Stories
EXCLUSIVE: Exposing The DOJ's Fake Indictments
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: wp.com

EXCLUSIVE: Exposing The DOJ's Fake Indictments

833

WASHINGTON, DC – July15, 2018

On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced indictments in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation against 12 Russian ‘intelligence officers’ in the ‘hacking’ the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails during the 2016 election. Charges were announced at the very moment President Donald Trump was meeting Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle and just days before Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Helsinki.

The timing of the announcement is obvious and was clearly intended to undermine Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin on July 16. The indictments may also have been meant to embarrass Russia two days before the World Cup final was held in Moscow.

The Mueller/Rosenstein indictments report that in 2016, 12 Russian officials began fishing attacks against volunteers and employees working for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, including the campaign's chairman, John Podesta. Through that process, the Russian officials were able to steal the usernames and passwords of numerous individuals and use those credentials to leak email content and other information stored on their  computers. They were also able to hack the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) using the same techniques in order to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of malicious computer viruses to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

But how does Rosenstein (or for that matter anyone in the FBI) know the Russians are responsible for the hack without having access to the DNC computers?                                                                                                                  

In late 2016, a large group of U.S. intelligence veterans, including: William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center; Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator; Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official; Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA; Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA; performed their own investigation on the allegations of election hacking, proving that the allegations are completely baseless.

“Since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC,” their memorandum said.

USA Really recently reported that 29-year-old former CIA employee Joshua Adam Schulte has been accused in the DNC leaks, utilization of hacking tools, as well as other leaks.

Moreover, the same group of former and retired NSA top specialists said that NSA has an unparalleled access to data flowing inside and out of the U.S., as well as data transmitting into the U.S. from abroad, and is therefor able to identify both the sender and recipient when such a hack is carried out.

consortiumnews.com

There are hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server and sent to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable via these resources, retired NSA experts say.

consortiumnews.com

A google search using the names of the defendants returns remarkable results. For instance, a search request on ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK (Осадчук Александр Владимирович), referred to in the indictment as a Colonel in the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455, shows that he works at the  Institute of Cytology and Genetics in the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is one of the authors of 2012 research “Regional Peculiarities In Semen Quality And Serum Hormonal Concentrations Of Citizens From Eastern Siberia”.

Mueller’s indictment states that “Unit 74455”, where ‘GRU Colonel Osadchuk’ performs his secret hacking operations, is located at 22 Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the “Tower.”

The only “Tower” in Khimki district of Moscow is the “Novator” business centre, a 22 story building, with the address 24 Kirova Street. It offers offices for rent.

wikimapia.org

On July 13th, CNN published a video entitled ‘Mueller indicts 12 Russian military officers for DNC hacking’ where Rosenstein makes an announcement. stating:

“There are no allegations in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There are no allegations that the conspiracy changed the vote count or influenced the election result.”

This video shows the actual facts regarding the case. Indictments do not include any charges against Trump campaign members for allegedly colluding with the Russian government to carry out the hacks, which has been the core allegation in the media for two last years.

But if there is no evidence the operation influenced the election, why does the DOJ care about any of this in the first place? It seems quite obvious that the whole story is an attempt to exonerate the DNC/ DCCC of all wrongdoing, since, according to Mueller and Rosenstein’s point of view, no Americans did anything worthy of investigating.

What a coincidence that the day before the announcement of the indictments The Daily Beast published an extensive hit-piece on John Mark Dougan, who has admitted to setting up the DCLeaks website that was used to release some of the leaks. The Daily Beast's article is titled: “Fugitive Cop Says He’s Behind the DNC Leaks. It’s His Latest Hoax. A Florida cop turned hacker who fled to Russia to escape the FBI claims Seth Rich leaked him DNC documents. But his story is full of holes”. And yes, it’s the same media source, which had brought you this story about USA Really.

More clear evidence that the DOJ’s ‘Big Splash’ is nothing but a poor fabrication is the extensive use of content from previous indictments.

In 2017, YouTube Journalist George Webb sued John Podesta, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel.

In his civil lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, George Webb made hacking allegations  against the former IT aide to congressional Democrat Imran Awan (who has now pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud), who at the time worked for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and other Democrats.

The exact same strange language, accusations and content was copied from a related lawsuit filed by George Webb and then appeared in the Justice Department’s indictment.

Webb’s indictment says that “Defendant Imran Awan engineered a sophisticated email phishing attack against Bernie Sanders supporters nationwide using a scheme that substituted a similar URL for the donation processing company ActBlue. The ActBlue URL was changed by one letter from www.actblue.com to www.actblues.com, routing donations intended for Bernie Sanders to bank accounts controlled by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and/or Imran Awan.”

Mueller copied Webb’s hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply edited them slightly, using the exact allegations against the alleged Russian operatives.

“On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com, which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblues.com domain,” Mueller’s indictment reads.

This was obviously a rushed job, and it is far from a coincidence that the two texts are so similar. Who on Mueller’s team plagiarized Webb’s legal filing by stealing content from other lawsuits (from no less than a suit against DOJ personnel!) and then tried to mask it as a  “new” and “breaking” revelation?

One possible candidate is Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder who is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank.

The indictment shows that the evidence of an alleged hack of the DNC and DCCC computers did not come from the FBI, which was never given access to the computers by the DNC. All this nonsense came from the private firm CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC. It is referred to as Company 1 in the indictment.

The Russian expat Alperovitch co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on the Obama White House cybersecurity commission in 2016.

In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster the impression that the Ukrainian  and Democratic campaign hacks were carried out by the same Russian-linked hacking group — Fancy Bear — as both hacks employed versions of the X-Agent malware the Russian group has been known to use, wrote Voice of America.

“This report was about information we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we’ve already uncovered from the DNC, linking the two together”, said Alperovitch in his interview to PBS NewsHour.

Later even VoA acknowledged that the challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant as the firm was the first to link the 2016 hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors from the GRU, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as evidence of Russian election tampering.

These are our tax dollars hard at work. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller together with his team of lawyers have spent untold millions investigating Russia, President Trump and all things related to Trump, and his latest indictments of 12 alleged Russian operatives is a total legal sham, as is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s impromptu press conference on Friday announcing the indictments.

Why would you need to steal content for indictments if your case was well researched and legitimate? Where is all the money actually going? How did the exact wording and language from Webb’s civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia appear in Mueller’s big criminal Russian indictment? True Pundit correctly raised all these questions.                   

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe has cost taxpayers nearly $17 million, according to a recently released expense report. That includes $7.7 million spent directly by Mueller for things like staff salaries, travel and rent as well as the about $9 million the Justice Department shelled out in support of the Russia probe, according to Justice Department figures. The expenses were incurred from May 17, 2017 – the day Mueller was appointed – through March 2018. The DOJ released its latest six-month expense tally to show that “the Special Counsel’s spending within the approved budget.” Another expenditure review will occur for the six-month period ending Sept. 30. And the expenses are growing — $10 million in the last six months between Mueller's and the DOJ's expenses. For the five-month period at the start of the investigation, an earlier report showed about $6.7 million in costs. So far, Mueller’s team has filed charges against four former Trump associates – Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates and George Papadopoulos –  the 13 Russian officials and others, the New York Post reported.

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy tore into Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Thursday, June 28, at the House Judiciary Committee hearing, where a months-long battle took place between Republicans and the DOJ over its handling of the Russia probe and the Hillary Clinton email investigation — resulting in the Justice Department telling them to “finish it the hell up because this country is being torn apart.”

“We’ve seen the bias, we need to see the evidence,” Gowdy said. “If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the American people.”

The timing of these indictments is an illegal attempt to interfere with Foreign Policy. “Should Mueller be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act?” Consortiumnews asked readers.

Like previous U.S. government accusations against Russia for alleged election meddling, the indictment makes assertions while providing zero evidence. Under U.S. law, indictments themselves are not considered evidence. These latest indictements have only made it clearer that the government will never be able to produce any actual evidence in court

Author: USA Really