Bloomberg – Rosenstein: “Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimes during the 2016 election”…

Bloomberg News has an interesting story today describing remarks delivered by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. According to Jennifer Jacobs the DAG told the audience at a private Metropolitian Club lunch the Mueller Report will highlight the primary investigative focus of “Russian Cyber Crimes”.

If this report is accurate, and CTH believes it is, this goes a long way to explaining why U.K. authorities moved now to throw a bag over Julian Assange. First the report:

(Bloomberg) Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimes during the 2016 election.

The report, which is expected to be released soon, will clear up questions about the Russian campaign to interfere in the election President Donald Trump won, Rosenstein said in a speech given to a private group at the Metropolitan Club of Washington, according to three people in attendance.

Rosenstein joked that his last day at the Department of Justice will be “one of these days,” the people said. He also said that it will take the U.S. some time to extradite WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange from the U.K. in order to prosecute him.

He declined to speak to reporters outside the club. (link)

As AG William Barr shared in his letter to congress, the aggregate of the Mueller report has two facets for Russian Interference: (1) “Disinformation” from the IRA (Internet Research Agency); and, (2) “Computer hacking operations”:

In order for Mueller and Rosenstein to maintain the ‘Vast Russia Conspiracy Narrative’, which is tenuous at best, it is absolutely necessary to maintain the premise that Russia hacked -or attempted to hack- into the DNC servers.  Further, to maintain this premise the special counsel must inject WikiLeaks as the distribution hub for the Russian effort.

This Mueller/Rosenstein Russia narrative builds upon the Joint Analysis Report (JAR December 2016), and the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA January 2017).  Both of those documents are sketchy, with the JAR being abject nonsense and the ICA being a political document stating specifically that Russian President Putin was trying to help Trump win the election.

Rosenstein’s comments to the Metropolitan Club gives us some insight into how dependent Mueller’s report is to maintaining this baseline of Russia interference:


Additionally, these comments by Rosenstein highlight the U.S. intelligence community need to throw a bag over Julian Assange; IF they are going to retain the premise that Mueller needs to justify the CIA/FBI predicate for the counterintelligence operation.

Mueller and Rosenstein’s special counsel was an extension of the original counterintelligence operation.  Mueller and Rosenstein need to preserve the predicate in order to avoid questions around why they continued and extended a fraudulent probe.

If Assange can disprove the Russia DNC hacking claims by the CIA (Brennan), ODNI (Clapper) and FBI (Strzok and Comey), which are more likely fraudulent justifications to execute the Trump campaign surveillance operation, then Assange becomes a risk that must be controlled/removed.  The timing here is not ‘suspicious’ but rather ‘conspicuous’.

To maintain the claim the DNC was ‘hacked by Russians‘ Julian Assange must be made public enemy #1.  We should expect to see current elements within the intelligence apparatus pushing hard to frame this Assange narrative through the New York Times (FBI), Washington Post (CIA), and CNN (State Dept./ODNI).

The amount of media pressure to originate the “Russian Interference” narrative in early 2017 was off the charts.   The media will have to double-down exponentially because they are tied directly to this claim.

It will be interesting to see if AG William Barr goes along with the focus on cybercrimes as the impetus for Mueller’s investigation.  This is where the need to preserve the integrity of the institutions comes into play; there will be massive pressure on Barr to go along.

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Agitprop, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

321 Responses to Bloomberg – Rosenstein: “Robert Mueller’s report describes Russian cybercrimes during the 2016 election”…

  1. bulwarker says:

    The won’t condemn Assange outright. They are framing the narrative as Assange is “crazy” – so you can’t believe anything he says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he is institutionalized and drugged into a stupor so he can’t speak out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • smurfette says:

      Omigosh, lol again, another very succinct description of THEIR WAYS. They already tried separating him from his pet cat during his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy to sensorially deprive him into insanity. It may have worked to a certain extent because he looked awful. Then they somehow sent Pamela Anderson to see him. To videograph him. What a bunch of nutcases themselves.


    • WSB says:

      Herein lies the problem.

      Unless the US works very quickly, Assange may be Warmbiered.


    • SwampRatTerrier says:

      That is standard operating procedure for the DEEP STATE.


  2. mtk says:

    Yah and I got bucket of sand to sell ya for your Sahara Desert getway.

    Look to the model of intervention that took control of the Silk Road Dark Web.
    Except, the goal was not to take control but to minic it.

    Since, JA running to Embassy, wikileaks has been under tremendous organizational stress. So where is the wikileaks frontman in exile, claiming day to day operations.

    That is my, point JA is out of the loop. If he is not, that leaves a very small circle of individuals that have had unfettered access to mesh with this shadow governance of wikileaks. If you think the government had no problems to spy on the President, what is to stop it from pouring every ounce of resources on whomever walked into that Embassy.

    Yah, for sure those loyalties are like totally above reproach to a guy dependent for like everything including the air he is allowed to breath.

    Second, if JA has anything to dead switch it from the Mossack Fonseca days. Yah, that is sure to be easily regulated into none issue by the MSM.

    Look the only people, that can make anything of what wikileaks has to expose are the very same people in the media that have been running screen for the conspirators.

    Just who are the biggest users of dark web technology?
    Yup, the MSM, look it up. It is the technology, the whole basis the media can claim to work their profession, free and unfettered.
    Get it, JA can dead switch all he wants, nothing that does not support the narrative will get to see the day of light. And, actually the opposite is highly probably given the ideology leanings of those that holding the files.
    (Yup, the files likely resides in the hands of some journalist at WaPo and the paper of record)
    And, we are all going, hell ya JA is going to blow dirt on swamp.

    It escapes me why, “Outrage Trap” is not applied to the JA storylines.


  3. mr.piddles says:

    “To maintain the claim the DNC was ‘hacked by Russians‘ Julian Assange must be made public enemy #1. We should expect to see current elements within the intelligence apparatus pushing hard to frame this Assange narrative through the New York Times (FBI), Washington Post (CIA), and CNN (State Dept./ODNI).”

    Not only that, but it could effectively hide the whole WikiLeaks-2016 deal behind a veil of classified secrecy. By directly connecting WikiLeaks/Assange to Russian Meddling, EVERYTHING about WikiLeaks-2016 is automatically “classified”. No leaks, gag orders, everything is redacted. None of it will be exposed publicly… perhaps forever. They can keep it classified for decades, as they are known to do. Or could it? What if he beats the rap? Or… a WikiLeaks operation could expose it, ironically. :^p


  4. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Rod says the Mueller investigation was about cyber-crimes, eh?

    Well then there should be absolutely no reason for us not to be able to see that Aug 2 memo .

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Supposing the Russians did hack the DNC – what information could they have gleaned that would have been “helpful” to PDJT?

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      what information could they have gleaned?

      they might have learned about those 2-headed coins (heads on both sides) used in the Democrat-caucus coin flips that Hillary always seemed to win, hmmmmm ….

      if you’re ever in a coin-flip with the Clintons, INSIST that you be heads


  6. Derangement Syndrome says:

    This is stomach turning, and I think you found out what the “horse trading” will be, as Bongino used to say.

    Barr will be allowed to go after the malcontents like Page, Strzok, and McCabe. While doing so, Barr will not question the asserted “Russian interference” canard. Besides fat-man Halper, I don’t see the assets being rounded up and questioned. What about Tawil, who gave Papadop $10,000, or “Hank Greenberg” who approached both Roger Stone and Michael Caputo offering “Russian dirt”? They won’t be touched I fear.

    What we are witnessing in real time is what intel agency observers call a “limited hangout”. We will get part of the story revealed, but not the whole deal.

    Right now, Clapper, Brennan, Comey and Strzok are responsible for the “17 intelligence agencies all agree Russia interfered in the 2016 election to HELP TRUMP” assessment. The irony being, those criminals have all been fired, and are currently under suspicion of espionage, but Barr won’t question their politically motivated assesment?

    “Limited hangout” is what we’re going to get, that’s the D.C. way.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cwf60 says:

      We will see if PDJT checkmates them by releasing all reports and FISA app

      Liked by 7 people

    • Linda K says:

      What year was the DNC hack? 2016? If it can be shown that the spying on Trump began in 2015, the DNC hack does not give them the go ahead to get a FISA on the Trump people. There is no way out for the intel people regarding the legality of the spy issue, as far as I can tell.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Hmmm... says:

        The Russians hacked the DNC servers in 2015 (according to FBI and NYTimes). I think there is a greater likelihood of that hack being real since this reporting occurred so early. It really should not be that surprising that the Russians hack any and everything they can. It’s small potatoes compared to what the NSA does and exactly what an intelligence agency does. Releasing the contents is the real question and that is not the Russian MO (it even says this in the NYTimes article about the 2015 hack).

        Liked by 4 people

        • Deb says:

          The “hackers” left behind obvious evidence. Real hackers don’t do that. They either were amateurs who had nothing to do with the Russian govt or the evidence was planted by our black hats.

          Liked by 6 people

          • Vault 7 from Wikileaks showed the CIA tools to frame hackers from various foreign countries by leaving behind some of their signature moves. Assange released Vault 7 after the “Russians Hacked the DNC” drumbeat wouldn’t go away.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Derangement Syndrome says:


            Plus, all of this “proof” of “Russian hacking” comes from the analysis of one group, CROWDSTRIKE, a DNC paid 3rd party private company. (The same company that James Comey’s brother once worked for)

            The fact that this flimsy assertion comes from an organization paid by Hilary Clinton and is taken at face value by our intelligence community, is the height of insanity.

            Liked by 8 people

        • The DNC hack occurred internally. Too much data was downloaded in a very short period of time. Internet hacking was/is insufficiently slow to have happened. It had to be an individual with a) access, and b) security log-on authority to effect the theft. The DNC only allowed their hired corporation, Crowd Strike, to examine their computers and report the results to the FBI lest a competent mid-level FBI employee blow up the containment of information.


        • Doreen Scott says:

          The Russians didn’t need to hack anything. The Clintons were on their payroll.

          Liked by 2 people

        • The Demon Slick says:

          It’s a Lie. That’s why the FBI never examined the server. They relied on a report from Crowdstrike, which is owned by a Ukrainian with ties to the Clinton foundation. I believe that it was a leak, probably by disgruntled Bernie bro Seth Rich. Assange knows this. I pray he remains safe and his mind isn’t tampered with. Like say he comes out of a British prison cell and says he’s really a woman trapped in a man’s body or something. I know, crazy right?


      • Zorro says:

        Alleged DNC hack.

        Liked by 6 people

      • mutantbeast says:

        they were scared of DJT from the day he announced he was a candidate. He wasnt a DC insider, wasnt part of the swamp, and had to be undermined by both Obama and the RINOS like Ryan, McConnell and the Bushes and there syncophats like Rubio.


      • PDJT IS WAITING…When everyone exposes themselves like they are now doing PDJT is going to lower the boom…I believe NOTHING will be swept under the rug or the institutions protected. People make-up the institutions, NOT the institutions themselves.

        “PDJT has ALWAYS said that this cannot happen to another President”…Everyone is forgetting, as always, there were 2 EO’s signed 7 January 2017…It is the 2nd one that EVERYONE IS FREAKING OUT ABOUT…AND one of the reasons that SC Justice Kavenaugh was asked about by Ol’ Lindsey Graham…The individuals WILL BE TRIED IN A TRIBUNAL…AND JUSTICE WILL BE SWIFT.

        Anyone who thinks otherwise is not looking at a larger picture such as PDJT…It is wishfull thinking, THAT IS ALL IT IS…

        A quick NOTE: CYBER CRIME is what it is being billed as BUT the under-pinnings are what is going to be giving away due to the MAGNITUDE of what was done and CANNOT BE DONE TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT FOLLOWING PDJT. PDJT talked with AG Barr and has this understanding…PDJT has the documents, the perps and Rudi Guiliani to back him…The people in the institutions will be done away with in short order!!!

        Apologize for the length but I am tired of anyone thinking that the “cybercrime” is going to protect these people AND have AG Barr go along with it…JA is a Red Herring as ALWAYS that PDJT releases to catch more…

        Liked by 2 people

        • The Demon Slick says:

          Most of us are jaded cynics. We’ve had the football pulled away at the last second over and over again. We’ve seen the criminals skate off to lucrative book deals or cushy fat salaries at their cronies firm. Take Mueller. He’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He gave a huge contract to a private firm in his last days as AG, then went to work for them in a fat fat fat deal that includes stock options worth around a hundred million at the time. Peter Schweitzer wrote about it. But there he sits in judgement and with huge government powers. Or Weissman that scumbag, they don’t even try to get him disbarred, let alone prosecuted. So yeah, I hope with the hope of a thousand lifetimes that you are correct. But based on my experience, you are going to be at least somewhat disappointed.


          • UHHH…NO..I will not be DISAPPOINTED as you point out…PDJT is there for a reason and anything less than what you make of it…well that is like asking if Comey/Mueller/etc are NOT lying…I’m done with you…BYE!!!


            • Ken moss says:

              One intelligent comment contradicting your premise and you run away? Come back with a rational comment on the comment.


    • Linda K says:

      What year was the DNC hack? 2016? If it can be shown that the spying on Trump began in 2015, the DNC hack does not give them the go ahead to get a FISA on the Trump people. There is no way out for the intel people regarding the legality of the spy issue, as far as I can tell.

      Liked by 1 person

      • farrier105 says:

        There are problems galore for the FBI with the 2015 hack story. Here are the biggest ones:

        1. Comey didn’t act like he gave a crap about Russians running around in the DNC network (the whole thing–not just the email server). All they did was telephone people in the DNC like the HELP DESK, or the consultant the DNC hired to try to find the Russians, which no one could. The primary consultant, Yared Tamene, found noting in the system logs to support ANY hackers being in the network. Tamene quit returning the FBI’s calls after this as he thought they were crank calls. Not doing anything to stop any such hack means the FBI permitted Russian hackers to stay inside a DC network, frequented by elected politicians with access to classified information and the systems of multiple bureaucracies for AN ENTIRE YEAR according to the “official story.”

        2. There is a chance Russians spent a brief period in the DNC network in 2015. That evidence involves what I call “The Lynch Letter.” If the Lynch Letter is real, it could explain a lot of what we are still experiencing in Trump-Russia-Wikileaks. The “Lynch Letter” was written by Wasserman-Schultz (DWS) and describes the answer Loretta Lynch gave to Hillary staffer AMANDA RENTERIA concerning just how deep the FBI would go in investigating Hillary’s private email system: Not very deep at all. This letter MIGHT have been among the documents the NSA told the FBI were transmitted from the DNC to Moscow Center in November 2015. The Russians, if this story is true, had to be careful to eliminate all traces of their presence in the DNC network after being there so Yared Tamene could not find any forensic evidence, and would also have to go ahead knowing the NSA would likely detect them, so this story also has problems, but the Lynch Letter could very likely be genuine. The link to the article is below.


      • farrier105 says:

        I already posted this once before, but here is a Handy-Dandy Guide to what is wrong with the Mueller indictment of the 12 Russian names along with a link to THE FORENSICATOR, who also raked the indictment over the coals a few months later. This way, you will be ready.


        I got involved recently in a spirited discussion on Twitter about the DNC hack with someone who kept demanding that I read the indictment of the 12 Russians accused by the Special Counsel’s office of committing the hack of the DNC. My arguments had nothing to do with the content of the indictment, and, since none of the 12 Russians were about to surrender themselves to face trial on the charges, there is no way to objectively verify the indictment’s contents. After all, indictments only establish PROBABLE CAUSE to bring someone to trial and obtain arrest and search warrants. Indictments do not establish guilt. I have read most of the indictment since then. When I read the comments in the indictment about the “Russians” deleting logs from at least three machines between DNC and DCCC networks, something was sort of jumping out at me. The indictment was reading as if the “Russians” were NOT deleting audit, event, and other system logs as they went along to cover their tracks, but doing it only an unspecified amount of time into the hack. For example, “Russian hackers” hang out in the Exchange server to “monitor” or “read” DNC emails, but leave the server without clearing the logs of their tracks. In fact, this goes on for weeks or months with no deletions of the logs. Suddenly, out of whimsy, or something else, they decide to clean logs. That is how it read to me, but I couldn’t be sure, so I went to media sources going back to early 2016 from the time the story broke in June through the publication of the DNC emails on July 22, 2016. I wanted to know if someone BIG made a statement that indicated the “Russians” did not delete the log entries highlighting their presence on the network. The NEW YORK TIMES provided such evidence in the December 13, 2016 article by Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, and Scott Shane: The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

        Michael E. Sussmann, the Perkins Coie attorney and former US Attorney specializing in Cybercrime, is quoted as follows about how concerned he was about not tipping off the “Russians” that the DNC knew the “Russians” were in their network:

        “You only get one chance to raise the drawbridge,” Mr. Sussmann said. “If the adversaries know you are aware of their presence, they will take steps to burrow in, or ERASE THE LOGS THAT SHOW THEY WERE PRESENT.”

        The above quote told me that Sussmann knew the Russians hadn’t deleted any of the audit, event, or other system logs that documented their presence in the DNC network, including the alleged Cozy Bear group, which was allowed to camp out on the DNC network for 11 months, thanks to a limp FBI response limited to primarily telephone calls. Of course, I was elated to read this as it is an incongruous thing for someone like Sussmann to say for the following reasons:

        1. Professional Russian intelligence operatives, who also hack, would almost certainly cover their tracks after every visit to a compromised network by deleting the logs that would give them away as part of their tradecraft. It should be noted that, in his seminal final report of the “Russian hack” of the DNC, Dmitri Alperovitch of Crowdstrike thought the “Russians” in the DNC network had a high level of tradecraft. Waiting weeks, or months, to eliminate such evidence as those system logs is not very impressive tradecraft. In fact, just about anyone could have hacked an apparently cardboard network like the DNC, not to mention the help the “Russians” received from the preposterous and incredible lack of response to it by just about everyone in authority who was involved. That would include everyone from James Comey to whomever he ordered to keep telephoning the DNC about “Russians” on their network.

        If the “Russians” did not, as a matter of daily routine, delete the audit and event logs from every server and workstation that they would access each day, they risked someone like Yared Tamene, a consultant hired by the DNC to find the alleged Russians on the DNC network, examining the logs to verify the FBI’s claims that “Russians” were on the DNC network. In fact, Sussmann’s quote tells us the “Russian hackers” did, in fact, leave the “fingerprints” of their presence in the audit and event logs. Somehow, those “fingerprints” did not inform Yared Tamene that “Russians” were present on the network, but Sussmann was sure the logs would contain that information.

        2. Sussmann is giving us a clue to something very important. Sussmann is explaining the inexplicable Incident Response operation run by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike, with total access to the entire DNC network, capable of monitoring all the activity on the network, did nothing for 36 days but watch as the “Russians” plundered the DNC of their data. The desire of Mr. Sussmann, and the DNC management group involved in the Incident Response, was to keep the “Russians” in the dark about the fact their presence was known. This supposedly was the basis for Crowdstrike merely monitoring the hackers’ activities rather than trying to stop them from stealing data. Crowdstrike did not want the villains to finally get around to deleting the logs once they found out the DNC knew they were in the network. Well, we will see that the “Russians” allegedly did delete the logs, according to Special Counsel Mueller’s indictment, as well as steal all documents not nailed down while Crowdstrike let them do it.

        Why would it matter to Sussmann if the “Russians” deleted the logs in the first place? Crowdstrike claims to have identified the hackers as Russians on May 6, 2016. Once that was done, all Crowdstrike had to do was do on May 7, 2016 and May 8, 2016 what they would not do until June 11, 2016 and June 12, 2016–get the Russians off the network by taking it offline in the guise of upgrading the system. If the Russians cannot access the DNC network through the Internet, they can’t delete any of the logs. Also, one of the first things Crowdstrike should have done was review logs and copy them as part of Best Practices in Incident Response to make forensic evidence available for law enforcement. So, Sussmann was worried needlessly about the logs. Since the alleged Russians were too incompetent or lazy to delete the logs as part of their daily routine of hacking the DNC network, Crowdstrike would have copied and saved them, and, if they had kicked the “Russians” out of the network in early May, they couldn’t access the logs to delete them anyway!

        So, “raising the drawbridge” actually solves the problem of the logs while also preventing the catastrophic loss of the emails that we keep being told was an attack on our democracy. The DNC did not have to lose one email. The emails were stolen on May 25, 2016, 19 days after Crowdstrike had allegedly identified the hackers as “Russian state actors.” The alleged Russians stole the emails while Crowdstrike just sat there and watched them do it. Again, if Crowdstrike had done in May what they put off until June, the DNC does not lose one damaging email. None of the logs would have been lost, either.

        It is also fascinating to note that the Mueller Indictment of the 12 Russians reveals, in Section 33, paragraph a: “On or about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for open source information about Company 1 (Crowdstrike) and its reporting about X-agent and X-Tunnel (two hacking tools used by alleged Russian hackers). On or about June 1, 2016, the Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.”

        So, in this paragraph we see that the “Russians” knew Crowdstrike was looking for them on the DNC network as early as May 31, 2016, and perhaps even earlier. Mueller’s indictment only tells us about an Internet search a “Russian hacker” did about Crowdstrike. The indictment does not identify the date on which the “Russian hackers” discovered Crowdstrike on the DNC network. So, while doing nothing to eliminate the “Russian hackers” from the DNC network, allegedly to keep the “Russians” from finding out the DNC was on to them, we see that the “Russians” not only found out the DNC was on to them, but knew the name of the cybersecurity firm sent to kick them out of the network, CROWDSTRIKE. The “Russian hacker” YERMAKOV researched Crowdstrike on May 31, 2016, 26 days into the Crowdstrike Incident Response engagement, and six days after Crowdstrike sat there and watched the Russians steal every email in the DNC Microsoft Exchange server. So much for Mr. Sussmann’s strategy of keeping the “Russians” in the dark by letting them run amok on the network.

        As for the part of the paragraph referencing “Russian” use of the program CCleaner, it should be noted that the free version of the software does not delete all the files the system saves when someone is working on the computer while on the Internet. Files and objects known as “TRACKS” are not deleted by CCleaner’s free version. I have to use Glary Utilities’ free version to identify and delete “Tracks.” Over time, “Tracks” can build up to a sizeable number files and objects. When I had Toshiba’s people remote into my computer to solve a problem I could not, they noted that I had too many “Junk” files on my computer, even though I had both CCleaner and Glary Utilities and used them in tandem all the time. That’s when I discovered that I had not configured Glary Utilities to find and delete “Tracks.” After clicking the box to permit Glary Utilities to delete “Tracks,” I haven’t accumulated any since. Maybe the paid-for version of CCleaner eliminates “Tracks,” but the free version does not. Typically, people tend to use the free version of programs like CCleaner, especially if an employee downloads it to a work computer to clean up any surfing traces. It is likely that the “Russians” used a free version downloaded and installed on a DCCC computer by a DCCC employee. If so, the “Tracks” left by the “Russians” were not deleted.

        CCleaner Scan results showing no “Tracks” listed to be cleaned off the hard drive.

        CCleaner after all temporary and junk files listed eliminated from hard drive.

        Glary Uitlities screen capture showing “Tracks Eraser” checked.

        Results of Glary Utilities scan, 7, 191 “Tracks” discovered.

        Example of some of the “Tracks” found by Glary Utilities, but not found by CCleaner. If Russians used the free version of CCleaner, no “Tracks” were cleaned off the drive.


        Section 31 of the indictment claims: “During the hacking of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks by intentionally deleting logs and computer files. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel, including login history.” The use of the term “history” tells us that the alleged Russians never bothered to clean out the AMS logs until June 20, 2016, leaving all of them for Crowdstrike to copy and save every day since May 5, 2016. The “Russians” knew about Crowdstrike being on the DNC network since at least May 31, 2016, and perhaps even earlier in May. As stated above, Section 33, paragraph a of the indictment tells us the “Russians” were doing online searches about Crowdstrike on May 31, 2016. These “Russians” were deleting logs that they should have known Crowdstrike had already backed up and saved in the example of the June 20, 2016 deletion of the AMS panel logs. The “Russians” would have known the deletion of the AMS panel logs was a waste of time as their operation was already “blown.”

        Finally, the Indictment describes how the DNC emails made it to Wikileaks in Section 47, paragraph b. The indictment cites “failed attempts to transfer” the DNC emails to “Organization 1″ (Wikileaks) starting in late June 2016, on or about June 14, 2016.” The indictment goes on to claim that the emails were finally received by Wikileaks “on or about July 18, 2016,” and describes the publication date as July 22, 2016, which is accurate.

        This claim in the indictment is disputable. There is evidence that Wikileaks had the DNC emails before June 12, 2016, which was also the date of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub Mass Shooting Event, which dominated the news cycle for days, muting the effect of the front page story about the DNC hack in the June 14, 2016 edition of the Washington Post. Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, was interviewed on June 12, 2016 by London’s ITV. Assange told interviewer Robert Preston that Wikileaks had emails about Hillary Clinton that Wikileaks would publish, “coincident to the Democratic National Convention” in July 2016. The DNC emails were published on July 22, 2016, only a few days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, and the only emails Wikileaks published at that point in time. The fact that the emails, to which Assange alluded in the ITV interview of June 12th, had to be the DNC emails is self-evident. No other emails were published by Wikileaks “about Hillary Clinton” that were published “coincident to the Democratic National Convention” but the DNC emails. The dates listed in the indictment are, therefore, disputable.

        My personal conclusion is that the emails were sent to Wikileaks prior to June 12, 2016. That is clearly indicated by the content of the ITV interview with Julian Assange of Wikileaks on that date. Mr. Mueller would not likely be concerned about any of my conclusions, but if he is he is free to produce all the forensics he has to prove that the emails were not sent to Wikileaks prior to July 18, 2016.

        Another reason to dispute the claim the DNC emails were given to Wikileaks on July 18, 2016 is the appearance of Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be a Romanian hacker like the original Guccier. On June 15, 2016, the day after the Washington Post broke the hack story, Guccifer 2.0 surfaced, claiming on his blog that he hacked the DNC and gave emails to Wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the Special Counsel’s office, which brought the indictment against the 12 Russians, to be a Russian hacker, working alongside the 12 Russians indicted by Mr. Mueller. Guccifer 2.0’s supposed assignment by “Russian Intelligence” was to mislead people away from suspecting Russia in the theft of the emails. However, Guccifer 2.0’s claim of giving the emails to Wikileaks prior to June 15, 2016, is yet another indication that the emails were given to the DNC before the June 12, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the UK’s ITV. Again, the DNC emails were stolen on May 25, 2016 at about noon that day, which is the last date and time indicated on the last DNC email published by Wikileaks on July 22, 2016.

        Remember from Part 12 how it was explained that the difference in the description of the hack in the front page Washington Post exclusive story of June 14, 2016, and the description of the hack in the final report of Crowdstrike’s Incident Response engagement, was likely the result of the June 15, 2016 appearance of Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0 told the world that he stole the emails and had already given them to Wikileaks prior to June 15, 2016. In the previous day’s Washington Post story, the emails were only a cipher. The “Russians” “read/monitored” the emails. There was no mention of the “Russians” stealing the emails in the Washington Post exclusive. The Post story only identified a collection of Opposition Research about Donald Trump as having been stolen by the “Russians.” The opposition research was published on the Internet by Guccifer 2.0, supposedly a “Russian hacker” trying to help elect Trump, but publishing negative stories about Trump on the Internet.


        We now know with certainty that the average DNC employee knew nothing about the presence of any “Russian hackers.” DNC management, and Crowdstrike, kept the employees in the dark which led to an explosion of email traffic on the DNC network starting in mid-April and peaking after Crowdstrike set up shop on the DNC network. This sudden and inexplicable spike in email traffic, which included the only damaging DNC emails that were published at Wikileaks, was discussed by Stephen McIntyre on his Climate Audit Web site, which was linked in several earlier parts of this series, and will be linked on the end notes below. So, not only did the DNC not have to lose one email, the DNC did not even have to create any damaging emails if the employees had been instructed to either:

        1. Not write anything that they would not want to see published.

        2. Help out with fooling the “Russian hackers” by writing bogus emails that appear scandalous, but not real ones.

        Instead, the employees were not told anything, were permitted to greatly increase the daily volume of email traffic, incoming and outgoing, beyond any in previous months. Why that spike would not alert the “Russian hackers” that something weird was going on, I haven’t a clue. The one group of “Russian hackers” was allegedly on the DNC network since July 2015 and would have some idea as to normal traffic volume by then. The others appeared in March 2016, but had over a month to get an idea of normal daily email traffic. What was going on in May was not normal DNC email traffic.

        The content of the emails was abnormal, too. The emails were incriminating. There were the Bernie Sanders emails in which DNC executives practically admitted they were cheating Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton. Then there were emails about money being moved around from the Hillary for America campaign organization, to the DNC, and from the DNC to the state Democratic Party committees. After awhile, the state commitees would send the money back to the DNC, who would send it back to Hillary for America. This looks like a goofy money laundering operation, or check kiting. It’s suspicious activity, and they are emailing about it while “Russian hackers” had access to all of it. If you are a Russian intelligence agent, wouldn’t you notice this as being anomalous behavior? Would you automatically think it is just the employees not knowing about the “Russian hackers?” No, not at least after May 31, 2016, because on, or before, May 31st, the “Russian hackers” knew Crowdstrike was monitoring the network. Professional intelligence agents would not be able to be sure that the anomalous email traffic was real and not a set-up of some kind. If Crowdstrike was known by the “Russians” to be there, the “Russians” would not know whether or not the FBI was with them. Since it was the DNC network, they would likely assume the FBI was there. GRU and FSB both have dossiers about Shawn Henry, former FBI Cybercrimes division chief, and had to know Henry was responsible for Incident Response at Crowdstrike. Phony emails would be something the FBI might try to bait any “Russian hackers” on the DNC network.

        In the New York Times article The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S., we read: “In the six weeks after Crowdstrike’s arrival, in total secrecy, the computer system at the DNC was replaced. For a weekend, email and phones were shut off; employees were told it was a system upgrade. All laptops were turned in and their hard drives wiped clean, with the uninfected information on them imaged to new drives.”

        The employees were never told about any “Russian hackers” watching everything they wrote, and hearing everything they said on that Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VoiP) telephone system. The employees were told the elimination of the “Russian hackers” was merely an upgrade of the system. After six weeks of “Russian hackers” plundering the DNC network of all the data that would be used to “attack our democracy,” they were finally removed from the network by disconnecting the network from the Internet.

        It was done six weeks too late.

        What was done in mid-June should have been done in early May.

        There is no real excuse for this whether or not any Russians were involved at all.


        There are a number of explanations for the slow walked Crowdstrike response to alleged Russian state hackers completely compromising all the data on the DNC network. During the “spirited discussion” of the hack on Twitter I mentioned above, I began to research the contents of indictment and other media articles about the alleged Russian hack, to get some kind of evidence of just why Crowdstrike handled the Incident Response in the way they did. The reason I have settled on is as follows: Crowdstrike was issued a STAND DOWN ORDER. They were told to STAND DOWN and do nothing to stop the theft of the data by the UNKNOWN SUBJECTS (unknown to the general public, that is). Basically, this was what my opponent was saying when he claimed that the client so controlled the scope of Crowdstrike’s response that they had no choice but to sit and do nothing to stop the loss of the data. However, how likely is it that the DNC would let hackers from a foreign power to steal damaging emails and, more importantly, the donor database, containing the personal information of some of the largest donors to the Democratic Party? I have never thought that was possible, given how sensitive Debbie Wasserman Schultz was to the security of donor inforrmation. Crowdstrike behaved as if someone gave them a Stand Down Order, as that was what they did, they STOOD DOWN.

        1. In my argument during the forementioned “spiritied discussion” on Twitter, I centered on how Crowdstrike performed the Incident Response which amounted to observation of the “hackers'” activities, not taking any steps to prevent data loss. My opponent defended Crowdstrike by saying the client (DNC) was responsible for that, not Crowdstrike, an argument that struck me as a “sour note” hit by my opponent. I now realize why the argument was a “sour note”: The problem with the DNC giving what could only be called a Stand Down Order to Crowdstrike has to do with the fact that the Donor Database was plundered. That fact was not known by Amy Dacey or Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the June 13, 2016 meeting with Ellen Nakashima of WAPO. Schultz told Nakashima that “the Russians” did not even access the donor database. That was not accurate as we now know, but Wasserman Schultz was very sensitive about the subject of the Donor Information to point that I cannot imagine her, or Amy Dacey, telling Crowdstrike to do nothing but watch that data be taken by Russian Intelligence.

        2. We know from the “raise the drawbridge” quote from Robert E. Sussmann of Perkins Coie, who hired Crowdstrike for the Incident Response engagement, that the Stand Down Order could likely have been issued by Sussmann, but there is no way that the argument about “protecting the system logs” would make any sense to either Dmitri Alperovitch or Shawn Henry. (1) That was the excuse Sussmann offered to the technologically underinformed public ( I can see them nodding their heads “knowingly” about Sussmann’s argument about the logs because it “makes sense” to them). Maybe the Stand Down order came from Sussmann. He most certainly had to know about it as he justified it in his explanation to the Times’ reporters.

        Because of 1 and 2, I have concluded that the Stand Down Order was issued by an entity outside the DNC, and a “high echelon of power” that didn’t bother to tell Alperovitch and Henry where the emails would be sent after exfiltration completed the theft of the documents and the transfer of the emails to Wikileaks. That wasn’t very nice of them to not tell Alperovitch and Henry about Wikileaks, but they did not tell Nakashima that the “Russian agents” stole the emails. If Alperovitch and Henry had known the emails had been given to Wikileaks, they certainly would have told Nakashima the Russians stole them, which they did not tell her. The “high echelon of power” just issued a Stand Down without giving a reason, and Crowdstrike complied and Stood Down. They made the Stand Down behaviors obvious in their final report which described in detail how the hackers looted the DNC network while Crowdstrike observed their activities.

        Where are the professionals in cybersecurity in not challenging these inconsistencies? I would most like to know that.

        (1). As pointed about in Part 13, it is elementary knowledge in Incident Response and cybersecurity that audit and event logs can be copied to storage media, archived, and preserved. Once this was done, the alleged Russian hackers would not pose any threat to the logs. In addition, the type of actions Crowdstrike took on the weekend of June 11th and June 12th 2016, to take the network offline and install new servers and workstations under the guise of upgrading, could just as easily be done the weekend after May 6, 2016, the date Crowdstrike told the DNC that “Russian State Actors” were responsible for the intrusion. Under that scenario, the “Russian hackers” could not access the network to delete the logs. The threat to the logs as an excuse for “slow walking” the response for 36 days is now rendered “inoperative.”

        If your Incident Response amounts to watching state sponsored hackers compromise all data on the network, stage the data for exfiltration, and then exfiltrate the data, you are under a STAND DOWN ORDER of some kind, for some reason, by someone. The altenative explanations for such incongruous and preposterous behaviors are not much better. At least a STAND DOWN ORDER supplies a fig leaf of cover, the protection of the logs from the “hackers” deleting them, if things go “sideways.”



    • Niagara Frontier says:

      It would explain why the upper tier seem to have that “What, me worry?” look about them, and continue to run their mouths at every opportunity.

      I suspect POTUS wants their scalps more than the others.

      Liked by 1 person

    • They never even bothered to interview Craig Murray (ex-UK Ambassador) who claims to have actually met and accepted the hand-over of the DNC leaks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jeremywhooten says:

        As far as we know. The proceedings of the Grand Jury, including the witnesses called, are confidential and protected.


      • jeremywhooten says:

        As far as we know. The proceedings of the Grand Jury, including the witnesses called, are confidential and protected.


    • farrier105 says:

      I still submit that Mueller closing down with “no collusion,” after he used less than three months of the six months extension to his grand jury that he obtained in January is directly tied in with the announcement, 12 days later, by Wikileaks that Assange’s apprehension was imminent.

      Go back to the WAPO exclusive FIRST STORY about this preposterous story of the “hack.” Crowdstrike and the DNC did not tell Ellen Nakashima of WAPO that ANY emails had been stolen. What became an “act of war” by Russia started out as something on the level of a fraternity prank. No one in the media cared, especially since, the day before Nakashima got the story, the Orlando Pulse nightclub was allegedly shot up, killing 50. The NYT did not publish about the hack until TWO DAYS AFTER WAPO’S EXCLUSIVE.

      Why didn’t Crowdstrike tell WAPO the emails were stolen?

      Someone failed to tell Alperovitch and Henry that THEY GAVE THE EMAILS TO WIKILEAKS TO FRAME JULIAN ASSANGE AS A RUSSIAN AGENT. Something like a catcher calling for a fast ball and getting a curve ball instead.


    • farrier105 says:

      The BIG reason there could be “limited hangout” is that the Republican Party believes firmly in Russian interference in the election. Devin Nunes is convinced of it, and so are the others. The Republicans believe the Russians targeted them as well as Democrats, so the idea that there was any chance Republicans would investigate the finding that Russians hacked the DNC would never happen as that was accepted by BOTH PARTIES as a given.


  7. jx says:

    IIRC a top Facebook exec said Russian ads were seen by a ridiculously small number –   .4% or thereabouts, and mostly post election.

    Also, Mueller indicted but then wasn’t ready to prosecute a Russian company because their social media had yet to be translated.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. ATheoK says:

    “It will be interesting to see if AG William Barr goes along with the focus on cybercrimes as the impetus for Mueller’s investigation.”

    If Barr is honest, he should have an honest cyber team to thoroughly investigate Mueller’s claims.

    Mueller and his team’s weakness in this whole charade has been Mueller’s utter lack of detail backing up his claims; e.g. Mueller’s Russian indictments against nonexistent companies and companies that effectively fought back.

    Once Mueller’s cybercrime allegations are deconstructed and explained by genuine experts, Mueller himself becomes jail content for his sedition, along with Rosenstein.

    Liked by 3 people

    • It seems to me Mueller was just cover, a figurehead or whatever for Weismann’s team of angry Democrat interrogators, whose task was to kill the Trump phenomena by whatever means necessary.

      Liked by 4 people

      • mutantbeast says:

        Mule turd appointed Weasel Man , Rhee and the rest of the communists. He intended to Get Trump, but failed many because there was zero evidence, and his lawyer team were incompetent. this sounds to me like whats behind door #2, watch and see in the next few weeks if Piece of Schiff , Cummings and Fineswine start talking about Russian cybercrimes.


  9. emeraldcoaster says:

    With Assange bagged and tossed into a Brit jail cell at least until next month, it looks like Wikileaks will be successfully branded—warranted or not—as Russian accomplices. Wikileaks has precious little time to reveal the email sources before the feces hits the rotating oscillator.

    Liked by 7 people

    • nimrodman says:

      time for some dead-man switches to trip

      Liked by 2 people

    • jbowen82 says:

      This is it. The DOJ is going to prove that Wikileaks was an instrument of the Russian government, going back to Snowden and Manning. Therefore, ANYTHING Wikileaks did was attributable to Russia. Seth Rich downloads the hard drive and gives it to Wikileaks? He’s working for Russia. Case closed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • EC…you should be “rotating oscillator” in quotes!!!…Just like they have an “Inverted Rectal Cranionomy” coming to a GOOD amount of these fools…


  10. Sammy Hains says:

    If this report is accurate, it brings the true purpose of the Mueller probe into sharp focus.
    It could be that there is very little about Trump in the Mueller report at all, and nothing ‘derogatory’ for Democrats to exploit at all.

    It also explains the nonsense indictments of Russians posting meme on Facebook in their underwear.

    It would mean the Mueller probe’s sole focus was on cleaning up the mess that Strzok, Comey, and McCabe created.
    It was to give the appearance that somehow, someway, the FBI spying operation actually was legit. Using the report to further the partisan political operation against Trump would just further incite the wrath of Republicans and muck up the clean-up operation, and just make the FBI’s problems even worse.

    So the idea is to extract the FBI from the political mess as cleanly as possible.
    Perhaps it is with an understanding of détente: Horowitz, Huber, and Barr in return conclude that FBI protocol was not followed, and there was a lack of candor by some, but the investigation was legal and legit, and there was no nefarious motive behind it, and it didn’t go further up the chain.

    Like an episode of G.I. Joe, all parties bail out and walk away relatively unscathed to fight another day on another front.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sammy Hains says:

      However, to be clear, this is just regarding to ‘official’ product put out by Mueller.

      In all likelihood Weissmann et al used the past 2 years to dig up as much POLITICAL dirt on Trump as they could, to pass on to Democrats to use in 2020. It just won’t be in the actual Mueller report, though it seems like the Democrats already have Weissman’s dirt and are expecting it in the official report, which is why they’re chomping at the bit to get it released in full.

      Their demand for “derogatory information about the president” to not be censored by Barr tips their hand. They may be very bewildered and surprised when none of it is in the official report.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Bill says:

        NOBODY was prosecuted for Russian conspiring. Trump was never informed. TWO MAJOR red flags that show no matter what their supposed reasoning, there clearly wasn’t enough for them to launch a spy mission of a political campaign. And at the very least not inform the candidate. Assumptions that Russians are trying to help a candidate with zero evidence that said candidate is aware of the help does not mean they are allowed to see if it eventually gets to him. That basically is entrapment.

        Liked by 3 people

        • ILOT says:

          I maintain the key elements that aren’t riddled throughout the “everybody walks free” memes are:
          . This was without a doubt a soft coup and if the Republic is to survive it must be dealt with.
          . Laws were broken by exponential factors compared to Watergate where folks did in fact go to jail.
          . If nothing else, it’s obvious a mess needs cleaning up in the DOJ/FBI
          . Everyone in the executive branch works PDJT, the target, and he has made it clear that “no future POTUS should have to deal with this”. It will take a lot to convince me that he would say that and then takes his boot off throats to salvage the image of individual players. PDJT has always signaled his intentions well ahead of any action and this is no different. In addition, the circle is small enough that this CAN be dealt with and the only factor being the need to avoid the appearance of revenge. The attacks on Barr are in my opinion salvos to make the revenge case the story now that collusion is dead.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Dutchman says:

          To me this all comes across like,a kid, trying yo explain WHY there are no cookies in the cookie jar, and cookie crumbs all down his shirt.
          The DOG ate them!
          Burglars broke in, and ate them.
          MARTIANS beamed them up to their space ship!
          No matter what lie they TRY to come up with, those damn annoying FACTS keep getting in their way.

          Much like a criminal, er ‘subject being interogated, er ‘interviewed’, and each lie they tell, that is clearly disputed BY the facts, further digs the hole and confirms their guilt.

          Waiting to hear them try the “We weren’t spying ON Trump,…we were spying FOR Trump!” Again.

          They will squirm, and twist, but they can NOT explain the unexplainable.
          Nor does ‘plausible deniability’ work, at all.

          They are dead men/woman walking and there is NO excusing, justifying or rationalising that will save them from Judgement in Criminal Court, the Court of Public Opinion, or the Eyes of History.

          As for all the speculation on a deal being made, I guess its good to remember all comments have an “understood” IMHO.

          I see NOTHING to indicate ANY kind of ‘deal’ like the ones being speculated about, here.

          WHAT, exactly is it proposed PDJT “gave” in this “Deal”, and WHAT did he GET?
          He got an honest, straight shooter A.G.
          Why would or should he have to “make a deal” to get THAT?

          And, if their had been ANY kind of a “Deal”, one would think an essential provision would have been that Congress stop the foolishness, which hasn’t HAPPENED.

          So, if PDJT mafe any kind of “Deal”, its gotta be the LOUSIEST deal he’s ever made in his LIFE.

          SO, while I respect that anyone making such posts is ‘entitled’to their opinion, unless you can point to SOME facts to back up your assertion, stating it with such absolute conviction seems specious, and more like talking out your *ss, than expressing a cogent, logical argument.

          Liked by 3 people

          • John-Y128 says:

            Spoil sport, we’re all desperate for accountability, whether it comes from the front or the rear really doesn’t matter at this point.


          • For all I care…Put EVERYONE OF THESE PERPS on a plane from NAS Jax to Gitmo, put them in a cage, start the tribunals and when the tribunal has passed judgement ask 2 questions:
            1) How do you want to be executed? Firing Squad, Electrocution, Chemical Injection.
            2) How do you want to be buried? Whole or Cremated…

            There won’t be enough Depends togo around when that happens!!!


          • Bill says:

            Until I see someone of note prosecuted I’m leaning towards a deal. The essence of a deal was to make them go away. They could have carried on for his whole term. Like I’ve said many times, I hope I’m wrong but I’m not holding my breath.


  11. czarowniczy says:

    It’s almost 40 years old but Don Henley had the idea down pat. Jeff Bezo’s anthem and I’ll bet Schiffhead has it playing in the background as he tries to read something, ANYTHING, into Mueller’s report.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Payday says:

    Very interesting point made on Laura Ingram. She showed he clip with Lefty Senator Schatz giving Barr a chance to clarify Spying and Barr said unauthorized surveillance. The lefty on a Laura’s show then tried to correct it to authorized surveillance. And it occurred to me that BOTH are correct! Barr could have said it either way.

    The fact that Barr did say unauthorized surveillance may give us some insight into how Barr actually looks at it. Which seems like very good news to me.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Good point. My take is he was saying “There is NO question there was surveilance on the Trump campaign, the QUESTION is, was it LEGAL, or ILLEGAL. Authorised or unauthorised would be another way to put it, but its semantics. If it was “authorised”, but the people with the authority to authorise it violated the law,in doing so, it IS “AUTHORISED”, and its STILL illegal.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. jello333 says:


    Just trying to see if this posts. All my other attempts are going nowhere, saying “Cannot be posted” or something. Not the typical glitch that winds up late-posting duplicates after awhile… this just seems like a dead STOP.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. jello333 says:

    Love this guy. Please, Don… do whatever you need to do to PROTECT Julian from your/our/his enemies.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. daniel stanfill says:

    Sooner or later, the whole sordid saga will meet the “stone cold truth”. Roger Stone was mercilessly destroyed in the final act of this ridiculous escapade. He has now lost his home, and moved into a single bedroom small apartment at his own labor with only his wife’s help.

    The Russian narrative is all over the charges against him despite the findings of no collusion. At trial, he will have to use any evidence and testimony he can to establish reasonable doubt. Will he use forensic experts? He has to. Will he call Bill Benny? Should Assange be in US custody, would compelling his testimony be tried? Will the prosecution make the specious claim that the identity of the hackers is immaterial to dodge this type of predicament?

    No, Stone will not be tried. Let’s hope that is good news for Stone.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. beachbum31 says:

    Ballsy Ford seen consoling former 15yo Scandinavians who knew Julian back in the wild n crazy skateboarding hacker days. Prepare for,,, ME TOO, EURO II


  17. Rongordo says:

    Considering Bradly Manning, Assange specializes in utilizing insider threats.


  18. amaezed one says:

    Two traitors that need to be removed are Bolton and Pompeo. These two are holding POTUS back internationally, not to mention the Julian Assange catastrophe. Every time POTUS got close to making deals with N.Korea/Russia, these two sabotaged that dialogue. Ecuador/Venezuela is another case in point. Pence could be added to this list. He went to Ecuador to make a deal. Then Assange got arrested. Go figure. The fight is on!


    • Retired IG says:

      Agree with you whole heartedly. Have heard the saying “keep your enemies close” but these players are beyond being enemies. Purposeful subterfuge? Sure seems like it.


  19. Maquis says:

    Screw preserving the non-existent integrity of the institutions, restore their integrity, or destroy them.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Retired IG says:

    Stomach churning indeed. And yes, Sundance – “throwing a bag over Assange’s head” is a priceless summation.. I read the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks re the DNC and the slime ball Podesta. SICKENING. DISGUSTING. Watched Julian Assange offer a reward re the MURDER of SETH RICH. Watched the Chelsea Manning video of journalists being SHOT point BLANK by the “friendly skies” of the USA. It all goes back to Bush, Obama and Hilary. I cannot pretend to know why fore the TIMING of Assange having the “bag put over his head.” But what these devils did to Trump – is of concern.
    . Thank gawd my porcelain Buddha is clean tonight. A Great darkness that has been in the hearts and souls of all these supposed humans and their machinations is about to come into the sunshine methinks. I HOPE the great detox is about to come. But detox is NEVER something I have EVER enjoyed except in retrospect.
    As the GREAT WORM CHURNS. Enjoy the SHOW. Please pray for Julian and his Kitty. And do your best to enjoy the SUNSHINE that is FINALY going into all of the dark places.


  21. Fools Gold says:

    Fake news has been going at it since it broke so yah. Rosey is a prick in a black hat. I been telling y’all all this time! It’s gonna be Assange worked for Trump all along and made Trump say Oboma wasn’t even a citizen….which he ain’t btw and imho.


  22. PVCDroid says:

    Fake news is working it hard already with articles on what a filthy pig Assange was, how the Ecuador embassy had to tell him to keep his bathroom clean, he didn’t bath, he didn’t pick up his cat’s turds, etc. So pathetic.


  23. Rynn69 says:

    “It will be interesting to see if AG William Barr goes along with the focus on cybercrimes as the impetus for Mueller’s investigation. This is where the need to preserve the integrity of the institutions comes into play; there will be massive pressure on Barr to go along.”

    We must pray Barr does not do that. If he does, he becomes involved with perpetuating the fraud of a phony coup and narrative. The American people’s AG must maintain his “cleanliness” so-to-speak in this corrupted filth. It is concerning that the indictment was unsealed now and Assange picked up by UK police. Does this mean Barr was ok with that? The United States government using innocent people here, there, everywhere to cover-up huge crimes a few committed. Civil rights, blind justice, and fidelity to the law out the window?

    Are we going to take down the entire Justice system in this country for a few rotten people who committed a coup de tat and numerous other crimes (compared to the 300+ million of us)? There is a strong argument to be made that doing nothing will have far greater consequences to holding this country together than not holding people accountable for this treason. AG Barr and PDJT must know this and hopefully will stay focused and not caught up in any pressure from the swamp around them…

    I truly hope AG Barr understands the majority of America know what happened and are crying out for justice.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. PVCDroid says:

    This hour long podcast with Mark Meadows interviewed by Byron York is a must listen. York presents his questions brilliantly getting down to the big picture including the start of the spying and UK interaction. Meadows has a trust factor to his personality and he exudes truth and logic imo. He’s a strong asset for us. He’s says that if all facts were presented as he believes them today, it would rival a John Grisham best selling spy novel.

    IMOI – AG Barr is going to need someone to look at CIA/NSA. Those two agencies have many “it’s classified” excuses to hide behind so it’s going to be difficult. We need to find out who was on the team at NSA listening without authorization. IMO that’s how in part the dossier was put together except they weren’t very good at making sure their sources were accurate. Maybe it’s true they were just doing Google searches trying to get dirt on Trump (Moscow Pee Tape). The rest of the FBI/DOJ investigation Barr can probably handle. This is going to get interesting. DNI Dan Coates should come clean with Trump if he knows what’s good for him.


  25. PMadison says:

    Seems like the bad guys are really going all in with trusting that Assange will never reveal the source of the DNC emails. If he reveals and has proof, the jig is up.

    How can the bad guys be that confident?


    • Doreen Scott says:

      We really don’t know why Assange is being brought back now. But he would be a great witness against the deep state. John Solomon wrote a good article back in July of 2017. It talks about how Rep. Dana Rohrabacher from California had a 3hr. private meeting with Assange. Rohrabacher came back to talk to President Trump but General Kelly would not let him see the President because of the ongoing Mueller investigation. Assange had told Rohrabacher that he has a lot of information regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public that he would like to tell to President Trump in private. I don’t know since the witch hunt is over and General Kelly is gone if Rohrabacher has contacted President Trump about his meeting.


      • PMadison says:

        I remember that.

        Worth noting here that Rohrabacher lost his re-election in Orange County. This can be attributed to two things: 1) California “vote harvesting,” and 2) he was buried under endless claims that he was working with Putin to hide … you guessed it, Russian Collusion.


  26. gretaherndon says:

    And no one willtalk to Bill Binney


    • Derangement Syndrome says:

      Why would anyone want to talk to a former top NSA official who developed the mass data collection algorithm? What could he possibly know?

      Besides, I heard a couple “brilliant” talking heads on MSDNC and CiaNN call him a “conspiracy theorist”, so there’s that.


  27. boomerbeth says:

    The Dreyfus affair 2.0
    The same playbook throughout history.

    Dreyfus is Trump.
    Esterhazy is Brennan

    When will journalist Émile Zola (Assange) appear?

    Liked by 1 person

  28. These people are nothing But lying to Americans again and again,
    So much corruptions that all Their were Doing as AG and FBI a Bunch scumbags,
    The Dem are still continue trying to lying porpaganda that is Totally Disgraceful,


  29. Micheal Jones says:

    To quote Flounder, “This is gonna be good”.


  30. TomA says:

    The Deep State desperately wants to continue the coverup of the coup against Trump and thereby protect their mechanisms of power. They are now negotiating to throw a few small fish under the bus (if absolutely necessary) in order to provide some cover for politicians and DOJ/FBI/CIA officials, but even that would a sham, as they would receive light token sentences and later be compensated with cushy overpaid employment. Their game plan is to rewrite history in such a way as to make all the prior criminality appear legal and plausibly justified; then follow with delay, obfuscation, theatrical outrage, and faux rule changes. If Barr goes along with this, then the only recourse is for citizens of this country to march on Washington DC and demand real justice.


    • Doreen Scott says:

      So far Barr is driving them nuts.


    • jeremywhooten says:

      Unfortunately, marching on Washington ain’t never gonna happen. I know so many people who don’t even know what’s going on relative to the Russia collusion hoax. They read headlines only, and most of the headlines are negative to Trump. This country is screwed.


  31. Al K. Annossow says:

    I’ve checked the public records. The Russian company, Internet Research Agency ceased all operations in the summer of *2015.* After a year of inactivity, as in no bank or employment transactions, it was automatically de-incorporated in 2016. They perhaps transferred their assets to a company name Teka in 2015.

    Internet Research Agency llc was probably trying to distance itself from it’s name because that name had gotten a lot of bad press in 2014. That’s also probably the reason that Brennan and Mueller specifically used that old name – they wanted to give the incurious press something easy to dig their teeth into.

    Because of the previous activities and its associated “online news organizations,” I believe Internet Research Agency and its successor Teka, was merely a business operation trying to establish online influence so as to sell it to anyone in any country who wanted to buy that influence. U.S. politics has great potential for internet influence peddling. I don’t see it as a government controlled entity. It may have an Israeli connection. A convicted and exiled ex Russian oligarch residing in Israel, named Mikhail Khodorkovsky, mysteriously tweeted about Internet Research Agency’s move to a new building in 2014:

    Just thought someone might want to know such facts and opinions.


  32. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    Recall that the Russians tried to hack RNC but couldn’t.


  33. Joseph Burke says:

    As Dan Bongino said on Friday. This is one of the simplest questions in the Collusion Hoax. Did Julian Assange conspire with the Russians to hack the DNC and give that info to Donald Trump or did Assange do that and we all know by Mueller’s no collusion determination that Assange did not. So this is Five Eyes doing a clean up operation. Time to take bets on how long Assange survives before some “Bad Illness” takes him out.


    • jello333 says:

      In my opinion, what happened to Otto Warmbier was probably due to negligence, stupidity, and overall lack of concern (I don’t think there was outright torture or anything). On the other hand, if anything happens to Julian, it will be 100% intentional and purposeful.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s