Roger Stone is requesting proof that Russians hacked the DNC server, as was reported in the Mueller report. Stone claims if the Russians didn’t hack the DNC, his case should be dismissed.
We reported on May 11, 2019, that Roger Stone and his legal team requested the report from Crowdstrike, the firm connected with the Deep State who reportedly did inspect the DNC server after emails were released by WikiLeaks. This report was used by the FBI and the Mueller gang as support that the DNC was hacked by Russia.
Roger Stone is trying to get the Crowdstrike Report. https://t.co/zl7rmEz2NU
— Semi-Casual Observer (@CasualSemi) May 10, 2019
Stone’s position is that if the Mueller team and the FBI did not inspect the DNC server, then how can they know that the server was hacked. This logical argument makes sense –
The chain of custody of evidence is kind of a big deal. If the FBI didn't have custody of the server, and if they never examined it, they cannot verify what happened to the data on it. https://t.co/0PmN50YAmy
— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) May 10, 2019
The Mueller team is fighting back against the Stone team and arguing that it is not necessary to see the documents that support that Russia hacked the DNC –
If it is "so obvious" the Russian government orchestrated the email disclosures of the 2016 campaign, why are the #Mueller leftovers in the #RogerStone case asking the court to relieve them of that very obligation, saying they should "not be required to prove" that very fact? pic.twitter.com/WdfSzSsvF2
— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) May 10, 2019
We’ve been saying for months that the entire Russia collusion delusion is a sham. To date there has been no information reported that ascertains that the DNC was hacked by the Russians. No reports to date show that the DNC server was inspected by the Mueller team and the FBI. Since this is the case, there is no way the Mueller team can claim the server was hacked.
Since there is no proof for the emails being hacked, the reports Russians involved in the collusion delusion evaporate. This would and should destroy the entire Russian sham make-believe case. Our reporting has been confirmed by others in the Intelligence community.
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 (Pronouns: Apocalypse/Now) (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) May 12, 2019
Next we reported two weeks ago that NSA Whistle blower Bill Binney looked at the DNC data leaked by WikiLeaks and determined that it was definitively not hacked, it was copied to a disk or flash drive.
Former NSA employee and whistle blower, Bill Binney, reviewed the leaked emails provided online and they show that the data coming from the DNC was not hacked but rather copied to a disk or flash drive!
The problem with the Mueller report and the Rosenstein indictment is it’s all based on lies. I mean the fact they’re still lying about the, saying the DNC was hacked by the Russians and the Russians gave it to WikiLeaks.
Well, we had some of our people and our group, the VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals, look at the data that WikiLeaks posted on the DNC data. They actually posted the DNC data…
…that entire set of data was read to a thumb drive or a CD Rom then physically transported. Now this is what Kim Dotcom is saying. This is what Julian Assange basically was inferring. Others have been saying the same things.”
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 News (@StatusCoup) June 3, 2019
It’s clear the DNC was not hacked and it’s more likely an insider like Seth Rich copied the files to a disk drive than that the Russians hacked the DNC.
Now today we have more arguments against Mueller’s assertion that the DNC was hacked by Russians. Another Internet sleuth and techie by the name of Yaacov Apelbaum posted an incredible report earlier this year 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 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.