Despite the Russian 'hacking' claim the DOJ previously admitted the DNC would not let FBI investigators review the DNC server. Instead the DNC provided the FBI with analysis of a technical review done through a cyber-security contract with Crowdstrike.

The narrative around the DNC hack claim was always sketchy; many people believe the DNC email data was downloaded onto a flash drive and leaked. In a court filing (full pdf below) the scale of sketchy has increased exponentially.

Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack. When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission. Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.



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.

The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it

and used the claim therein as an official position.

which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.

Think about that for a few minutes.

The full intelligence apparatus of the United States government is relying on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm; that was created by a paid contractor for a political victim that would not allow the FBI to investigate their claim.

The DNC server issue is foundation, and cornerstone, of the U.S. government's position on "Russia hacking" and the election interference narrative; and that narrative is based on zero factual evidence to affirm the U.S. government's position.

"the government does not need to prove at the defendant's trial that the Russians hacked the DNC" (pg 3)

Ridiculous.

You couldn't make this nonsense up if you tried

Here's the full filing:

https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/15/doj-admits-fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-report-on-dnc-russian-hacking-claim/

No comments here yet from any liberals?

Could tell this guy was dirty from the beginning. Whoever recommended him to Trump should be fired and checked for some serious deep state ties.

riflebear said:

---

Could tell this guy was dirty from the beginning. Whoever recommended him to Trump should be fired and checked for some serious deep state ties.

---

Justice is raped. Justice is gone.

Doc Holliday said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Could tell this guy was dirty from the beginning. Whoever recommended him to Trump should be fired and checked for some serious deep state ties.

---

Justice is raped. Justice is gone.

---

Can you imagine what's in these reports if they're risking "burying" them?

corncob pipe said:

---

under oath in a court filing.... hmmmm

Vegas odds on weather or not this is a "fact" according to quash?

The full intelligence apparatus of the United States government is relying on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm; that was created by a paid contractor for a political victim that would not allow the FBI to investigate their claim.

quash... aren't you livid about this ?

---

Since the OP was created by Doc H it clearly can't be factual because acorns and 20 yard line spikes

Time for another daily dose of Russian propaganda in support of Dear Leader Trump I see.

Y'all still gonna pretend to not know how digital forensics works? You don't need physical possession of a machine to do a digital analysis. None of y'all geniuses ever heard of digital flash images of servers used for a digital investigation? Because that's what Dems/Crowdstrike provided to Law Enforcement as a superior alternative to Crowdstrike's report. Read Mueller's report, the FBI has the Arizona proxy server GRU ran the operation through, he identified the custom malware tools GRU used to do it and the exact dates for every GRU move made. Even Trump doesn't have the stones to lie this blatantly to the public, so he leaves it alone and lets Roger Stone do it for him.

Notice how nobody in an actual position to know disputes Mueller's conclusions about what Russians did? That's because this "Russia didn't do it" narrative is bullsht that has no value, except when it's aimed at the suckers that make up Trump's base.

Amazing how many times they have 'lost' evidence when it comes to Hillary & Obama's corruption but Trump turned over everything and they found nothing but yet Trump is the criminal? LOL

Everyone likes to say the corruption was the leadership at the top of the FBI CIA DOJ etc under Obama but there is NO WAY they could have pulled all that off w/out help from a lot of regular agents/lawyers from those agencies. It's obvious there are still A LOT of them still there trying to cover up everything that happened. Clean house

HuMcK said:

---

Time for another daily dose of Russian propaganda in support of Dear Leader Trump I see.

Y'all still gonna pretend to not know how digital forensics works? You don't need physical possession of a machine to do a digital analysis. None of y'all geniuses ever heard of digital flash images of servers used for a digital investigation? Because that's what Dems/Crowdstrike provided to Law Enforcement as a superior alternative to Crowdstrike's report. Read Mueller's report, the FBI has the Arizona proxy server GRU ran the operation through, he identified the custom malware tools GRU used to do it and the exact dates for every GRU move made. Even Trump doesn't have the stones to lie this blatantly to the public, so he leaves it alone and lets Roger Stone do it for him.

Notice how nobody in an actual position to know disputes Mueller's conclusions about what Russians did? That's because this "Russia didn't do it" narrative is bullsht that has no value, except when it's aimed at the suckers that make up Trump's base.

---

Here is how it's going to go:

FBI at hearing about Crowdstrike: the EPITOME of Ridiculous Bull****

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 Laboratries?

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 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

1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

In April 2016, two months before the June report that alleged a Russian conspiracy, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

CrowdStrike co-founder George Kurtz said at the time, "We wish Steve and the rest of the Commissioners every success in this important effort.

Their dedicated and thoughtful leadership on these issues holds great potential for promoting innovation and the benefits of technology, while lowering the very real security risks we are facing today."

Link to Crowdstrikes bull**** findings posted 3 years ago June 15th, 2016: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Booom. NObama's ****ed

Read the ICA.

The portion relevant to Stone, Crowdstrike, and the sloppy FBI acceptance of its redacted draft report that 'Russia did it' is on Scribd page 12 of 25:

https://www.scribd.com/document/335885580/Unclassified-version-of-intelligence-report-on-Russian-hacking-during-the-2016-election#from_embed

It first asserts the GRU hacked the DNC server from 7/15 to 6/16. That is utter reliance on Crowdstrike and the word of the DNC. No way is that 'high confidence'.

It then asserts Wikileaks got the DNC emails from GRU. There are two problems with this:

1. Assange said that's not true.

2. Binney's analysis of the Wikileaks released email metadata shows they could not have been hacked over the internet. Both the high data transfer rate and the transfer protocol (blocks of data) are consistent with a thumbdrive which means an inside job, not a hack.

Moreover, Assange says his operative picked up the data on a thumbdrive in Washington DC from a person in a named park at 2200.

Durham keying on this could help unravel the EC. Although I think the real key for Barr and team is not the erroneous ICA, but rather Halper and Mifsud and Downer in Europe 'entangling' Papadop from early April to June 2016. Months before Crossfire Hurricane was opened late July 2016 based on the resulting 'invented' EC predicate.

Entire Russia-DNC hacking narrative based on ***REDACTED DRAFT*** of Crowdstrike report. But wait there's more-DNC,DCCC told gov it was the last version produced!