The VIPS analysis doesn't prove its point. It is NOT known that the July 5 copying operation was exfiltration from DNC. Indeed, it is very unlikely that it was. Adam Carter, Forensicator and myself have all looked at Guccifer 2 metadata in microscopic detail and our opinion is that it is probably/almost certainly a copying operation that took place AFTER prior exfiltration. In the cf.7z dossier, there is evidence of exfiltration at expected rates on other earlier dates.
Also, it is correct that the seemingly pointless opening and closing of five documents in the first G2 drop, which had effect of inserting metadata with name of Russian equivalent of J Edgar Hoover, cannot be plausibly explained as an "opsec error". This was pointed out long before VIPS. Precisely what it means is impossible to say right now.
On balance, I think that the VIPS article has been unhelpful to objective analysis, since its over-egged certainty on copying speeds has tended to distract skeptics towards an almost certainly irrelevant scenario and away from better leads.
I recall that similar analysis on documents in the hrc archive linked from G2 in June but don't have it at hand.
NONE of the documents in the July 5, 2016 copying operation come from June 2016 or even from 2016 or 2015. They are hugely stale and, to quote myself, "not even chickenfeed". Oddly, the timezones in cf.7z metadata are EXACTLY one hour displaced from timezones in the ngpvan.7z archive which VIPS considered. This also indicates some sort of post-exfiltration copying operation.
I am as skeptical as anyone at what happened in DNC hack, but view the VIPS over-egged assertions as implausible and an unfortunate distraction and obstacle to more serious research on this issue.
I would parenthetically add: it's also seems like the sort of thing you'd have your attorneys file while negotiating a plea/cooperation agreement with Durham, so as to minimize the chances of taking an inadvertent self-induced dirt nap in Ft. Marcy Park. If Sussmann wants a deal, the last thing he needs is for co-conspirators to get wind of it before he spills the beans to Durham.
Another observation I have not seen anywhere else: note that the judge has granted a protective order on all non-classified material that the prosecution provides to the defense. The order forbids the defense from sharing the information it gets from prosecutors with anyone outside of the defense team for any purpose other than the defense on THIS specific charge.
If Durham doesn't plan on indicting anyone else, why would it be necessary to obtain such an order?
Hence, this is further independent circumstantial evidence he is planning on indicting others, in relation to what he has described in this indictment.
By not charging the others presently, aside from Sussmann, Durham prevents Sussmann's potential fellow defendants from forming a Mutual Defense Agreement ("MDA") with Sussmann -- under which they WOULD be able to share evidence, testimony, etc.
The details (as I understand them) is that an MDA can ONLY be used by "similarly situated" defendants or potential defendants. The moment one or more of them have a circumstance in which their legal interests are no longer aligned, those members of the MDA have to drop out of the agreement, get different attorneys, and can't share anything with the others, nor they with the departing MDA members.
By charging Sussmann alone, Durham prevents Sussmann from being part of any MDA that relates to this charge, and that and the protective order shuts Sussmann out from sharing whatever he gets from prosecutors with any of the other co-conspirators. Even if there are sealed indictments on the others, they are not formally charged like Sussmann is, and thus cannot have a MDA with Sussmann at this time. That shuts everyone else out from knowing what Durham knows, other than that which he made public in the Sussmann indictment!
And, if Sussmann takes a plea deal, then he is not similarly situated with the other co-conspirators, because they can still face charges they might wish to contest, while Sussmann would have stipulated to plead guilty, and thus their legal interests do not align, and an MDA with Sussmann is again forbidden.
The analogy is a wrangler cutting horses or cattle out of the herd one at a time, and isolating it from the rest of the herd (which includes the co-conspirators,) so they can't use the "herd defense" (equivalent of the MDA.)
Speculation: is Durham planning on repeating the process of cutting defendants out of the "conspiracy herd" one-at-a-time, and squeezing plea agreements out of them until he has enough cooperating defendants that he has an airtight case for his conspiracy charges against the rest? And by doing it this way, he prevents an MDA being set up to share prosecution material, until it is too late for the remaining defendants to have a chance of being found not guilty in a conspiracy case, because of the mountain of evidence from cooperating witnesses with plea deals!
If so, Durham is playing some very masterful legal chess with the opposition.
Very good point. Durham has tons of experience, and it shows. These high priced lawyers are not in the same league with Durham re prosecution tactics. They've got themselves in positions they never contemplated--they didn't undertake their conspiracy by first gaming out defense strategies-- and will need to hire major criminal defense talent.
>> "But it could also be that Durham is running a conspiracy case out of edny where the Clinton campaign HQs were. Also of note was that Barr made EDNY the clearing house for Ukraine stuff, and inserted Seth Ducharme there in July of 2020." <<
>> " In Washington, Mr. DuCharme had also served for nine months as a counsel to Mr. Barr and was closely involved in the investigation into the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia probe, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight. " <<
Correction: DuCharme is not one of the two prosecutors Durham is using on Sussmann; the two he's using worked for DuCharme at EDNY. But if DuCharme continued to develop a potential conspiracy case regarding "origins" of CH, it is reasonable to assume these two guys are being chosen by Durham for their knowledge of that aspect of the Russia Hoax.
And it suggests that Sussmann is somehow intertwined in the origin/predication issue.
Now hat you mention the DNC "hack" and Sussmann's role in relation to that incident, there appears to be an astonishing symmetry between Sussmann's role in the apparent fabrication of the Alfa Bank DNS hoax and his role vis-a-vis the DNC email "hack" fabrication: facilitator/coordinator of the fabrication of both hoaxes and hoax peddler par excellence who fed them to FBI/DOJ/IC and the news media -- hook, line, and sinker.
It's interesting. I'm not sure how much better a venue EDNY would be than DC. EDVA is also a possibility that we know of, as well as DC. The thing is, given the national scope of the Clinton campaign and the communications between the conspirators and the campaign per se, venue would probably lie in several places.
I agree with you re: venue. What's more interesting to me is the choice of two prosecutors who come out of the shop run by the guy Barr used to help him investigate the CH "origins." It's the predication chickens coming home to roost. It suggests one of the areas that Durham's prosecutions are going to lead.
If you think about it, it's perfectly logical. It's always been known that Durham was focusing on origins. Recall that soon after his appointment by Barr as SC--what his status was before that we don't really know--Durham and Barr went on their extended foreign travels: Rome, London, perhaps elsewhere. We also know that they returned with physical evidence.
These very promising beginnings are why I felt totally bummed when things bogged down.
.... the March 5, 2018 edition of the New Yorker ... featured a lengthy and sympathetic portrayal of Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence operative who was employed by Fusion GPS — yet another entity retained by Perkins Coie — to investigate possible connections between Donald Trump and Russia.
Buried toward the end of the article comes the revelation that, on July 26, 2016 (four days after WikiLeaks published the DNC emails), “Steele filed yet another memo” in which “Steele’s sources claimed that the [DNC] digital attack involved agents ‘within the Democratic Party structure itself…’”
[end quote]
The list of Dossier reports available to the public does not include a report dated July 26, 2016.
4) Report 95, undated, but apparently written in late-July 2016
5) Report 97, dated July 30, 2016
--------------------------------------
So, Report 96 must be dated July 26, 2016, and it must indicate that " the [DNC] digital attack involved agents ‘within the Democratic Party structure itself".
The public has not seen Report 96, but the FBI did receive Report 96.
Report 95, paragraph 3, says that "the intelligence network being used against Clinton .... [included] agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party structure itself ... ".
It seems to me that this Report 95, which is not dated, was elaborated in Report 96, which was dated July 26, 2016.
If Report 96 indicated that the DNC server actually was hacked by "agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party itself", then that is why the FBI has made sure that Report 96 still has been kept away from the public to the present day.
I would assume report 96 -- missing from the "Dossier" -- was because after FusionGPS reviewed it, they realized it contradicted the narrative they were paid to construct, and thus likely told Steele to leave it out, never refer to it in subsequent memos, and never send us anything like that again.
Thus, copies of the Dossier circulated to journos never contained #96.
The other possibility is that #96 has nothing to do with FusionGPS work. Businesses often numerize memos sequentially, independent of what contract or subject they deal with. Assuming FusionGPS was not Orbis' only client, one would expect there to be memos put out by Steele for other clients, and hence there will likely be gaps in the numerical sequence of memos to FusionGPS.
2) Guccifer 2.0 came on the scene via Twitter at the same time DNC server hacked. Alleged Ukraine connection/communications of Russia. Hasn’t been heard from in over 2+years.
Another detail: Crowdstrike was inside the DNC computer network before the putative Russian Hack in late April. There was some sort of earlier incident for which Crowdstrike had been called in (likely by Sussmann again, though I'm not certain) -- it may have related to the claim that Bernie's campaign improperly "accessed" Hillary's data (because of -- wait for it -- a misconfiguration of the DNC network.) This was used as the excuse by DNC (at that point a whole-owned subsidiary of Hillary's campaign) to punish Bernie by denying him access to critical DNC data files for reaching out to likely DNC primary voters. I vaguely recall Crowdstrike was responsible for the "attribution" of the access to Hillary's data to Bernie's campaign workers, though Bernie denied it vigorously. (Does this sound familiar?)
I have long hypothesized that while Crowdstrike was inside the DNC network looking for/fabricating evidence that Bernie's people accessed Hillary's data, they were busy planting the malware they would later claim was "proof" that the Russian hacking crews "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were responsible, and had copied emails in the April, May, June time frame.
I further hypothesize that as they were setting up the fake hack of the DNC to blame the Russians, and then accuse Trump of being Putin's bitch and communicating secretly with the Russians via the double-secret probation Alfa Bank server back channel, (notice how all the pieces fit together as though they were part of a pre-conceived jig-saw puzzle?) something the DNC/Hillary campaign didn't plan on occurred: Seth Rich filched a bunch of emails, because he was a Bernie bro, and was pissed his guy got cheated by the DNC so Hillary could win the nomination, and he passed the emails along to wikileaks to expose the truth that Hillary's campaign was colluding with the DNC to cheat Bernie.
I think this is what Crowdstrike discovered in late May, and precipitated an order for all DNC personnel to leave their laptops behind over a weekend to be "disinfected." The real purpose: for Crowdstrike to do forensic examinations of the suspected laptops to see who stole the emails, and which ones. That's how they got onto Seth Rich.
IOW, the stolen emails were supposed to a fake op, blamed on the Russians, all part of the multi-tentacled "smear Trump to take the heat off of Hillary's email scandal" plan. Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be the make-believe thinly veiled Russian face of the DNC hack -- replete with dummied up Cyrillic metadata in the email attachments -- but rogue employee Seth Rich jeopardized the entire operation, and they had to improvise.
This is one of many potential reasons why they could never give the FBI full forensic access to the DNC network and equipment -- they could have stumbled on Rich filching the emails, blowing up the Russian hack story that was integral to the entire Trump/Russia Collusion Hoax they were fabricating.
Oh, and to add: how did Sussmann (or was it Elias) end up in possession of Seth Rich's laptop (which he gave to the FBI a year later)? Simple -- it's a work laptop, which means it's the property of DNC, not Rich or his heirs. I assume DNC asserted ownership and got the laptop either from the DC police, or the estate of Seth Rich; DNC dutifully turns it over to "attorney-client privilege" Sussmann (or Elias,) who arranged for it to be forensically examined and "scrubbed" (did they use Bleachbit?) as necessary to remove any evidence that would conflict with the Russian hack/Russia-Trump Collusion hoaxes they were fabricating that year.
They might have even carefully added some stuff retroactively to help support the hoaxes they were perpetrating that Summer and Fall, before PC turns it over to the FBI. Great way to plant evidence you want the FBI to find to lead them in the direction you want, and away from that in which you do not want them to go.
true enough -- having replaced mine with SSDs more than once, I know how easily it can be done -- but ... I suspect if you do a file transfer, there will be tell tail signs of it in the size of files, whereas if you did a image transfer, the files sizes are the same, but the artifacts of erased files will also be there, bit for bit, so an image transfer gains you nothing if you are trying to hide something.
And if you just toss a new drive in and do a fresh O/S install, it's a red flag that somebody is hiding something.
My best guess: an attempted confrontation/interrogation that went dreadfully bad. Probably union goon enforcers brought along by DNC folk to muscle Seth into telling them what he did, and who he gave the emails to. Goons got carried away, or were incompetent, (or both,) and either accidentally shot him, or panicked and fired the gun at him.
If the goons were accompanied by people Seth worked with at DNC, it explains why he didn't indicate there was a problem while on the phone with his girlfriend, and why nothing was stolen, like watch, cell phone, wallet, etc.
Union enforcers would not have been so sloppy - they'd have made it look like a real mugging and not leave Rich's wallet, phone and watch behind. I'm also very troubled by the fact that Rich was very much alive and talking when he reached the ER - then he suddenly dies from what appeared to the EMTs to be a non-life-threatening wound?
EZ - This makes sense. I don't think the US is so far gone that the political opposition is murdered, but accidents do happen.
The entire Seth Rich stinks, plus how Assange was shut down / silenced when he offered a deal on the Wikileaks Russian Info is beyond suspicious... Senate Intel Committee seems to be involved.
I fully agree with your and Parry's take in the significance of the quoted passage in the indictment. It's not like Durham had a word count minimum to fulfill to get an indictment from the GJ, and, as you pointed out, it goes beyond demonstrating a preexisting working relationship with top FBI CI officials.
I also appreciate you correcting the record on the Brennan referral to FBI of Hillary approving Sullivan's scheme. If that characterization was not what Brennan wrote, you know Adam "Camera-ready" Schiff and his sidekick, Eric "Renfield" Swalwell would have been screaming to the rafters about it; yet they didn't.
>>" The details would be covered by attorney - client privilege—Crowdstrike being the client and Sussmann the attorney." <<
I assume you meant to write that the DNC was the client; Crowdstrike was a contractor to PC, not a client. Crowdstrike's communications with Sussmann would, would, however, fall under Attorney work product privilege?
Prompted by a friend--if Durham got past Sussmann's claims of att/client privilege, as we know he did, is it possible that he's been talking to Crowdstrike?
The VIPS analysis doesn't prove its point. It is NOT known that the July 5 copying operation was exfiltration from DNC. Indeed, it is very unlikely that it was. Adam Carter, Forensicator and myself have all looked at Guccifer 2 metadata in microscopic detail and our opinion is that it is probably/almost certainly a copying operation that took place AFTER prior exfiltration. In the cf.7z dossier, there is evidence of exfiltration at expected rates on other earlier dates.
Also, it is correct that the seemingly pointless opening and closing of five documents in the first G2 drop, which had effect of inserting metadata with name of Russian equivalent of J Edgar Hoover, cannot be plausibly explained as an "opsec error". This was pointed out long before VIPS. Precisely what it means is impossible to say right now.
On balance, I think that the VIPS article has been unhelpful to objective analysis, since its over-egged certainty on copying speeds has tended to distract skeptics towards an almost certainly irrelevant scenario and away from better leads.
Thanks, Steve. Can you point me to a link that discusses "exfiltration at expected rates on other earlier dates"?
There is metadata for non-July 5 dates in cf.7z archive. I haven't written this systematically but see https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1265642332927516672. I don't recall doing systematic writeup but effect was very clear.
For exfiltration rates of actual WL emails, see https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1297880550238072833 and https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/sorting-the-wikileaks-dnc-emails/
I recall that similar analysis on documents in the hrc archive linked from G2 in June but don't have it at hand.
NONE of the documents in the July 5, 2016 copying operation come from June 2016 or even from 2016 or 2015. They are hugely stale and, to quote myself, "not even chickenfeed". Oddly, the timezones in cf.7z metadata are EXACTLY one hour displaced from timezones in the ngpvan.7z archive which VIPS considered. This also indicates some sort of post-exfiltration copying operation.
I am as skeptical as anyone at what happened in DNC hack, but view the VIPS over-egged assertions as implausible and an unfortunate distraction and obstacle to more serious research on this issue.
OK, thanks.
More Sussmann indictment stuff:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1445992275943645192 <<
I would parenthetically add: it's also seems like the sort of thing you'd have your attorneys file while negotiating a plea/cooperation agreement with Durham, so as to minimize the chances of taking an inadvertent self-induced dirt nap in Ft. Marcy Park. If Sussmann wants a deal, the last thing he needs is for co-conspirators to get wind of it before he spills the beans to Durham.
Another observation I have not seen anywhere else: note that the judge has granted a protective order on all non-classified material that the prosecution provides to the defense. The order forbids the defense from sharing the information it gets from prosecutors with anyone outside of the defense team for any purpose other than the defense on THIS specific charge.
If Durham doesn't plan on indicting anyone else, why would it be necessary to obtain such an order?
Hence, this is further independent circumstantial evidence he is planning on indicting others, in relation to what he has described in this indictment.
We like confirmation.
Further speculation on my part:
By not charging the others presently, aside from Sussmann, Durham prevents Sussmann's potential fellow defendants from forming a Mutual Defense Agreement ("MDA") with Sussmann -- under which they WOULD be able to share evidence, testimony, etc.
The details (as I understand them) is that an MDA can ONLY be used by "similarly situated" defendants or potential defendants. The moment one or more of them have a circumstance in which their legal interests are no longer aligned, those members of the MDA have to drop out of the agreement, get different attorneys, and can't share anything with the others, nor they with the departing MDA members.
By charging Sussmann alone, Durham prevents Sussmann from being part of any MDA that relates to this charge, and that and the protective order shuts Sussmann out from sharing whatever he gets from prosecutors with any of the other co-conspirators. Even if there are sealed indictments on the others, they are not formally charged like Sussmann is, and thus cannot have a MDA with Sussmann at this time. That shuts everyone else out from knowing what Durham knows, other than that which he made public in the Sussmann indictment!
And, if Sussmann takes a plea deal, then he is not similarly situated with the other co-conspirators, because they can still face charges they might wish to contest, while Sussmann would have stipulated to plead guilty, and thus their legal interests do not align, and an MDA with Sussmann is again forbidden.
The analogy is a wrangler cutting horses or cattle out of the herd one at a time, and isolating it from the rest of the herd (which includes the co-conspirators,) so they can't use the "herd defense" (equivalent of the MDA.)
Speculation: is Durham planning on repeating the process of cutting defendants out of the "conspiracy herd" one-at-a-time, and squeezing plea agreements out of them until he has enough cooperating defendants that he has an airtight case for his conspiracy charges against the rest? And by doing it this way, he prevents an MDA being set up to share prosecution material, until it is too late for the remaining defendants to have a chance of being found not guilty in a conspiracy case, because of the mountain of evidence from cooperating witnesses with plea deals!
If so, Durham is playing some very masterful legal chess with the opposition.
Note in Sperry's article the wide range of locations for the people involved in the conspiracy. Durham could have a lot of options for venue purposes.
Very good point. Durham has tons of experience, and it shows. These high priced lawyers are not in the same league with Durham re prosecution tactics. They've got themselves in positions they never contemplated--they didn't undertake their conspiracy by first gaming out defense strategies-- and will need to hire major criminal defense talent.
Some interesting developments re: Sussmann prosecution:
>> https://twitter.com/Larry_Beech/status/1445836949705707524 <<
>> "But it could also be that Durham is running a conspiracy case out of edny where the Clinton campaign HQs were. Also of note was that Barr made EDNY the clearing house for Ukraine stuff, and inserted Seth Ducharme there in July of 2020." <<
Supplemental detail:
>> " In Washington, Mr. DuCharme had also served for nine months as a counsel to Mr. Barr and was closely involved in the investigation into the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia probe, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight. " <<
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/nyregion/seth-ducharme-us-attorney-brooklyn.html <<
That's one of the two attorney's Durham has tapped to prosecute the Sussmann case. The second one is from that same office.
Does Durham have YOUR attention yet?
Correction: DuCharme is not one of the two prosecutors Durham is using on Sussmann; the two he's using worked for DuCharme at EDNY. But if DuCharme continued to develop a potential conspiracy case regarding "origins" of CH, it is reasonable to assume these two guys are being chosen by Durham for their knowledge of that aspect of the Russia Hoax.
And it suggests that Sussmann is somehow intertwined in the origin/predication issue.
Again very logical. Sussmann's involvement in Russia Hoax related matters--and that's what DNC "hack" is--goes back to April 2016.
Now hat you mention the DNC "hack" and Sussmann's role in relation to that incident, there appears to be an astonishing symmetry between Sussmann's role in the apparent fabrication of the Alfa Bank DNS hoax and his role vis-a-vis the DNC email "hack" fabrication: facilitator/coordinator of the fabrication of both hoaxes and hoax peddler par excellence who fed them to FBI/DOJ/IC and the news media -- hook, line, and sinker.
And I doubt that Durham has missed that.
It's interesting. I'm not sure how much better a venue EDNY would be than DC. EDVA is also a possibility that we know of, as well as DC. The thing is, given the national scope of the Clinton campaign and the communications between the conspirators and the campaign per se, venue would probably lie in several places.
I agree with you re: venue. What's more interesting to me is the choice of two prosecutors who come out of the shop run by the guy Barr used to help him investigate the CH "origins." It's the predication chickens coming home to roost. It suggests one of the areas that Durham's prosecutions are going to lead.
If you think about it, it's perfectly logical. It's always been known that Durham was focusing on origins. Recall that soon after his appointment by Barr as SC--what his status was before that we don't really know--Durham and Barr went on their extended foreign travels: Rome, London, perhaps elsewhere. We also know that they returned with physical evidence.
These very promising beginnings are why I felt totally bummed when things bogged down.
Brennan was pretty busy in the Russian Hoax LLC. His handwritten note has the air of a preemptive CYA if the SHTF.
An excerpt from Perry's article:
[quote]
.... the March 5, 2018 edition of the New Yorker ... featured a lengthy and sympathetic portrayal of Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence operative who was employed by Fusion GPS — yet another entity retained by Perkins Coie — to investigate possible connections between Donald Trump and Russia.
Buried toward the end of the article comes the revelation that, on July 26, 2016 (four days after WikiLeaks published the DNC emails), “Steele filed yet another memo” in which “Steele’s sources claimed that the [DNC] digital attack involved agents ‘within the Democratic Party structure itself…’”
[end quote]
The list of Dossier reports available to the public does not include a report dated July 26, 2016.
The complete list is at
http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2020/07/michael-gaeta-and-fbi.html
The relevant part of the list is:
------------------------------------
3) Report 94, dated July 19, 2016
4) Report 95, undated, but apparently written in late-July 2016
5) Report 97, dated July 30, 2016
--------------------------------------
So, Report 96 must be dated July 26, 2016, and it must indicate that " the [DNC] digital attack involved agents ‘within the Democratic Party structure itself".
The public has not seen Report 96, but the FBI did receive Report 96.
Report 95 (not 96) can be read at
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf
Report 95, paragraph 3, says that "the intelligence network being used against Clinton .... [included] agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party structure itself ... ".
It seems to me that this Report 95, which is not dated, was elaborated in Report 96, which was dated July 26, 2016.
If Report 96 indicated that the DNC server actually was hacked by "agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party itself", then that is why the FBI has made sure that Report 96 still has been kept away from the public to the present day.
I would assume report 96 -- missing from the "Dossier" -- was because after FusionGPS reviewed it, they realized it contradicted the narrative they were paid to construct, and thus likely told Steele to leave it out, never refer to it in subsequent memos, and never send us anything like that again.
Thus, copies of the Dossier circulated to journos never contained #96.
The other possibility is that #96 has nothing to do with FusionGPS work. Businesses often numerize memos sequentially, independent of what contract or subject they deal with. Assuming FusionGPS was not Orbis' only client, one would expect there to be memos put out by Steele for other clients, and hence there will likely be gaps in the numerical sequence of memos to FusionGPS.
My above two comments deal with Dossier Reports 95 and 96.
Report 97 is also remarkable. Although it has become available to the public, it was kept extra-secret for a while. See my blog article:
------------
The Temporary Disappearance of Dossier Report 97
http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-temporary-disappearance-of-dossier.html
------------
My explanation is that Report 97 suggested that the US Intelligence Community might be spying on the Trump campaign staff in July 2016.
Parry's latest episode on this series of articles on the indictment just dropped:
>> https://spectator.org/john-durham-and-the-mysterious-dnc-email-hack/ <<
Sorry, that was a day ago.
Good read Mark. I believe it may go as far back as the Uranium one sale.
Two thoughts come to mind.
1) i smell the influence of Loretta Lynch
2) Guccifer 2.0 came on the scene via Twitter at the same time DNC server hacked. Alleged Ukraine connection/communications of Russia. Hasn’t been heard from in over 2+years.
Seth Rich leaked the emails.
I think the DNC server was hacked by a Sanders-supporter who worked in NGP VAN, a company that maintained some databases on the DNC computers.
http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2020/11/michael-gaeta-and-fbi.html
and
https://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2021/03/michael-gaeta-and-fbi.html
and
https://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2021/05/michael-gaeta-and-fbi.html
and
https://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2021/06/michael-gaeta-and-fbi.html
Another detail: Crowdstrike was inside the DNC computer network before the putative Russian Hack in late April. There was some sort of earlier incident for which Crowdstrike had been called in (likely by Sussmann again, though I'm not certain) -- it may have related to the claim that Bernie's campaign improperly "accessed" Hillary's data (because of -- wait for it -- a misconfiguration of the DNC network.) This was used as the excuse by DNC (at that point a whole-owned subsidiary of Hillary's campaign) to punish Bernie by denying him access to critical DNC data files for reaching out to likely DNC primary voters. I vaguely recall Crowdstrike was responsible for the "attribution" of the access to Hillary's data to Bernie's campaign workers, though Bernie denied it vigorously. (Does this sound familiar?)
I have long hypothesized that while Crowdstrike was inside the DNC network looking for/fabricating evidence that Bernie's people accessed Hillary's data, they were busy planting the malware they would later claim was "proof" that the Russian hacking crews "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were responsible, and had copied emails in the April, May, June time frame.
I further hypothesize that as they were setting up the fake hack of the DNC to blame the Russians, and then accuse Trump of being Putin's bitch and communicating secretly with the Russians via the double-secret probation Alfa Bank server back channel, (notice how all the pieces fit together as though they were part of a pre-conceived jig-saw puzzle?) something the DNC/Hillary campaign didn't plan on occurred: Seth Rich filched a bunch of emails, because he was a Bernie bro, and was pissed his guy got cheated by the DNC so Hillary could win the nomination, and he passed the emails along to wikileaks to expose the truth that Hillary's campaign was colluding with the DNC to cheat Bernie.
I think this is what Crowdstrike discovered in late May, and precipitated an order for all DNC personnel to leave their laptops behind over a weekend to be "disinfected." The real purpose: for Crowdstrike to do forensic examinations of the suspected laptops to see who stole the emails, and which ones. That's how they got onto Seth Rich.
IOW, the stolen emails were supposed to a fake op, blamed on the Russians, all part of the multi-tentacled "smear Trump to take the heat off of Hillary's email scandal" plan. Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be the make-believe thinly veiled Russian face of the DNC hack -- replete with dummied up Cyrillic metadata in the email attachments -- but rogue employee Seth Rich jeopardized the entire operation, and they had to improvise.
This is one of many potential reasons why they could never give the FBI full forensic access to the DNC network and equipment -- they could have stumbled on Rich filching the emails, blowing up the Russian hack story that was integral to the entire Trump/Russia Collusion Hoax they were fabricating.
This has the earmark of Podesta and his prior relationship with Shawn Henry.
Oh, and to add: how did Sussmann (or was it Elias) end up in possession of Seth Rich's laptop (which he gave to the FBI a year later)? Simple -- it's a work laptop, which means it's the property of DNC, not Rich or his heirs. I assume DNC asserted ownership and got the laptop either from the DC police, or the estate of Seth Rich; DNC dutifully turns it over to "attorney-client privilege" Sussmann (or Elias,) who arranged for it to be forensically examined and "scrubbed" (did they use Bleachbit?) as necessary to remove any evidence that would conflict with the Russian hack/Russia-Trump Collusion hoaxes they were fabricating that year.
They might have even carefully added some stuff retroactively to help support the hoaxes they were perpetrating that Summer and Fall, before PC turns it over to the FBI. Great way to plant evidence you want the FBI to find to lead them in the direction you want, and away from that in which you do not want them to go.
Laptop drives are easy to remove, destroy, and replace with a new one. No "bleaching" needed.
true enough -- having replaced mine with SSDs more than once, I know how easily it can be done -- but ... I suspect if you do a file transfer, there will be tell tail signs of it in the size of files, whereas if you did a image transfer, the files sizes are the same, but the artifacts of erased files will also be there, bit for bit, so an image transfer gains you nothing if you are trying to hide something.
And if you just toss a new drive in and do a fresh O/S install, it's a red flag that somebody is hiding something.
Aaaaaand Seth gets murdered for his perfidy to boot.
My best guess: an attempted confrontation/interrogation that went dreadfully bad. Probably union goon enforcers brought along by DNC folk to muscle Seth into telling them what he did, and who he gave the emails to. Goons got carried away, or were incompetent, (or both,) and either accidentally shot him, or panicked and fired the gun at him.
If the goons were accompanied by people Seth worked with at DNC, it explains why he didn't indicate there was a problem while on the phone with his girlfriend, and why nothing was stolen, like watch, cell phone, wallet, etc.
I think it was the Awan brothers.
Union enforcers would not have been so sloppy - they'd have made it look like a real mugging and not leave Rich's wallet, phone and watch behind. I'm also very troubled by the fact that Rich was very much alive and talking when he reached the ER - then he suddenly dies from what appeared to the EMTs to be a non-life-threatening wound?
Ask Donna Brazille. She was at the hospital at the time.
EZ - This makes sense. I don't think the US is so far gone that the political opposition is murdered, but accidents do happen.
The entire Seth Rich stinks, plus how Assange was shut down / silenced when he offered a deal on the Wikileaks Russian Info is beyond suspicious... Senate Intel Committee seems to be involved.
I fully agree with your and Parry's take in the significance of the quoted passage in the indictment. It's not like Durham had a word count minimum to fulfill to get an indictment from the GJ, and, as you pointed out, it goes beyond demonstrating a preexisting working relationship with top FBI CI officials.
I also appreciate you correcting the record on the Brennan referral to FBI of Hillary approving Sullivan's scheme. If that characterization was not what Brennan wrote, you know Adam "Camera-ready" Schiff and his sidekick, Eric "Renfield" Swalwell would have been screaming to the rafters about it; yet they didn't.
>>" The details would be covered by attorney - client privilege—Crowdstrike being the client and Sussmann the attorney." <<
I assume you meant to write that the DNC was the client; Crowdstrike was a contractor to PC, not a client. Crowdstrike's communications with Sussmann would, would, however, fall under Attorney work product privilege?
Tx.
Yes. My bad. I'll correct that.
Prompted by a friend--if Durham got past Sussmann's claims of att/client privilege, as we know he did, is it possible that he's been talking to Crowdstrike?