As an old IT guy, I keep wondering what Crowdstrike was doing during the DNC Hack? It looks like a Lifelock commercial. Here is the Crowdstrike timeline.
In 2015 Crowdstrike knows that DNC information was transmitted to Russia.
On April 29th, 2016, the DNC suspects they have been hacked.
On May 4th, 2016, Crowdstrike installs “monitoring software”.
On June 10th, 2016, Crowdstrike changes passwords at the DNC.
If Crowdstrike knew the DNC was hacked in 2015 and information was transmitted back to Russia, why did they install a security monitor in May 2016? Why did they wait until June to actually fix the problem? It looks like Crowdstrike set up the DNC network as a “bad” honeypot. Traditionally a honeypot consists of a network site that appears to be legitimate but is actually isolated, monitored, and contains non-vital data. Crowdstrike used the real DNC network as the lure. If Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike are the private contractors who had unsupervised access to raw FISA information on FBI systems, they had to know what the Russians were doing. Were their actions negligent, stupid, or an attempt to divert the attention from the damaging Podesta emails that the Russians were boasting about? Since the Podesta emails were far more damaging to the Clinton campaign, it looks like Crowdstrike felt it was more important to attribute the hack on the Russians than to protect the DNC data.
DNC Hack Timeline
CrowdStrike had stated in its reports that the DNC server was penetrated sometime in the summer of 2015
The #FISA Collusion scandal reminds me of the tactics of J. Edgar Hoover. Wikipedia describes him this way.
He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI, and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods.Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents.
As a person who has been selected for three juries, I am puzzled at the staffing decisions by Mr. Mueller. As a juror, I do not want my time wasted by a prosecution’s case tainted with apparent bias. Bias is a pretty good reason for a juror to say no to the “beyond a reasonable doubt question”. If Mr. Mueller is pursuing the same blind justice that does give a whit about politics, Mr. Mueller’s staff must be beyond reproach. This is not rocket science.
Why did Mr. McCabe, Ms. Rhee, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Page, and Mr. Strzok not recuse themselves from this case?
Although Glenn Kessler makes a good argument that Mr. Mueller “is legally barred from discriminating career appointees based on political affiliation”, there is nothing prohibiting the aforementioned people from recusing themselves because of apparent bias. This would have been the right thing for them to do. Since Mr. Mueller replaced them without much effort we have to assume that qualified lawyers exist without the political baggage. Why not start off with them? Are there any adults at the Department of Justice? Is this the same culture of corruption problem we have seen at the Department of Justice for the last eight years?
If the Department of Justice cannot police themselves should we allow Section 702 of the Patriot Act to be renewed without substantial reform?
I am still trying to get my head around the possible impact of the dossier in getting FISA warrants. It looks like dossier weaponized the FBI for political purposes. Almost immediately after a FISA warrant was attained to wiretap the Trump Tower in October of 2016, it was disclosed to Louise Mensch. The FBI had a history of integrity but the timing of this leak was so out of character. Now their integrity looks in peril. As I argued in the post, The #Obamagate Motive, it looks the primary objective of the FISA warrant was to discredit the Trump Campaign. In hindsight, it made the FISA court judges like a bunch of fools. This is not going to end well for the FBI!
Can Anyone Make The FBI Look Professional Again?
If the dossier played any role in the FISA warrants, I am not sure all the kings men can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Director Comey and the FBI shredded the integrity of the FBI and for what? How does anyone including the FISA judges trust the FBI again? The fact that the dossier was funded by the Democratic party shows how far the FBI reputation has fallen. The FBI should have known who funded the dossier. Investigating is something the FBI is supposed to be good at. I would think that the last thing the FBI wanted on their resume was that they acquired any FISA warrant based on Democratic Party funded opposition research. If the dossier is all the FBI had, It makes the case that President Trump did the right thing in firing Director Comey. The fact that the dossier was circulated in the government is an embarrassment to the FBI and a source of amusement for the Kremlin. I am sorry but I am not sure anyone can make the FBI look professional again.
Only in America is the “clenched fist of truth” more violent than a beheading.
Dana Loesch Says The Ad First Aired In April – True
Surprisingly this ad first aired in April and had 17 national airings. The NRA ads are well done and some of them are memorable. I do not remember this ad. Why the big fuss over this ad two months after its initial airing? If this is an NRA publicity stunt, the Democrats fell for it. Here is a nice synopsis of the hoopla over the ad.
Why is it a “conspiracy theory” to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
The Washington Post is trying its best to write it off as a conspiracy theory. Recently two people gave the conspiracy pot a big stir. Kim Dotcom says he knows that Mr. Rich leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks and a surgeon is raising questions about Mr. Richs treatment at the hospital. Since I believe that the simplest answer is probably correct, let’s look at some of the theories on Seth Rich’s murder.
The “Robbery Gone Bad” Theory
The “robbery gone bad” theory is the most popular explanation of his death. The problems with this theory are that nothing was stolen, it occurred at 4 am, and he was shot twice in the back. This looks like an unusual time for a professional or even a novice robber to be practicing their craft on the street. If you are a robber who is up at 4 am, you are probably trying to break into a house or to steal a car. A robber knows the difference between robbery and murder. Shooting someone in the back does not look like a robbery victim. Shooting someone in the back when they are trying to flee is an act of passion. The biggest problems with this scenario are why was he shot twice without a kill shot and where are the shell casings. The only reason to shoot him more than once is to make sure he does not testify. Shooting an unarmed man once can be explained as an unintended consequence of a fight. Shooting an unarmed man twice is a strong case for murder. A criminal would know this. Did the police find fingerprints on the shell casings and did they run the prints? A criminal would probably have their fingerprints in the system already.
The “Seth was assassinated” Theory
The “Seth was assassinated” theory explains the fact that nothing was stolen and the time of the shooting. There was nothing professional about this murder. Only an amateur would have left Seth alive.
The “Angry Person” Theory
A more likely scenario is that Mr. Rich got into a heated argument with a person on the street and when Mr. Rich tried to leave the fight he was shot in the back. This could be almost anyone walking the streets at 4 am with an emotional problem. The problem with this theory is imagining Mr. Rich talking with any person at 4 am. An intriguing possibility is that a person associated with the DNC found out that Mr. Rich was leaking emails to Wikileaks and went to confront him. Although this person may have been angry, they did not plan to kill him. The only person I can imagine Mr. Rich would allow getting close to him at 4 am is someone he knew. When the argument became violent and Mr. Rich tried to leave, it was in the heat of the moment that he was shot twice in the back. If you believe this theory then the list of suspects is small and this case should have been tied up before the election last year. Oops!
If Director Comey has as much integrity as his supporters claim then why did he not offer his resignation the day after the Presidential election regardless of who won? If Ms. Clinton won the election then it is obvious that she would request his resignation. For the good of FBI, he would comply. What is not obvious is why Director Comey stayed on after Mr. Trump won despite feeling “mildly nauseous’’ at the thought that his decisions about a probe into Hillary Clinton might have affected the outcome of the election? This sounds like a guy who is having trouble coming to work each day. After alienating both political parties and politicizing the FBI, his future was a political minefield. If he succumbed to political pressure in the Clinton email investigation, what were Republicans supposed to think about the Flynn investigation in this hyper-partisan political atmosphere? How could he satisfy either party? As long as he was there, there was no way to put a non-partisan FBI back together again. Director Comey was the weak link. The right thing for him to do was offer to resign and let someone else pick up the pieces.
I do not trust Mr. Clapper. Time and time again he inevitably answers questions in a way that allows him plausible deniability. Good for him but bad for the American people. However, I do not believe he knowingly lies. At a recent Senate hearing, I believe him when he said he did not know of a counter-intelligence effort at the FBI. This left me with me with the thought there might be an off-the-books counter-intelligence operation at the FBI that Mr. Clapper was not aware of. As Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper, is one person who absolutely, positively should know of a counter-intelligence operation at the FBI involving Russia. The Director of National Intelligence position was created to avoid intelligence coordination mishaps that occurred prior to the 9/11 attack. Now Mr. Clapper says he did not know of a counter-intelligence operation. Did Director Comey lie to Mr. Clapper? This behavior is the type of offense that got Mr. Flynn fired. Should we expect a different result?
If Ms. Yates was drawing the proverbial line in the sand for Mr. Flynn’s actions, why did the Justice Department not indict Ms. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation? The Justice Department should have indicted either Ms. Clinton or the Clinton Foundation if they wanted to limit future Russian blackmail. The Podesta emails show us that there was a lot more money involved and the “pay for access” was common. Although I doubt a “reasonable prosecutor” would get a conviction, it would serve as a reminder that there are limits to influence peddling. Instead, we had a Presidential election which largely hinged on the “untrustworthiness” of Ms. Clinton.