DOJ Admits FBI Never Saw Crowdstrike Report on DNC Russian Hacking Claim

[livingston]

DOJ Admits FBI Never Saw Crowdstrike Report on DNC Russian Hacking Claim
The foundation for the Russian election interference narrative is built on the claim of Russians hacking the servers of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and subsequently releasing damaging emails that showed the DNC worked to help Hillary Clinton and eliminate Bernie Sanders.

Despite the Russian ‘hacking’ claim the DOJ previously admitted the DNC would not let FBI investigators review the DNC server. Instead the DNC provided the FBI with analysis of a technical review done through a cyber-security contract with Crowdstrike.
The narrative around the DNC hack claim was always sketchy; many people believe the DNC email data was downloaded onto a flash drive and leaked. In a court filing (full pdf below) the scale of sketchy has increased exponentially.

Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack. When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission. Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.
More at...
DOJ Admits FBI Never Saw Crowdstrike Report on DNC Russian Hacking Claim…

 

[livingston]

further down .....
The full intelligence apparatus of the United States government is relying on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm; that was created by a paid contractor for a political victim that would not allow the FBI to investigate their claim.

 

[kev74]

further down .....
The full intelligence apparatus of the United States government is relying on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm; that was created by a paid contractor for a political victim that would not allow the FBI to investigate their claim.

Standard practice, I'm sure. Standard operating procedure to the end.

 

[kev74]

 

[spat]

Since when do you get to tell the DOJ "no" when they are ask for evidence while investigating a crime ?

They should have sent the squad they used to arrest Rodger Stone to seize the servers.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Since when do you get to tell the DOJ "no" when they are ask for evidence while investigating a crime ?

They should have sent the squad they used to arrest Rodger Stone to seize the servers.

Having worked on a data breach case or two I can't speak to DOJ but we regularly redact reports like this when they are demanded by various state attorneys general.

 

[ProgSpear]

Having worked on a data breach case or two I can't speak to DOJ but we regularly redact reports like this when they are demanded by various state attorneys general.

Perhaps there are various state attorneys general that need to be indicted for obstruction of justice?

 

[livingston]

If one has a bit of time read the comments section from the above link ..

 

[spat]

Having worked on a data breach case or two I can't speak to DOJ but we regularly redact reports like this when they are demanded by various state attorneys general.

How does that even work ?

If I film a crime on my cell phone and some cop demands I turn it over as evidence, I somehow doubt he is going to be happy if I just offer to IM him the video instead.

I also don't think they would be amused if I want to delete my browser history before turning it over.

Why are there 2 sets of rules ?

 

[tirwin1]

Why are there 2 sets of rules ?

We know the reason why. I no longer believe this idea of "a few bad apples" at the FBI while the rank and file are honorable. The FBI has become a politicized arm of the democratic party. If there were tons of honorable agents they would have leaked all the dirt by now. The FBI needs to be disbanded and something else put in its place. Yes there will be negative outcomes but the rot in the current organization is simply too great for it to continue as is.