursuant to his discovery request, and the FBI has repeatedly refused to do so, and is at this time in contempt of the Court's order. The FBI is desperately trying to get the Court to allow the FBI to withhold the computers and the files from the public for SIXTY-SIX YEARS! That is where the case stands at this point in time. Do you agree with the FBI that Seth Rich's computers and the contents thereof should be withheld from Brian Huddleston and the American people for sixty-six more years Sandy?

Here is Brian Huddleston's Reply to the FBI's repeated efforts to withhold the discovery:

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf

And here is FBI Technician Michael G. Seidel's Sixth Declaration:

SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL: 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.84.1.pdf

 

I have read the District Court's finding in Brian Huddleston's lawsuit.  Its finding: It is ordered that the government shall produce the information it possess related to Seth Rich's laptop and response to Plaintiff's FOIA requests within 14 days of this order. The order was issued Sep 29, 2022!

Huddleston is some kind of bulldog.  He started the case back in 2017 and has survived the FBI lies about not having anything and unfavorable court rulings.  He just keeps coming back.

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO: You mean Rich could not have been the source for that one set of leaks on July14?

 

Roger,

My original claim was that that I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and so I believe what is in his report. His report debunks the Seth Rich theory that you and Keven believe.

Keven challenged Mueller's report. I responded by giving sources that supported Mueller's conclusions, and that may have been the sources he used himself.

I am not debating with you guys on the theory you believe. I'm defending my belief in Mueller's report by providing support for it.

Having straightened that out...

Yes, if Mueller is wrong then it is theoretically possible that the e-mails Assange released in July could have come from before Rich's death. (Though that wouldn't explain the non-Rich source for the additional e-mails Assange got in July, after Rich's death.)

But I repeat, I trust Robert Mueller's report over the theory you guys believe.

(And don't forget, Seymour Hersh admitted that what he'd claimed about Seth Rich was merely an unsubstantiated rumor. And that, because of that, the Fox news report based on it had to be pulled and Fox had to pay a six digit lawsuit settlement for having run it.)

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

That's the fourth time, Cliff, you have tried to mislead by posting Henry's opinion about something he thinks "Fancy Bear" did, while you ignore what is important--CS's *finding* that they found no evidence of an outside hack of the DNC by Russia or anyone else

Henry is the CEO of CrowdStrike.  I posted how he arrived at the conclusion that the Russian actor Fancy Bear hacked into the DNC servers and set up -- staged -- the e-mails for exfiltration.  I find it amusing that you separate the part of Henry's testimony consistent with your bias from the part that debunks your claim.

Discussing this further is a waste of time,

[Keven Hofeling]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

My original claim was that that I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and so I believe what is in his report. His report debunks the Seth Rich theory that you and Keven believe.

Keven challenged Mueller's report. I responded by giving sources that supported Mueller's conclusions, and that may have been the sources he used himself.

I am not debating with you guys on the theory you believe. I'm defending my belief in Mueller's report by providing support for it.

Having straightened that out...

Yes, if Mueller is wrong then it is theoretically possible that the e-mails Assange released in July could have come from before Rich's death. (Though that wouldn't explain the non-Rich source for the additional e-mails Assange got in July, after Rich's death.)

But I repeat, I trust Robert Mueller's report over the theory you guys believe.

(And don't forget, Seymour Hersh admitted that what he'd claimed about Seth Rich was merely an unsubstantiated rumor. And that, because of that, the Fox news report based on it had to be pulled and Fox had to pay a six digit lawsuit settlement for having run it.)

 

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Donald Trump, who I regard as a narcissistic fool who attempted to defy and subvert American democracy after the 2020 election. I also oppose the corruption of those who are a little closer to my views in the Democrat party, such as the corruption of Hillar Clinton who stole the 2016 Democratic Nomination from Bernie Sanders.

And Sandy, I had high hopes for Robert Mueller too, but after seeing how many balls he dropped in his Report, I was forced to concede that he was just another cog in the system, just like Earl Warren was.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/14/the-real-mueller-gate-scandal/

'The Real Mueller-Gate Scandal'

May 14, 2019

Save

 Craig Murray blasts the special counsel for naming and condemning people without ever interviewing them.  

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is either a fool, or deeply corrupt. I do not think he is a fool.

I did not comment instantly on the Mueller report as I was so shocked by it, I have been waiting to see if any other facts come to light in justification. Nothing has. I limit myself here to that area of which I have personal knowledge — the leak of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. On the wider question of the corrupt Russian 1 percent having business dealings with the corrupt Western 1 percent, all I have to say is that if you believe that is limited in the U.S. by party political boundaries, you are a fool.

On the DNC leak, Mueller started with the prejudice that it was “the Russians” and he deliberately and systematically excluded from evidence anything that contradicted that view.

Mueller: Skipped key steps. (White House/Wikimedia Commons)

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney, a retired technical director at the National Security Agency, the $14 billion a year U.S. surveillance organization. He did not interview Julian Assange,  publisher of WikiLeaks. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.

There has never been, by any U.S. law enforcement or security service body, a forensic examination of the DNC servers, despite the fact that the claim those servers were hacked is the very heart of the entire investigation. Instead, the security services simply accepted the “evidence” provided by the DNC’s own IT security consultants, Crowdstrike, a company which is politically aligned to the Clintons.

That is precisely the equivalent of the police receiving a phone call saying:

“Hello? My husband has just been murdered. He had a knife in his back with the initials of the Russian man who lives next door engraved on it in Cyrillic script. I have employed a private detective who will send you photos of the body and the knife. No, you don’t need to see either of them.”

No Honest Policeman 

There is no honest policeman in the world who would agree to that proposition, and neither would Mueller were he remotely an honest man. 

Two facts compound this failure. 

The first is the absolutely key word of Bill Binney, an acknowledged world leader in cyber surveillance who is infinitely more qualified than Crowdstrike. Binney states that the download rates for the “hack” given by Crowdstrike are at a speed — 41 megabytes per second — that could not even nearly be attained remotely at the location: thus the information must have been downloaded to a local device, eg a memory stick. Binney has further evidence regarding formatting that supports this. 

Mueller’s identification of “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0” as Russian security services is something Mueller attempts to carry off by simple assertion. Mueller shows DNC Leaks to have been the source of other, unclassified emails sent to WikiLeaks that had been obtained under a Freedom of Information request and then Mueller simply assumes, with no proof, the same route was used again for the leaked DNC material. His identification of the Guccifer 2.0 persona with Russian agents is so flimsy as to be laughable. Nor is there any evidence of the specific transfer of the leaked DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 to WikiLleaks. Binney asserts that had this happened, the packets would have been instantly identifiable to the NSA. 

Bill Binney: Not interviewed. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)

Bill Binney is not a “deplorable.” He is a former technical director of the NSA. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met him to hear his expertise on precisely this matter. Binney offered to give evidence to Mueller. Yet did Mueller call him as a witness? No. Binney’s voice is entirely unheard in the report. 

Mueller’s refusal to call Binney and consider his evidence was not the action of an honest man.

Vault 7 Release

The second vital piece of evidence we have is from WikiLeaks Vault 7 release of CIA material, in which the CIA themselves outline their capacity to “false flag” hacks, leaving behind misdirecting clues including scraps of foreign script and language. This is precisely what Crowdstrike claim to have found in the “Russian hacking” operation.

So here we have Mueller omitting the key steps of independent forensic examination of the DNC servers and hearing Bill Binney’s evidence. Yet this was not for lack of time. While deliberately omitting to take any steps to obtain evidence that might disprove the “Russian hacking” story, Mueller had boundless time and energy to waste in wild goose chases after totally non-existent links between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, including the fiasco of interviewing Roger Stone and Randy Credico. 

It is worth remembering that none of the charges against Americans arising from the Mueller inquiry have anything to do with Russian collusion or Trump-WikiLeaks collusion, which simply do not exist. The charges all relate to entirely extraneous matters dug up, under the extraordinary U.S. system of “justice,” to try to blackmail those charged with unrelated crimes turned up by the investigation, into fabricating evidence of Russian collusion. The official term for this process of blackmail is of course “plea-bargaining.”

Mueller has indicted 12 Russians he alleges are the GRU agents responsible for the “hack.” The majority of these turn out to be real people who, ostensibly, have jobs and lives which are nothing to do with the GRU. Mueller was taken aback when, rather than simply being in absentia, a number of them had representation in court to fight the charges. Mueller had to back down and ask for an immediate adjournment as soon as the case opened, while he fought to limit disclosure. His entire energies since on this case have been absorbed in submitting motions to limit disclosure, individual by individual, with the object of ensuring that the accused Russians can be convicted without ever seeing, or being able to reply to, the evidence against them. Which is precisely the same as his attitude to contrary evidence in his report.

Julian Assange: Unfairly accused. (Espen Moe)

Mueller’s failure to examine the servers or take Binney’s evidence pales into insignificance compared to his attack on Julian Assange. Based on no conclusive evidence, Mueller accuses Assange of receiving the emails from Russia. Most crucially, he did not give Assange any opportunity to answer his accusations. For somebody with Mueller’s background in law enforcement, declaring somebody in effect guilty, without giving them any opportunity to tell their side of the story, is plain evidence of malice. 

Inexplicably, for example, the Mueller report quotes a media report of Assange stating he had “physical proof” the material did not come from Russia, but Mueller simply dismisses this without having made any attempt at all to ask Assange himself. 

It is also particularly cowardly as Assange was and is held incommunicado with no opportunity to defend himself. Assange has repeatedly declared the material did not come from the Russian state or from any other state. He was very willing to give evidence to Mueller, which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Ecuadorian embassy or by written communication. But as with Binney and as with the DNC servers, the entirely corrupt Mueller was unwilling to accept any evidence which might contradict his predetermined narrative.

‘Courier’ Ignored

Mueller’s section headed “The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Material to Wikileaks” is a ludicrous farrago of internet contacts between WikiLeaks and persons not proven to be Russian, transferring material not proven to be the DNC leaks. It too is destroyed by Binney and so pathetic that, having pretended he had proven the case of internet transfer, Mueller then gives the game away by adding “The office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred by intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.” He names Andrew Muller-Maguhn as a possible courier. Yet again, he did not ask Muller-Maguhn to give evidence. Nor did he ask me, and I might have been able to help him on a few of these points.

To run an “investigation” with a pre-determined idea as to who are the guilty parties, and then to name and condemn those parties in a report, without hearing the testimony of those you are accusing, is a method of proceeding that puts the cowardly and corrupt Mueller beneath contempt.

Mueller gives no evidence whatsoever to back up his simple statement that Seth Rich was not the source of the DNC leak. He accuses Julian Assange of “dissembling” by referring to Seth Rich’s murder. It is an interesting fact that the U.S. security services have shown precisely the same level of interest in examining Seth Rich’s computers that they have shown in examining the DNC servers. It is also interesting that this murder features in a report of historic consequences like that of Mueller, yet has had virtually no serious resource put into finding the killer.

Mueller’s condemnation of Julian Assange for allegedly exploiting the death of Seth Rich, would be infinitely more convincing if the official answer to the question “who murdered Seth Rich?” was not “who cares?”

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. This article first appeared on his website.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Then in the current litigation, the FBI first denied having them, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files contained in Seth Rich's computer.

 

Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it.

 

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Henry is the CEO of CrowdStrike.  I posted how he arrived at the conclusion that the Russian actor Fancy Bear hacked into the DNC servers and set up -- staged -- the e-mails for exfiltration.  I find it amusing that you separate the part of Henry's testimony consistent with your bias from the part that debunks your claim.

Discussing this further is a waste of time,

"...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.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." 

"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

 

[Benjamin Cole]

To anyone:

Robert Mueller was the FBI Director who orchestrated the snuff job on a true investigation the 9/11 attack.

No, not the incredible conspiracy theories, but keeping the Saudis out of it. 

In fact, a couple weeks after 9/11, Mueller announced there wasn't much more to investigate. 

Echoes of 11/22/63. 

Mueller is not trustworthy. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

"...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.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." 

"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

 

There's a great line in Elmore Leonard's Get Shorty where Bo says to Ronnie -- "You do the b and I'll do the e."

Breaking and entering Harry Zimm's office.

Fancy Bear did the b and persons unknown did the e without leaving any evidence that an e had occurred at all.

Confirmation bias is such a bitch that some folks cannot wrap their head around the concept.

[Keven Hofeling]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There's a great line in Elmore Leonard's Get Shorty where Bo says to Ronnie -- "You do the b and I'll do the e."

Breaking and entering Harry Zimm's office.

Fancy Bear did the b and persons unknown did the e without leaving any evidence that an e had occurred at all.

Confirmation bias is such a bitch that some folks cannot wrap their head around the concept.

You are ignoring the plain language and plain meaning of the following, and you accuse ME of "confirmation bias"?

"...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.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." 

"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html