Pages

Sunday, July 21, 2019

UPDATED: Was Seth Rich Julian Assange's "internal Source" At The DNC?

CTH has a new post up titled: "IMPORTANT – Video Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich – Not a Russian Hack…"

This is what we discussed just a week ago in Seth Rich In The News Again. The CTH title is a bit misleading, as I understand this new information. Ellen Ratner does not state that Assange told her that Seth Rich was his DNC source who provided the DNC emails--Assange never identifies his confidential sources. Rather, Ratner does confirm that Assange told her that the DNC emails were not received from the Russians but instead were obtained from a source internal to the DNC. It could have been Seth Rich, but it could have been someone else. OTOH, and in all fairness, it might also have been the case that Assange was lying and that he did receive the emails from the Russians.

But here's the real problem.

Imagine yourself as a Special Counsel, charged with investigating claims that the Trump campaign colluded with "the Russians" to obtain help to win the 2016 presidential election. I key issue in your investigation is the claim--made by the DNC through their contractor, Crowdstrike--that the Russian government "hacked" the DNC server, stole a huge trove of emails, and gave those emails to Assange at Wikileaks. The issue for you is whether Wikileaks was simply a cutout, whether "the Russians" gave those emails to Wikileaks precisely so that Wikileaks could disseminate them publicly to help the Trump campaign. To assess that claim, you need to know:

1) Who actually took those emails?

2) How did the emails got to Wikileaks?

3) Was the Trump campaign involved in some, all, or any of this?


If you, as a Special Counsel, are named Robert Mueller, then you're a very unusual investigator. What makes you so unusual is that the only aspect of this issue that interests you is the third question--you're ready to move heaven and earth to develop some, virtually any, implication that the Trump campaign had knowledge of all this. However, you, as Robert Mueller, don't really seem to care about establishing--like, with real evidence--who "hacked" the DNC and what route the emails took to end up in the possession of Wikileaks. Rather, you're perfectly willing to accept the statements of Crowdstrike, a third party contractor hired by the DNC. And the DNC just might have an interest in suggesting Trump campaign's involvement. If, in fact, it can be established that "the Russians" were not the ones who stole the emails and sent them to Assange, that could drastically change the whole complexion of what happened, but you as Robert Mueller, don't care. You plow ahead, intent on somehow corroborating what the DNC and Crowdstrike have told you. You don't examine the original evidence, such as the DNC server, and you don't listen to recognized authorities who dispute the Crowstrike story. And you certainly don't fly to London to interview Julian Assange, even if he's willing. You fly to London and interview Chris Steele, but not Assange.

What makes this all the more incredible is that Ratner interviewed Assange for three hours on November 5, 2016--a few days before the election but over half a year before Mueller was ever appointed Special Counsel. Nor was this fact hidden. The interview with Ratner in which she recounts her contact with Assange (see below) was conducted on November 9, 2016, the day after the elections. It was uploaded to YouTube from the EmbryRiddleUniv channel on November 14, 2016. It was out there. How could Mueller possibly justify, in such circumstances, not following up on this information? It's not as if he was trying to spare the US taxpayers any expense! How, as a professional who presumably wishes to be taken seriously, can he justify making no effort to establish the basic facts?

For my part, unless someone can offer actual evidence that supports Crowdstrike and the DNC, I'll go with the analysis of professionals like Willian Binney and the statements of Assange. The Mueller inquisition stands revealed as ... a hoax, without a leg to stand on any more.




UPDATE: Paul Sperry's latest important reporting on the Russia Hoax big picture is getting a lot of play on the internet today--deservedly so. I'll be getting to that, but first here's a very nice blog by James Howard Kunstler that appeared today at Zerohedge under the title: Mueller, 'Meddling', & The Routing Of The RussiaGate Narrative. Kunstler's blog works well with Sperry's longer article, in offering a bit of the big picture. While Kunstler, unlike Sperry, doesn't offer us new information he does place current events in perspective. In particular, he highlights the way the twin pillars of "collusion" have toppled. He starts with the Concord Management trial--pointing out that that indictment was, itself, a hoax--and proceeds to Mueller's hoax "investigation" of Russian "hacking" of the DNC. However, he also points out the legal jeopardy that Robert Mueller may now find himself in. I have long wondered about that aspect. Do yourself a favor and follow the link. I was originally going to post an edited version but couldn't find a way to shorten it. However, to whet your appetite:

Just how dead is the RussiaGate story - and how brain-dead are the House Democratic Committee chairmen, Nadler (Judiciary Committee) and Schiff (Intelligence Committee) to haul RussiaGate’s front-man, Robert Mueller back into the spotlight where the next thing to roll over and die will be Mr. Mueller’s evanescent reputation? The entrapment operation that was the Special Counsel’s covert mission has turned out to be Mr. Mueller own personal booby-trap, ... 
... 
It would be interesting to hear Robert Mueller’s explanation for how come US computer forensic experts were never dispatched to take possession of the DNC servers. Surely a ranking member on either House committee would have to ask him that, along with many other embarrassing questions about the stupendously sloppy and disingenuous work of the Special Counsel’s team. It was only one glaring omission among many. 
The whole affair now takes on tragic contours of Shakespearean dimensions. The Attorney General, Mr. Barr, is said to be an “old friend” of Mr. Mueller. They clashed pretty publicly after the release of Mr. Mueller’s long-awaited final report. Mr. Barr must at least be dismayed by the bad faith and deliberate deceit in his old friend’s final report,  and he really has to do something about it. The entire Mueller episode smacks of prosecutorial misconduct. In retrospect, it can only be explained as a desperate act undertaken by foolishly overconfident political activists.

21 comments:

  1. I just have two comments: (1) At one point, Hannity interviewed Assange, and sought a categorical statement that no Russians were the source of the email leak. Interestingly, Assange hesitated, stating (and I paraphrase): "What am I saying is that the source was not a state actor." Does this mean that Russians other than the Russian Government leaked the emails? Could these other Russians, whoever they might be, have gotten the emails from the Democrats' "inside source"? Maybe I am reading too much into Assange's response. Maybe Butowsky or Ratner could shed more light on this matter. (2) It has always struck me as curious that Rich's whereabouts for three hours before his murder are unknown. Pure speculation, but perhaps he was afraid to go back to his apartment that night, and only chanced doing so after 4 am. The former DC detective who investigated this matter (only to later sue Fox News) told Fox that Rich and DNC chief Donna Brazile were in some sort of dispute. If it involved the possibility that Rich was stealing/leaking emails, the dispute could have been very nasty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re your point #1, my observation is that Assange is always extremely cautious in describing his sources, which is simply being responsible. Therefore, I wouldn't go beyond his words: Not a state actor. Beyond that it appears that he refuses to narrow the field, so it might be a Russian national or it might not be.

      Re your point #2, I agree with what I believe you're saying, that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points in Rich's direction

      Delete
  2. Now that is very interesting. I did an extensive online search last week and didn't find the original video, but then I don't have 34 million dollars and 50 FBI agents and specialists working for me either. I search multiple pages of search results last week (at least a 1000 hits with varying search terms before throwing in the towel), and that full video didn't turn up because I would have watched it in its entirety given the date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh! Nor do you have security people reporting on everyone who visits the Ecuadorean embassy in London to talk to Assange. Wanna bet?

      Delete
    2. Not to mention the intensive technical surveillance that Assange would have been subjected to. Wouldn't you suppose that every journalist who visited Assange, just for starters, would be contacted by the security services?

      Delete
  3. I am sure you have probably seen it already, but Sundance has another important post up tonight. Apparently the government now wants to argue that mens rea doesn't apply. This goes right to the question I had about this trial when Flynn changed his stance about his intent was when he signed the FARA documents. I questioned whether you can be charged with being a foreign agent if you didn't know the client was a foreign government. Apparently the prosecution now wants to argue that you can.

    I think the judge might well toss this case, or instruct the jury that intent does matter and that the government hasn't proven it, so direct the jury to give a not guilty verdict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my prior life I tried to interest FBI/DoJ in using FARA and related statutes (esp. 951) as the criminal predicate needed for FISA and my theory was repeatedly rejected. So, naturally I was interested when Techno Fog started writing about this--which CTH has picked up. To be honest, what's being argued isn't clear to me from what we've seen--I should probably look up what pleadings are available.

      If the issue is as simple as you frame it, I would agree with you. The very notion of an agency relationship entails the idea of knowledge and consent. I suspect that what's behind this is that the government may want to use FARA like I wanted to--for purposes of FISA or as a criminal predicate in a conspiracy case, but then doesn't want to charge under FISA for fear of giving away the true sources of their information. Something of that sort. How this ties in with Flynn and the FISAs against him is the big question. It seems to me that we need judges to vigorously police what the government is up to here, and that policing should be happening before people are bankrupted by the government in legal proceedings. The dangers to the 1st amendment seem only too clear in all this.

      If you can point me to more docs in the case, please do so.

      Delete
  4. I researched Binney's claim a year or two ago, and it appears that a number of informed tech/intelligence people in his group disagree with his contention that the emails were downloaded directly from the server. I tend to believe Binney, but aren't his claims disputed by members of his group?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, James. I recall something of that sort, as well--although not sure if it was people in his group or simply other interested techies. I sent some of the dueling articles to a techie relative, but can't locate the responses. From my perspective Binney makes sense, and he certainly has the background to understand it all. If you can find disinterested rebuttals to his arguments please share. I say "disinterested" because for the past several years there have been numerous attacks on Binney and his supporters that come from obvious political directions. Binney hasn't backed off his main claims.

      The most recent comphrehensive analysis I'm aware of is:

      https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

      Delete
    2. Binney's detailed analysis of Hilalry's email archive showed the archive contains emails that were copied to a USB drive. Nobody can seriously dispute his analysis. But the critics note that the USB copy may not be the original exfiltration event.

      The only universally accepted piece of evidence is that Hillary illegally stored her emails on her private server. How the emails got off her server - can't be proven without physical access to the server.

      Delete
    3. The way I see things it really isn't as much whether Binney is right or not, but more that, so far, the "Russia hack" narrative is no more than hearsay unless Crowdstrike is willing to give up all of its forensic data. That will settle it, or prove them to be outright liars. Then we can move to whether the question of who was an active agent of the coupe attempt and who are simply tools.

      Delete
    4. That's a good way to put it, and with Horowitz's report due in the next month or two we may be getting closer to answers.

      Delete
    5. Here's the article: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/ As I recall, the strongest evidence Binney cites involves download speed (I'm totally incompetent here, so I'll be careful) I did find articles that argue Mueller debunked the inside job theory and that Binney et al were also duped by the "Russian" hackers who fiddled with dates on files and did some "duel" (dual) something or other with the files. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/08/how-russian-hackers-amplified-seth-rich-conspiracy-until-it-reached-donald-trump-and-cia/150263/; Larry Johnson is also sticking with the inside job download theory, apparently. Don't have time to see if Binney or Johnson have replied to the alleged debunking. Needless to say, I'm incredibly impressed with your work, and also your mission statement.

      Delete
    6. Ah, thanks for your support, James.

      Yes, I saw those articles before responding to your comment earlier. I think we know where Risen and the others are coming from. Notice that those are oldish articles and haven't deterred Binney and his supporters. I don't believe the attempted takedowns of Binney have stood the test of time very well. In the event, as Aaron Maté (link above) shows, the Mueller Dossier fudges on the claims, resorting to words like "appear" rather than asserting actual evidence and proof. IMO, Maté is correct:

      "a close examination of the [Mueller] report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved."

      Delete
    7. Just spit-balling here.
      A tertiary question: If Crowdstrike does give up the info and there is no evidence of Russian government hacking could they and the DNC be sued by Russia for defamation? What would be the appropriate criminal charge for this? Surely mere Filing a False Police Report would be insufficient. How about dragging them before the ICC for attempting to instigate a war between the U.S. and Russia (I know war was unlikely, but they've been fought over less and when one mucks about with relations between superpowers like this a black swan event can turn a mere kerfuffle into a 7 Days in May event)? Extending that line of thought, was the Hubris so thick that they assumed they were in control of the international aspects? Were they confident of control because Putin was in on it (Hillary being his preferred candidate) or, most frightening, did they think several million dead was an acceptable risk for domestic power? If Trump were even half as much a loose cannon as they attempted to paint him then they were playing Russian Roulette with 3 of 6 chambers armed.
      Not that I'm calling for dog-piling these miscreants while their down but if they were legally dog-piled it would warm the cockles of my heart.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    8. I beieve that would be legally possible.

      Delete
  5. Nuts and bolts. All EC information transfers consist of two components; the information core and a header comprising ancillary data (the latter is often called metadata). The header data includes a lot of information about the transiting of packets from origin to destination (usually many legs of transfer are involved). Other information includes packet identification, time stamps, size, encryption support, etc. The vast majority of the time, both the core and the header are pristine throughout the process of transfer, and the header data from the Wikileaks supplied files indicates that a very fast data transfer rate occurred when this version of the file was created. The Wikileaks data transfer rate (sometimes called bandwidth rate) is consistent with a computer to flash drive serial port transfer protocol and would be very nearly impossible to duplicate using an international internet transfer protocol.

    All that said, as Snowden revealed, the CIA (and many others) have many tools which can be used to corrupt (alter) a data file and make it appear to be something other than it's unmolested original content.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly.

      I believe it's uncontested that what Wikileaks possesses are authentic files. The Wikileaks transfer rate clearly suggests that those authentic files were obtained via transfer from something like a flash drive. HOWEVER, for sophisticated operators like the CIA, who would want to further the Russian Hoax narrative of a Russian "hack", the suggestion by the transfer rate of a transfer to Wikileaks from a flash drive would be inimical to the narrative of a Russian "hack". This would support Binney's view that only an insider--not Russians and not orgs like the CIA--handled those files before they arrived at Wikileaks. This should call into question the motives of anyone who expressed opposition to or disinterest in a thorough forensic exam of what evidence there is.

      Delete
  6. In order to alter an EC file, you must first have access to it. The stolen DNC files were originally copied to a flash drive which then was delivered to Wikileaks by a courier. That is why these files have never been molested and the original metadata remains intact.

    ReplyDelete