Last night 60 Minutes attacked President Trump and the Gateway Pundit and claimed Crowdstrike was right in assessing that the DNC was hacked by Russians in 2016. However, 60 Minutes and Crowdstrike are dead wrong AND WE HAVE PROOF AND THEY DON’T.
We’ve known for a long time that the FBI and Mueller investigation’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC were dead wrong. We also know that this is central to the Russia – Collusion fraud committed against President Trump and the American people starting in 2016 till this day. More and more evidence shows the Russia collusion scam is the biggest lie pushed on the American people as part of the biggest political crime in US history.
60 Minutes Yesterday
Last night 60 Minutes had a report authored by Scott Pelley, regarding Crowdstrike’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC. In their piece they insinuated that the Gateway pundit (TGP) pushes conspiracy theories. This was twisted considering the topic of the 60 minutes ‘fake news’ piece. 60 Minutes insinuated that TGP had a post in 2017 that was conspiratorial, but our post shared a chart presented by WikiLeaks:
Tonight in one of their shoddy @RealDonaldTrump hit pieces @60Minutes flashed a shot of a @GatewayPundit post from 2017 they claimed was a conspiracy… @Wikileaks also posted same graphic at the time. So what was the conspiracy guys? Where's your proof? https://t.co/F8B1Lup5Nt pic.twitter.com/zEM25EsR2i
— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) February 17, 2020
Of course 60 Minutes cannot point to any conspiracy with our post linked to above.
60 Minutes went on to push the discredited Trump – Russia fraud conspiracy. By pushing this fairy tale, 60 Minutes along with the rest of the Mainstream Media (MSM), have no credibility left.
The report, however, is the first report that we are aware of where the MSM actually addresses the fact that the favor President Trump asked of the Ukraine in a recent call was related to Crowdstrike. President Trump only discussed the Bidens after on his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky after they were brought up by the Ukrainian President, although 60 Minutes says “Mr. Trump asked for [Crowdstrike] even before his request that Ukraine also investigate the son of Vice President Biden.”
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 noted by the Ukrainian leader.
Pelley, from 60 Minutes, uses former Ambassador Bill Taylor, from the unconstitutional impeachment fraud, as his expert witness on the Ukraine who claims he knows 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.
How pathetic is 60 Minutes in supporting this Crowdstrike hoax?
Who Is Crowdstrike?
We know that Crowdstike is related to the Ukraine and this is through Ukrainian billionaire and longtime contributor to the Clinton Foundation Victor Pinchuk. We also know Crowdstrike is connected to James Clapper and the Atlantic Group:
Pinchuk serves on the International Advisory Board of a Washington-based think tank called the Atlantic Council. This group is “connected to Ukrainian interests through its “Ukraine in Europe Initiative,” which is designed to galvanize international support for an independent Ukraine within secure borders whose people will determine their own future.” Also serving on the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council is James Clapper, who served as Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. Funnily enough, Bongino discovered that the Chief Technology Officer of “the only company that investigated the hacking of the DNC’s servers and quickly determined it was the Russians, is a nonresident senior fellow in cybersecurity” at the Atlantic Council. His name is Dmitri Alperovitch (owner of CrowdStrike).”
We know that in July 2015 Google invested $100 million into Crowdstrike –
Google Capital, the two-year-old growth equity arm of search giant Google (GOOG), announced its first security investment on Monday morning.
The fund has pumped $100 million into cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. It was joined by cloud computing company Rackspace (RAX), which is a customer, and the firm’s existing investors Accel and Warburg Pincus. The new infusion represents a Series C round for the Irvine, Calif.-based company, bringing its total funding raised to date to $156 million.
Holes in Crowdstike’s Claims – Support that Emails Weren’t Hacked
There are many holes with the ‘Russia hacked the DNC emails’ claim, much of what has already been posted here at TGP.
Some individuals have shared that 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 that the Russians hacked the DNC servers and never received unredacted copies of Crowdstrike’s reports:
The DNC's lawyer provided the Crowdstrike reports to the Govt. He said the redacted parts weren't relevant to the investigation.
The FBI never looked into it.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 15, 2019
Former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney claims 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).
TGP friend and 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 type of 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 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 or even 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?
Finally, 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 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.