Saturday, December 21, 2019

Dmitri Alperovitch, Founder Of CrowdStrike, Was A "Special Government Employee"

This is being reported by The Epoch Times: CrowdStrike Co-Founder Held Special Government Employee Status. And nobody responsible wants to comment about this. Go figure, hey? If I were the suspicious kind I'd say he was helping the Obama administration to prepare for the 2016 election in some way. Excerpt:

The Department of Defense granted Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, the status of a special government employee in 2013, a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times. 
Alperovitch held the status for one year starting on Nov. 23, 2013. 
“He was an unpaid consultant limited to 60 total days in a year and has not provided any consulting services since that time,” Lt. Col. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon press spokesperson, wrote in an email. 
“In his role as a special government employee, Alpervotich provided services in cybersecurity, forensic cyber analysis, and post-incident remediation.” 
In 2013 and 2014, the U.S. government relied in part on CrowdStrike’s reports to identify China and North Korea as the culprits of state-sponsored hacks.
CrowdStrike did not respond to a request for comment. 
The “cyber-czar” at the defense department at the time, Eric Rosenbach, requested for Alperovtich to be brought on as a special government employee, according to a former official familiar with the matter. Steven Schleien, who is now the chief operating officer at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, directed the onboarding process, the source said. 
Rosenbach did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Alperovitch’s status as a special government employee has not been previously reported.


  1. Replies
    1. Absolutely. You have to expect that Durham is looking into the whole Crowdstrike situation very closely.

    2. Which is precisely what Trump asked Ukraine's help with.
      Tom S.

    3. Yes, and Soros is also very much a part of the Ukraine scandal. That should tell you a lot about the desperation. Money.

    4. I think there's another layer to the Soros saga. All this time we thought he was spending his own money to undermine us. From the relationship to Soros in Ukraine and the USAID bags illegals were carrying in the early caravans, it looks like the State Dept has been a source of those Soros funds.

      Victoria Nuland seemed to always be in close contact with Soros related groups.

      How many NGO's run by Soros have gotten grants thru the State Department?

      Wonder if we'll ever know or the connection ever explored?

  2. Off-topic, but worth checking out:

    Bongino interviewed Cong. Nunes on Friday for a whole hour, and Nunes reveals far more detail that I have previously heard from him about the investigation he ran out House Intel Committee up through 2018. Lots interesting insights, including that he is convinced the PapaD material from Downer was just the pretext for officially opening CH; he says there is substantial evidence Trump campaign people were being surveilled well before the opening of CH at the end of July 2016.

    He also talks about Mifsud, and how we don't know who he worked for, though it isn't the FBI, and not the Russians. He hypothesizes it could be a private entity, or a foreign intel agency.

    He talks about his belief the entire operation to target the Trump campaign started in late 2015, which is reinforced by the fact that the same "crowd" of people out of Cambridge (Halper, Mifsud, etc.) keep showing up around the various people who later become associated with the Trump campaign, like PapaD, Page, and others. He mentions a name I have never heard before who is associated with the Cambridge crowd, and says he was never able to interview this person.

    He also talks about Flynn having been targeted even earlier, going back to 2014.

    Also talks about someone mentioned several times in the IG report, SA-1 or something like that, who shows up all over the place at key events; thinks this person is the "boots on the ground" member of the conspiracy, but doesn't name him. Bogino says many people have a pretty good idea who it is.

    Worth a listen if you have a spare hour:

    1. In fact, I listened last night and took notes--definitely worth the listen. I'm planning to blog on that later today. My focus was a bit different than yours.

    2. Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse says SA-1 is Agent Prietka - he "interviewed" Flynn with Strzok in the White House right after inauguration.

  3. Dan Bongino has posted his excellent interview with Devin Nunes.

    At around 40:00, Nunes articulates 'conspiracy' as the basis for criminal referrals.

    1. Yes. As I told EZ, I listened last night and took notes. Re 'conspiracy,' I was glad he emphasized that. I would want to tie that in to some of his other points, which I'm about to start working on.

  4. I've been away from the blog for several days due to being so busy. I just skimmed the opening paragraphs so am commenting cold.

    A lot of times we joke about the clown show but there is nothing funny about what Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler and company have done. It's despicable.

    To not send the articles to the Senate after all that they put the Nation and the President through is an outrage. The Nation doesn't exist for their pleasure and convenience. They're supposed to serve the People.

    What leverage does Pelosi thinks she has over Mitch McConnell? Zero. Cocaine Mitch was at his best saying she doesn't want to give us something that we don't want.

    I heard talk that to extricate themselves, the Dems are proposing to censure the President and pull impeachment if Reps will vote to censure. Why should the Reps do this? I wouldn't help the Dems out of their predicament. They catered to the Loony Left. Let the Loony Left come to the rescue.

    And Gabbard? I used to have some respect for her but after voting 'present', I have very little. It's either aye or nay. She didn't think that his behavior rose to the level of impeachment. Well then, it's nay.

    1. Gabbard? Not very impressive. She better stick to MMA and workout vids.

    2. Ditto. Some Republicans seemed to see her as a palatable Dem. There is no such thing. But they were pulled in by her appearance and her ability to speak calmly and clearly. Thin gruel for someone to lead our country. Just another midget with better optics? I didn’t know she did workout vids

  5. Another interesting reference is when Devin Nunes outlines FBI supervisory special agent #1, or SSA1 is “deep throat”. We know from research SSA1 is Joseph Pientka.

    So it was corrupt FBI Agent Joseph Pientka who was the workhorse organizing the various schemes and day-to-day FBI manipulations.

    1. Actually, there were a number of texts in which Strzok does name Pientka--not redacted--and it's clear that Pientka is Strzok's legman, trusted to do the necessary work of contacts with Ohr, etc. It was always clear that Strzok couldn't be doing everything on his own.

    2. On Jan. 18, journalist Jeff Carlson broke an amazing story right here on the pages of The Epoch Times, in which he published explosive excerpts from former FBI General Counsel James Baker’s testimony to the U.S. Congress.

      In that transcript, an entire series of previously undisclosed information became public. Baker told the House Oversight Committee the following:

      In January 2019, when this article on James Baker’s testimony was published, I didn’t even know the Epoch Times existed. It has become a rather rich source of information...


    Sundance thinks the House Impeachment two-step is a ploy to get grand jury and McGahn testimony.

    He may well be right but the Lawfare/Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff misdirection tactics should outrage all Americans.

    1. That's what I've been saying and why I want McConnell to take the case now. Of course any decision will be appealed and I suspect Trump will win at the SCOTUS. The other good news from this is that DoJ is involved, which means Barr.

    2. However, I disagree with this:

      "Conveniently a pending Senate Trial against President Trump for obstruction paves the way for the DC appeals court to rule in favor of the HJC need for supportive evidence."

      To me, this reveals this a transparent ploy, and if the Senate disposes of the articles it should all go away. Just do it, Mitch!

    3. If the House Judiciary Committee needed more evidence, they should have gone to court to get it; the fact they promulgated Articles of Impeachment WITHOUT the additional evidence they claim they need, and which was then accepted by a majority vote of the House in plenary session, argues that additional evidence is NOT necessary from the POV of the House.

      Having approved the Articles without additional evidence, they can hardly argue the suddenly need MORE evidence -- they could have waited and sought judicial authorization for the "extra" evidence before proceeding with Impeachment Articles!

      They can't have it BOTH ways.

    4. Yes. To my mind it's essentially a cart before the horse argument. The argument would be, in effect, we indicted so now you have to let us gather the evidence. That's an argument that the investigation was bogus.

  7. We all know these are just on the one hand delaying tactics, because they know what's coming (none of them were surprised when Horowitz testified), and on the other hand smearing tactics to dominate the news.

    I've also read that they want to be able to say, no impeached president should be allowed to nominate a Supreme court justice. They'll be screaming about that next.