Postmortem on Mueller

[Gori the Grey]

The Mueller report is basically "her emails" for the liberals.

The tide-turner for the next election? Good to hear.

 

[innonimatu]

The postmortem on Mueller is still being done.

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.
[...]
Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots."
[...]
In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system." According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made "multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it was agreed to… [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
[...]
This disclosure follows revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
[...]
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller. Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele has testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump Organization.

Henry’s recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain.

The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.

And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry, Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC email theft.

Peddling the idea that someone would take data from am email server by grabbing screenshots is simply desperate, as if emails were displayed on screen as they transited through the server...

Many people here chose to believe politically convenient claims made without evidence. The story made no sense, no evidence was ever presented, and a simple explanation was that officials caught with a finger on the scales - helping out whom they believe would be the next president, good career move... - were doing a preemptive strike to protect themselves, shifting the narrative to one where they would be accusers rather than defendants.

Mueller has not proven one single accusation on court. The only conviction coming out of his investigation were over lies and financial crimes not meaningful for the accusations or "collision with Russia". Worse, there was clear testimony that the accusations were made without evidence, and that testimony was being suppressed. This testimony existed at the time Mueller delivered his report. Even though it was a nothingburger, he still knowingly lied in it to at least present some claims

I understand why "russiagate" was done. What I do not understand is why, after four years wasted and its collapse, the DNC is still firmly in the hands of those who did it. In such a large country, how can a handful of people who failed and sunk the party with them still keep their hold over the party so tight?

 

[Berzerker]

"the Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy toward Russia."

They also took money from the owner of Burisma after trashing the prosecutor Shokin who was investigating the company

"In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself."

Adam Schiff didn't want us to read the transcripts? How can that be, he's a hero!

 

[Estebonrober]

Still waiting for those indictments. . . You guys keep bringing things up that have been addressed without anything having actually changed. Anyways. . .

 

[Kaitzilla]

Still waiting for those indictments. . . You guys keep bringing things up that have been addressed without anything having actually changed. Anyways. . .

Just in time before the statute of limitations, Russiagate finally has one.

Lawyer Michael Sussmann has been indicted for lying to the FBI.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-more-like-watergate


Not sure how strong the case can be if it is a buzzer beater throw, but it was enough for a grand jury.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/20/nassar-sussmann-cases-disparity-justice/

 

[Ajidica]

The case appears profoundly weird with some serious evidentiary problems.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann

How, you might ask, might Sussmann’s fibbing about the identity of his clients affect anything?

Consider that if Hillary Clinton stood beneath a “Stronger Together” banner and given a press conference announcing the contents of the material that Sussmann delivered, and if Sussmann had then transmitted that material to the FBI on Hillary Clinton campaign letterhead, the FBI still would have had to investigate the matter—the FBI having no more policy against accepting information from political campaigns than from drug dealers, mob bosses and terrorists. It still would have run down the lead, and it still would have found the Alfa Bank allegations to be without merit—just as it did, in fact.
…
Indeed, Durham’s very next sentence, the one that opens paragraph 7, undermines the notion that Sussmann’s alleged lie mattered. It reads: “The FBI’s investigation of these allegations nevertheless concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel with [Alfa Bank].” Durham does not allege that it took the FBI longer to reach this conclusion as a result of Sussmann’s alleged statement about his clients. Nor does he suggest that the bureau devoted excessive energy to the matter because it had been misled as to the apolitical nature of the source. The FBI, rather, received a lead; it ran it down; it dismissed it—just as it would have had the Alfa Bank material shown up wearing Hillary Clinton’s trademark pants suit.
…
Start with Baker, on whose testimony the whole case will ultimately ride. We don’t know what precisely he told the grand jury that gives Durham confidence he can prove his case against Sussmann beyond a reasonable doubt. But we can infer that Baker must be the prosecution’s chief witness, and that his testimony must have implicated Sussmann. There simply is no other way to make a case about a single meeting with only two people present.

Moreover, we do know what Baker told a congressional investigation in a sworn deposition in October 2018. That deposition will give defense lawyers a great deal to work with in responding to the charges against Sussmann.
…
The problem for Durham is that in this deposition, Baker repeatedly disclaims specific memory of whether Sussmann identified his clients. Baker’s congressional deposition takes place over two separate days, a couple of weeks apart, and the matter comes up a few times. He is quite consistent that he does not remember Sussmann mentioning his clients, but he also does not state that Sussmann said he had no client interests—and Baker repeatedly suggests his own memory on the subject may be imperfect. The matter first comes up on Oct. 3, when Baker has the following exchange with Democratic staff of the House Oversight Committee (p. 53):
…
It is hard for me to understand how a criminal case against Sussmann can proceed in the face of this testimony. If Baker gave testimony to the grand jury remotely as equivocal as this, then the claimed facts in the indictment are unsupportable. In this deposition, after all, Baker does not testify that Sussmann had told him he was not representing any client, as the indictment alleges on page 18. Rather, he testified that he did not recall Sussmann mentioning being there on behalf of any client, though he says he may have been generically aware of Sussmann’s relationship with the DNC on cyber matters. If, conversely, Baker gave grand jury testimony significantly more confident than this congressional testimony about Sussmann’s disclaiming any client representation, Sussmann’s lawyers will have a field day on cross-examination exposing the differences and attacking the credibility of Baker’s testimony at trial. Either way, it won’t be good for Durham’s case.
…
ore fundamental, however, is the fact that the Russia investigation in the main did not turn on these efforts or flow from them. The Alfa Bank investigation in the bureau went nowhere. The Steele dossier affected only the Carter Page matter, which was only one relatively unimportant thread of the larger Russia investigation. While a bad Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application is always important, the errors in the Carter Page FISA matter did not affect anything beyond the surveillance of Carter Page.

Indeed, none of what we think of as the fruits of the Russia investigation had anything to do with Clinton-world opposition research efforts. Not the Papadopoulos matter. Not the Michael Flynn investigation. Not the investigation of Paul Manafort and his business relationship with the Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. Not the indictment of Russian intelligence officers for hacking and dumping Democratic emails—all with the public endorsement of Donald J. Trump. Not the investigation of Roger Stone. And not the indictments of other Russian operatives for social media manipulations. The extensive findings of the Mueller report depend not a whiff on Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS.