FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced
The FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s “conclusion” to blame Russia for hacking DNC servers, though the private firm never produced a final report and the FBI never asked them to, as Ray McGovern explains.
SO! Now we are learning that not only did Comey and Mueller rely of a third party analysis, but that it was redacted!?! for even them to see all the evidence!?! Ray is making this shit up right? No final report either? But no, it's right there in a court filing.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The government has seen the final, redacted reports and has them in its possession. The redacted portions, apparently, have to do with remediation efforts to clean and protect the DNC servers, and have nothing to do with criminal acts by anyone. Essentially, the redacted portions are not evidence.
So, yes, Ray is incorrect. Either he misread his source material, misunderstood it, or is being told what to write or is making it up. You can choose. With only one data point, I can’t say that he IS making it up.
Rob1948
Level 7
June 18, 2019
1
This is the official document from the government to the defendant's (Roger Stone) motion to compel unredacted CrowdStrike reports. The government obviously did not see the redacted information from this response. Once again, they took the DNC's word for it.
Of course, either way, this doesn't mean that CrowdStrike did an accurate analysis of the "hack" anyway. The FBI nor any other government agency performed a first hand investigation into the DNC's servers.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROGER J. STONE, JR., Defendant. Criminal No. 19-cr-18-ABJ
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL UNREDACTED CROWDSTRIKE REPORTS
Defendant Roger J. Stone has filed a motion seeking to compel production of certain unredacted reports from the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. Doc. 103. The government has no reason to believe the redacted information constitutes Brady material and does not possess the information the defendant seeks.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By May 2016, the Democratic National Committee (“DNC” ) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC” ) became aware that their computer systems had been compromised by intrusions, and they hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to identify the extent of the intrusions and mitigate the threat. On June 14, 2016, the DNC, via CrowdStrike, publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors. See,Washington Post, D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump, June 14, 2016, available at [nytimes.com]. At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports.1
Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC.2 At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors. The government has also provided defense counsel the opportunity to review additional reports obtained from CrowdStrike related to the hack.
On July 1, 2018, the government indicted twelve Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hack of the DNC and various email accounts belonging to individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. See United States v. Netyksho, 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.).
ARGUMENT 1.
The Material the Defendant Seeks Is Not Discoverable
The defendant argues that he is entitled to the unredacted reports because they constitute exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland . 373 U.S. 83 (1963). However, there is no reason to believe that the redacted information constitutes Brady material. The defendant is not charged with conspiring to hack the DNC or DCCC.
Cf. Netyksho, Doc. 1. The defendant is charged with making false statements to Congress regarding his interactions with Organization 1 and the Trump Campaign and intimidating a witness to cover up his criminal acts. Any information regarding what remediation steps CrowdStrike took to remove the Russian threat from the system and strengthen the DNC and DCCC computer systems against subsequent attacks is not relevant2
The defendant describes the reports as “ heavily redacted documents,” Doc. 103, at 1. One report is thirty-one pages; only five lines in the executive summary are redacted. Another runs sixty-two pages, and redactions appear on twelve pages. The last report is fifty-four pages, and redactions appear on ten pages.3 to these charges. And, in any case, the government does not need to prove at the defendant’s trial that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant made false statements, tampered with a witness, and obstructed justice into a congressional investigation regarding election interference. See Doc. 94, at 6 (arguing that the government will prove that multiple congressional bodies and the FBI opened investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the defendant interfered in those investigations). The defendant is thus not entitled to the information he seeks.
The Government Does Not Possess the Requested Information
As the government has advised the defendant in a letter following the defendant’s filing, the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted.
So what. That is, essentially what I said. I read the government’s brief and the material you quoted is from the brief. It just backs up what I said.
They took the DNC lawyer’s word for explanation of the redacted content. That happens. If Stone’s lawyer wants to make a big deal of it, they can request that the judge review the material to see if it is relevant. It won’t be. But, if it is, a couple of lawyers lied to the government. That is a crime.
As the government explained, the material is not exculpatory to any crime. The redacted portions deal with remediation of illegal access to the servers. They have nothing to do with Stone’s lies and obstruction.
Hey, if you want to choose to say that the CrowdStrike reports contain exculpatory information, then the DNC lawyers go to jail if you are right. If you want to say that the CrowdStrike Report is false, then the DNC lawyers, CrowdStrike and any one else involved including Mueller is guilty of falsifying evidence and lying. That does not sound like a reasonable conclusion either. To easy to break the conspiracy.
Too, the CrowdStrike reports may not be best evidence but it is what they have to use. I would think it imprudent to throw it out because of that. And, as I note below, I would imagine they were able to find other supportive evidence.
Consider, too, others in the government’s intelligent agencies were most likely involved in the determination of Russian interference. I don’t know that for fact but it is a reasonable conclusion given other reports I have read. Of course, we won’t get a lot of information about that for obvious security reasons. My conclusion. But, it makes a whole lot more sense than claiming that the idea of Russian hacking is a false flag operation set up by the DNC, Mueller, Comey, the FBI and some number of other government employees before and after the fact.
@Rob1948 Well I'm not going to take the DNC's word for anything, and neither should any "intelligence agency", especially when the accusations have to do with national security. The DNC is a "private entity" as admitted in court.
How would the DNC's lawyers or any member or anyone from CrowdStrike go to jail? The FBI nor any other organization is going to do an investigation into the DNC servers lol. You have a funny way of evaluating things. So how do you know what's reasonable when you lack insight into what's actually going on?
There were 3 organizations that were involved in the "Intelligence Community Assessment", not 17, on the Russia issue that was taken at the word of CrowdStrike. It was the FBI, CIA, and NSA. They were approximately "two dozen hand picked analysts" that did nothing but read information from CrowdStrike. Some of which they couldn't because it was redacted. A non-governmental agency with conflicts of interests galore. And you think THAT'S something to be more believed? Damn. I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories? Lol
Oh, and explain how the article is wrong in any way, with proof, if what I said is just what you basically said. What's the issue that you are presenting about you thinking that Ray McGovern is wrong?
You say the redacted portions aren't evidence, but you just take the DNC's word for it, and by that you say McGovern is wrong. With what logic or proof? Did McGovern make an assertion that the redactions WERE evidence of anything? No, he didn't. So what was he wrong about?
I explained how a lawyer would get in trouble. But, let me spell it out in detail for you.
- DNC lawyers say redactions are about remediation and not exculpatory.
- Government relies on that assurance.
- Defendant lawyers make case that it may not be and convince judge to review material. (Judicial review not an uncommon occurrence. Even happened in Manafort trials).
- Judge reviews redactions. Determines they are relevant. Government lawyers could be but probably not sanctioned.
- Finding out redactions are not what DNC lawyers stated, it’s apparent that DNC lawyers lied.
- DNC lawyer’s lies jeopardizes 1 or more cases.
- Government lawyers can seek sanctions or even charge DNC lawyers for lying.
Just because I don’t believe the same evidence as you does not mean I lack insight. I just tend to not believe theories where dozens of people have to keep a secret of wrong doing.
Why I think “Ray” is wrong. I think he is making a mountain out of nothing with respect to the CrowdStrike report redactions. The redactions have no relevancy. But, you believe otherwise. (If they are, see above) the redactions, the fact that the government is relying on a draft report... the constitute his lede. If it’s not import, why lead with it. He paints it as if this is a bad thing. Otherwise, why mention it.
And you believe a thumb drive was stolen?
As I noted, we weren’t told of everything used to determine the extent of the hack. “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.” — ICA Report.
Apparently, the CrowdStrike report was not the only source. “Insights into Russian efforts—including specific cyber operations—and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources.” — ICA Report.
And, of course, the ICA review was much broader than just the DNC hack.
But, if you chose to disagree with the ICA, that’s at your peril, as it has the support of the Senate committee investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election, the DNI and the intelligence community.
My supporting those conclusions does not automatically make me wrong. We have a difference of opinion.
@Rob1948 You lack insight to what is reasonable because what you're saying isn't reasonable. The government DID NOT DISPUTE anything because they DID NOT INVESTIGATE the "hack" themselves. So there is no way CrowdStrike or the DNC can be found to be lying etc. Especially if the FBI is so reluctant to actually demand the servers for investigation, then it's at least somewhat believable that they A) are incompetent or B) are complicit. It's a nice case of plausible deniability for the FBI in not actually investigating the issue firsthand which pretty much renders them a useless organization. This is less so about redactions and more so about the entire investigation.
You keep harping on these redactions and saying McGovern is wrong about something, but you can't point out what he's wrong about because he made no assertions about the redactions being evidence about anything. Now you say he's making a mountain out of nothing and that's why he's wrong. WRONG ABOUT WHAT? He made no assertions about the redactions! Then you tell me to believe otherwise about the redactions not having any relevancy. When did I say they did have any relevancy? All I said is that you accept whatever the DNC and CrowdStrike tell you. Quote me where I said the redactions were evidence of anything.
When did I say I believed a thumb drive was stolen? VIPs made an analysis that the transfer of files was most likely done on a thumb drive because of the transfer speed and that it was too quick for it to be done from thousands of miles away, and that it was most likely a local "leak" and not a "hack".
You talk about conspiracy theory, but your link offers nothing but speculation. It's easy for someone to analyze an analysis without having firsthand investigation and taking a companies word for it. You analyze the information they give you and it seems to match up BECAUSE THEY GAVE YOU THE INFORMATION!!! It doesn't mean they didn't make the information up. One big point about this was based on Cyrillic lettering. Yes, the Russians are a world class spy institute, but they're that dumb enough to leave a trail of breadcrumbs as simple as Cyrillic lettering. Because that can't just be planted by anyone with the technology. There's also no way to mask your location in the world of hacking, right? And anyone who uses .RAR compression must be a Russian lol
The only other "evidence" besides the DNC "hack" was the social media campaign which was next to nothing. It's not "election interference". If it was then it would be illegal and everyone from voters to corporations to donors to politicians would be guilty of election interference, but they're not because the claim that it's election interference is complete horse shit.
The disconnect here is that you trust everything you are told by the government. Do THAT at your own peril!
I wanted to come back to this quote by you:
Just because I don’t believe the same evidence as you does not mean I lack insight. I just tend to not believe theories where dozens of people have to keep a secret of wrong doing.
Just two examples here. I'm sure I can find more. How many people in the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin? How many in the government lied about Iraq's WMDs? You believed them, didn't you? Didn't they lie?
@Piece2YourPuzzle you’re never going to convince me nor I you. You continue to put me down. Why? I’ve made no comments about you.
As it is, there is no point in discussing this further with you.
@Rob1948 Did we come full circle? Where did I put you down? When I said you lack insight because what you said is unreasonable? Well how can it be reasonable to expect CrowdStrike or the DNC to be punished if what they have presumably lied about will not be investigated by intelligence agencies? We know this because those intelligence agencies are taking the DNC's word for such important matters, and not doing a firsthand investigation. Why would they have any reason to be inquisitive enough to find out if the DNC or CrowdStrike are lying?
Recent Visitors 13
William_Mary
UNIONTOWN,
Rob1948
Knoxville,
Piece2YourPuzzle
New York,
Donna_I
Iowa,
powder
Australia
Photos 120 More
Posted by William_MaryIf You Wish Someone a Happy Memorial Day, You Fail to Understand Its True Meaning The mythology perpetuated at Memorial Day benefits no one save the militarists and war profiteers.
Posted by LufahyuMedia Sources; people from all walks and ideologies peruse a variety of source material available on the Internet, some more reliable than others.
Posted by joy2loveThe Neuroscience of Illusion - Scientific American
Posted by CherokeemanBlessings y'all.
Posted by Archeus_LoreA good meme for religious people to see . . . .
Posted by William_MaryIt has been questioned if Einstein actually made this statement.
Posted by William_Mary“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.
Posted by William_MaryHowever we have an escape-------[wsws.org]
Posted by William_MaryKeep people from their history, and they are easily controlled.
Posted by William_MaryThis fairly explains our political woes within our citizenry when it comes to the voting process that's managed within only 2 parties with their perceptions managed by propaganda designed to support ...
Posted by William_MaryI can pretty much apply this thought to just about everyone who has attempted to challenge my agenda here in this group, and my comments on social media in regards to our political arena.
Posted by William_MaryBy Apr.
Posted by William_MaryThe working class holds the strength to change the world for a better society for everyone. We just need to refuse to remain indoctrinated into their manufactured delusional reality.
Posted by William_MaryWhen the state is controlled by corporations and the ruling class.
Posted by of-the-mountainHas sanity and respect for all female, male, and children’s healthcare been suspended by these obstructionists republican fascists with their overt agenda against the people of this country!!! Are ...
Posted by William_MaryWorld's Most Tyrannical Regime Can't Stop Babbling About "Human Rights" We saw the change in coverage because Washington and its imperial spinmeisters only care about human rights abuses insofar as...