Classified
testimony
from 2017,
was recently
declassified.
The CrowdStrike
cyber-security firm
was hired by the
Democratic National
Committee (DNC)
to look at its computer
servers in 2016.
Shawn Henry,
the president of
CrowdStrike
Services,
told the House
Intelligence
Committee
in late 2017
that his firm
had no evidence
that the alleged
Russian hackers
stole any data from
the DNC servers.
“There’s not evidence
that they were actually
exfiltrated,” Henry said.
“There’s circumstantial
evidence, but no evidence
that they were actually
exfiltrated.”
In June 2019,
it was revealed
that CrowdStrike
never produced
an non-redacted
or final forensic
report for
the government,
because the FBI
never required it to,
according to the
Justice Department.
WikiLeaks published
more than 44,000 emails
from senior DNC officials,
which served as the excuse
for the FBI’s 2016 investigation
of candidate Trump's campaign.
Why Trump?
Because his smarmy
opponent, Hillary Clinton,
created a fictional tale
that Russians hacked the
DNC e-mails, and Trump
was colluding with them !
Her evidence = none !
The charge
was investigated
at least four times !
Special Counsel
Robert Mueller
led the last investigation,
starting May 2017, and
eventually charged a group
of Russians with DNC hacking.
His evidence = none !
Until Mueller’s indictment,
there was only a brief
report from CrowdStrike,
released on June 14, 2016,
days after the firm claims
to have ousted the hackers
from the DNC's systems.
Of the over 44,000 e-mails
published by WikiLeaks,
more than 98% were sent,
and received, by senior
DNC officials,
between April 18, 2016
and May 25, 2016.
For more than half
of that time period,
CrowdStrike had
its software installed
on the DNC’s servers,
and was monitoring
the network.
That means the e-mails
were allegedly hacked
under CrowdStrike's watch !
Mueller’s indictment alleges
that Russian hackers
stole e-mails between
May 25 and June 1 of 2016,
roughly three weeks AFTER
CrowdStrike installed
its software on the
DNC servers (and almost
immediately claimed Russian
hackers had gained access).
STORY #1
Shawn Henry told
the House Intelligence
Committee that
he was not aware
of the DNC or CrowdStrike
denying any FBI requests
related to getting access
to the DNC servers.
STORY #2
Then-FBI Director
James Comey told
the Senate Intelligence
Committee in January 2017,
that the FBI sought, and
was repeatedly denied
access, to the physical
DNC servers.
STORY #3
The DNC’s director
of technology,
Andrew Brown,
told the House
Intelligence Committee
the DNC fully cooperated
with every FBI request.
STORY #4
DNC’s IT director,
Yared Tamene, told
the Committee yet
another story -- the FBI
never requested access
to the physical servers.
Tamene claimed the DNC
handed over images
of its servers to CrowdStrike,
which then handed them over
to the FBI in May and June
of 2016.
STORY #5
Michael Sussman,
the DNC’s outside
counsel, told the
House Committee
that the FBI declined
a DNC offer for full
access to its servers.
Mueller’s final report
cites these images, and
redacted grand jury
material, as the source
for the allegation
that Russian hackers
stole the DNC e-mails.
The Mueller Team
knew their charges
against the Russians
would always be alleged,
because the defendants
would not leave Russia.
The special counsel
concluded his 22-month
investigation last year,
finding no evidence
that anyone on
the Trump campaign
colluded with Russia
to influence the
2016 election.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released last week
reveal that the Committee
was told two and half years ago
that the FBI had no concrete
evidence that Russia hacked
Democratic National Committee
computers to steal the DNC emails
published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The closed-door testimony
on December 5, 2017, was from
CrowdStrike's Shawn Henry,
a protégé of former
FBI Director Robert Mueller
( from 2001 to 2012 ),
for whom Henry served as head
of the Bureau’s cyber crime
investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012,
and took a senior position
at CrowdStrike, the cyber
security firm hired by the
DNC and Clinton campaign,
to investigate the cyber
intrusions that occurred
before the 2016
presidential election.
The following excerpts
are from Henry’s testimony:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff:
Do you know the date on which
the Russians exfiltrated the data
from the DNC? … when would
that have been?
Mr. Henry:
Counsel just reminded me that,
as it relates to the DNC,
we have indicators that data
was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have no indicators
that it was exfiltrated (sic)
… 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.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah:
Okay. What about the emails
that everyone is so, you know,
knowledgeable of?
Were there also indicators
that they were prepared
but not evidence that they
actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry:
There’s not evidence
that they were actually
exfiltrated.
There’s circumstantial evidence
… but no evidence that they
were actually exfiltrated. …
Mr. Stewart:
But you have a much lower
degree of confidence that
this data actually left
than you do, for example,
that the Russians were
the ones who breached
the security?
Mr. Henry:
There is circumstantial evidence
that that data was exfiltrated
off the network.
Mr. Stewart:
And circumstantial
is less sure
than the other evidence
you’ve indicated. …
Mr. Henry:
“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.
In answer to
a follow-up query
on this line
of questioning,
Henry said:
“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.”
Henry added:
“There are other
nation-states
that collect this
type of intelligence
for sure, but the –
what we would call
the tactics and techniques
were consistent with what
we’d seen associated
with the Russian state.”
The word
“exfiltration.”
can denote
(1)
Transferring data
from a computer
via the Internet (hacking) or
(2)
Copying data physically
to an external storage device
with intent to leak it.
Any hack over the Internet
would almost certainly
have been discovered
by the National Security
Agency, and /or its cooperating
foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that
“it appears it
[the theft of DNC emails]
was set up to be exfiltrated,
but we just don’t have
the evidence that says
it actually left.”
Bill Binney, a former NSA
technical director,
filed a sworn affidavit
in the Roger Stone case.
Binney said:
“WikiLeaks did not receive
stolen data from the
Russian government.
Intrinsic metadata in the
publicly available files
on WikiLeaks demonstrates
that the files acquired by
WikiLeaks were delivered
in a medium such as
a thumb drive.”
The “Intelligence Community
Assessment” (*ICA) was prepared
by a few “handpicked analysts”
from the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
The ICA of Jan. 6, 2017,
accusing Russia of DNC hacking,
did include two relevant points:
(1)
In introductory remarks
on “cyber incident attribution”,
the authors of the ICA wrote:
“The nature of cyberspace
makes attribution
of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible.
Every kind of cyber operation
– malicious or not – leaves a trail.”
(2)
“When analysts use words
such as ‘we assess’ or ‘we judge,’
[these] are not intended to imply
that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact
… Assessments are based
on collected information,
which is often incomplete
or fragmentary
… High confidence
in a judgment
does not imply
that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty;
such judgments
might be wrong.”
At his final
press conference,
on January 18, 2017,
President Obama
gave this incoherent
statement about
the key issue of
how the DNC e-mails
got to WikiLeaks:
President Obama:
“The conclusions
of the intelligence community
with respect to the Russian
hacking were not conclusive
as to whether WikiLeaks
was witting, or not, in being
the conduit through which
we heard about
the DNC e-mails
that were leaked.”
Obama tried to say
U.S. intelligence did not
know exactly how an
alleged Russian transfer
to WikiLeaks was made.
Meaning the claim that
'the Russians gave DNC
e-mails to WikiLeaks'
is just speculation.
