Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) launched the Durham investigation appendix on Thursday morning.
The appendix offers additional fact on the Clinton Marketing campaign’s plan to tie Trump to Russia and the FBI’s failure to analyze.
The knowledge launched on Thursday incorporates beforehand categorised data exposing a reported Clinton marketing campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald Trump to Russia.
The appendix additionally contains data that Clinton supporters within the FBI (a majority of the highest brass officers) lacked “conclusive irrefutable proof” of Russia’s involvement of the DNC electronic mail scandal.
In keeping with the Durham annex:
Clinton’s supporters within the FBI lack conclusive irrefutable proof of the Russian Federation’s involvement within the scandal, tied to the theft of the DNC’s correspondence. Within the meantime, in the course of the launched investigation, there was a large number of circumstantial proof that the alias of Guccifer 2.0 (the title of the hacker who accepted accountability for the incident) was in truth used to cowl up a particular unit of the GRU of the Russian Federation Protection Ministry’s normal employees.
This comes from web page 7 of the report that was launched at the moment.
So, as soon as once more, we uncover the FBI had ZERO proof that Russia hacked the DNC server or hacked the election.
This brings us again to the earlier stories the place we reported on the non-existent proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers and spoiled the 2016 election.
In actual fact we reported this earlier at the moment…
Barack Obama, James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan, and each main mainstream media outlet lied for years to the American public by claiming “Russia hacked the election” to get President Trump elected in 2016.
All of them knew this was a lie.
These liars all pushed the road that Crowdstrike had proof that the DNC was hacked by Russia.
However that was not true.
We knew this was a lie from the start.
And we had been completely appropriate.
Crowdstrike had completely no proof that Russia hacked the DNC after which forwarded hacked emails to WikiLeaks. They usually saved this to themselves.
A launch of intel paperwork in 2020 that had been held up by a corrupt liar, Rep. Adam Schiff, exhibits unbelievable data that destroys the Deep State’s many lies.
The largest lie that the Russia collusion sham was based mostly on was the story that Russia hacked the DNC after which gave the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, who in flip launched them earlier than the 2016 election.
The entire story was a lie!
Crowdstrike had no proof this ever befell.
Crowdstrike was employed by the DNC in April 2016 to analyze an alleged breach into the DNC servers.
They by no means had any proof that the DNC was hacked.
Reporter Aaron Mate on Twitter recognized the information first:
Fascinating admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is requested when “the Russians” exfiltrated the information from DNC.
Henry: “We didn’t have concrete proof that the information was exfiltrated from the DNC, however now we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” 🤔 pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) Might 8, 2020
This takes me again to the certified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & seems no less than partly based mostly on inference, not exhausting proof. (https://t.co/04tKUmNw4Q)
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) Might 8, 2020
Mueller caught within the phrase “seem”when suggesting Crowdstrike decided Russia stole DNC emails within the Mueller report:
There is a quote from Assange — possibly somebody can discover it, I can not rn — saying that it is attainable that many various actors, together with state actors, obtained contained in the DNC system, however that does not imply they really stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later launched.
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) Might 8, 2020
On March 8, 2020 and earlier than on June 16, 2019, we introduced arguments in opposition to the Mueller gang’s assertion that Russians hacked the DNC.
Cyber professional Yaacov Apelbaum posted an unbelievable report with data mainly proving that the Russians didn’t hack the DNC.
Apelbaum’s first argument is that this –
In keeping with the WaPo (utilizing CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their different common hush-hush authorities sources within the know), the assault was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek who allegedly crafted a malware known as X-Agent and used it to get into the community and set up keystroke loggers on a number of PCs. This allowed them to see what the staff had been typing and take screenshots of the staff’ laptop.
That is fairly detailed data, but when this was the case, then how did the DOJ study all of those ‘particulars’ and use them within the indictments with out the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC/HRC computer systems? And since when does the DOJ, a corporation that solely speaks the language of indictments use rumour and third events just like the British nationwide Matt Tait (a former GCHQ collector and a connoisseur of all issues associated to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or another proof missing chain of custody certification as a main supply for prosecution?
A second level by Apelbaum was –
… that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ wished listing had been allegedly working concurrently on a number of non-related initiatives like interfering with the 2016 United States elections (each HRC and DNC) whereas on the similar time they had been additionally allegedly hacking anti-doping companies (Photos 2-3).
Above are footage of the people the FBI says had been engaged on each the DNC/HRC electronic mail hacking and the Olympic doping initiatives.
The identical guys had been engaged on each initiatives which is all however not possible. (Do we actually know in the event that they’re even Russians?)
The truth that the three had a number of concurrent excessive affect and excessive visibility challenge assignments is odd as a result of this isn’t how typical offensive cyber intelligence groups function. These models are typically compartmentalized, they’re assigned to a particular mission, and the taskforce stays collectively for the whole period of the challenge.
Subsequent Apelbaum questioned the Mueller gang’s assertion that the ‘hacker’ named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian –
Any proof that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian must be evaluated whereas conserving these factors in thoughts:
-
He used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP handle, however didn’t use TOR. Utilizing a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] companies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]
-
He used the AOL electronic mail service that captured and forwarded his IP handle and the identical AOL electronic mail to contact numerous media retailers on the identical day of the assault. That is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and looks like a deliberate try to depart traceable breadcrumbs.
-
He named his Workplace Person account Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Dzerzhinsky), after the founding father of the Soviet Secret Police. Units and accounts utilized in offensive our on-line world operations use random names to forestall tractability and identification. Why would anybody within the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the plain motive) is past comprehension.
-
He copied the unique Trump opposition analysis doc and pasted it into a brand new .dotm template (with an enhancing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the “Final Modified by” subject from “Warren Flood” to “Феликс Эдмундович” and the creation of extra Russian metadata within the doc. Why waste the effort and time doing this?
-
About 4 hours after creating the ‘Russian’ model of the doc, he exported it to a PDF utilizing LibreOffice 4.2 (within the course of he misplaced/eliminated about 20 of the unique pages). This was almost certainly performed to point out extra ‘Russian fingerprints’ within the type of damaged hyperlink error messages in Russian (Photos 4 and 5). Why hassle with re-formatting and changing the supply paperwork? Why not simply get the uncooked information out within the authentic format ASAP?
Apelbaum subsequent discusses Guccifer 2.0 –
In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed an individual who recognized himself as “Guccifer 2.0”. Throughout their on-line chat session, the person claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview beneath). His poor Romanian language abilities had been later used to unmask his Russian establish.
…I’m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know the place to search out one if my life trusted it, however I’m sure which you can’t reliably decide nationality based mostly on somebody impersonating one other language or from the usage of pretend metadata in recordsdata. This elaborate concept additionally has the plain flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence companies are dumb sufficient to point out as much as an interview posing as Romanians with out really having the ability to learn and write flaunt Romanian.
After offering a pair extra examples of why the Russian story doesn’t stick, Apelbaum closes with this –
The underside line is that if we need to transcend the speculative trivia, the pseudo science, and the bombastic unverified claims, now we have to ask the actual robust questions, primarily: is Guccifer 2.0 even the actual attacker and the way did he circumvent all the logs throughout a number of weeks of repeated visits whereas downloading near 2 GB of knowledge?
Esteemed NSA whistleblower Invoice Binney reported in June 2019 that there was no manner Russians hacked the DNC based mostly on the velocity of the switch of the information that was hacked. However in response to Apelbaum the switch speeds is a minor concern right here. It’s simply an indicator that it could have been tough for Guccifer 2 who was sitting in Romania to entry the DNC system remotely.
Per an illustration from Apelbaum, Guccifer 2 is depicted because the purple satan icon beneath:
This illustration exhibits the Crowdstrike was clearly false in its claims that Russia hacked the DNC.
It is because:
1. If Guccifer 2 did it from Romania (the purple satan icon on the left of the illustration), he wanted a 23 Mbit/s switch fee. On the time of this hack in 2016, Romania was solely supporting 16Mbit/s speeds. However to do this he needed to undergo all the purple hell in the course of the illustration, which I don’t consider he did based mostly on the poor technical ability set he demonstrated throughout his interview with Motherboard vice.
2. If the leak got here from the within (the half inexperienced half purple icon in the appropriate facet of illustration), he had the total 23 Mbit/s switch fee as a result of he simply plugged-in a USB drive to the pc. He additionally didn’t want any hacking abilities as a result of he almost certainly had full system entry.
Lastly, we all know that WikiLeaks acknowledged quite a few occasions that Russia didn’t present them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange acknowledged that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.
However in fact, the Mueller gang by no means interviewed WikiLeaks in an effort to find out how they acquired the Clinton emails. After all the Mueller crew couldn’t threat WikiLeaks saying the emails weren’t acquired from Russia which might destroy their ‘Russia hacked the DNC’ fairy story.
We all know there is no such thing as a proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. This was made up from the beginning. And the Obama administration knew this.
Crowdstrike is a multi-billion greenback firm value reportedly $115 billion that holds contracts with the US Protection Division and several other authorities companies.
Extra… Lisa Web page knew that if investigators ever began digging – they’d all be busted!
Former FBI lawyer and Russia collusion hoaxer Lisa Web page was proper about Crossfire Hurricane:
“If they begin digging deep, we’re screwed” pic.twitter.com/Cqe724tA3X
— Michael Bars (@MichaelBars_) July 31, 2025
