By Ivan Pentchoukov
President Barack Obama approved a statement by the U.S. intelligence community in October 2016 accusing Russia of stealing emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), despite the U.S. government not having obtained the DNC server images crucial to ascertaining whether Moscow was involved in the theft.
FBI emails recently made public during the trial against now-acquitted DNC attorney Michael Sussmann show the bureau was still in the process of requesting images of the DNC servers on Oct. 13, 2016. The server images, which are equivalent to a virtual copy of the alleged crime scene, were taken by private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
On Oct. 7, six days before CrowdStrike agreed to mail the server images to the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a statement accusing Russia of hacking U.S. political organizations and disseminating emails allegedly stolen through the hack. The statement was approved and encouraged by Obama, according to then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.
“The president approved the statement. I know he wanted us to make the statement. So that was very definitely a statement by the United States government, not just Jim Clapper and me,” Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee in June 2017, referring to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
The DHS, ODNI, and the office of Barack Obama did not respond to requests for comment.
The Oct. 7, 2016, statement said that the U.S. intelligence community, which is composed of more than a dozen agencies including the FBI, was “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.”
“The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the statement said.
The lack of server images at the time the statement was released highlights the question of what the intelligence community used to establish Russia’s involvement.
On Aug. 31, 2016, CrowdStrike provided a report on the DNC hack to the FBI. The FBI special agent who reviewed the report called it “heavily redacted,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the Russia investigation. FBI Assistant Director James Trainor was so frustrated with the redactions that “he doubted its completeness because he knew that outside counsel had reviewed it.”
The “outside counsel” Trainor referred to is all but certainly Michael Sussmann, who served as the DNC’s point of contact for all intrusion-related matters. Sussmann was acquitted last month of one charge of lying to the FBI about whether he was representing the DNC when he took a white paper to the FBI that alleged a connection between then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia. The FBI agents who reviewed the paper found the claims in it unfounded within 24 hours.
On Sept. 30, 2016, one week before the release of the statement accusing Russia of the hack, the FBI was still seeking copies of the CrowdStrike reports without the redactions. That day, FBI Agent Adrian Hawkins listed copies of the unredacted CrowdStrike reports as the number one priority request to the DNC, according to another email made public as a trial exhibit in the Sussman case.
The FBI never received the unredacted reports, according to a government court filing in the case against Roger Stone. According to the filing, lawyers for the DNC told prosecutors that “no redacted information” in the CrowdStrike reports “concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller alleged that the hack of the DNC during which emails were stolen took place on or around May 25 to June 1, 2016. That timeframe is significant because CrowdStrike has since told The Epoch Times that the DNC systems were not hacked during that time frame. Crowdstrike had deployed 200 sensors and other counter-intrusion technologies on the committee’s network within the first week of its engagement, which began on May 1, 2016.
“There is no indication of any subsequent breaches taking place on the DNC’s corporate network or any machines protected by CrowdStrike Falcon,” the company told The Epoch Times in August 2020.
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry, who was in charge of the firm’s work on the DNC intrusion, has told congressional investigators that his company did not have concrete evidence that emails had been stolen from the DNC.
“We have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated,” Henry told lawmakers on Dec. 5, 2017.
The alleged hacking of the DNC and the subsequent release of the committee’s emails was the nexus of allegations of collusion with Russia that plagued the administration of President Donald Trump.
7 thoughts on “Obama Approved Accusing Russia of DNC Hack Before FBI Received DNC Server Images”
I have a problem any time they say so and so country did whatever. We know thanks to leaks that the CIA can make an attack look like it came from anywhere and you’ll never know it didn’t. That’s fact not conspiracy. So Russians, NSA, CIA… who really knows. And asking the FBI to investigate? Well. I trust them about as much as I would trust a wild tiger loose inside a 7-11 with all the hotdogs gone and me holding the last bag of chips.
Speaking of the FBI that we pay for (WHY they continue to exist is way past my understanding)….watch Cruz get NO ANSWERS
Ditto what Will Two says. This video covers a number of timely bases so well. So many medical people say “folks gotta be happy, let ’em do what they want”. Let pre-teens make decisions whether or not to have genital surgery, hey, they are “mature” enough. The attitudes that many physicians and social scientists have are often shocking, but beezness is beezness, ya know. Speaking of, have you all registered your pronouns lately? No pronoun?, expect to spend some hard time in a FEMA camp.
The video is so well done. Heartily recommended.
Bahmi, happy we agree. After watching this amazing video and contemplating my navel having felt I missed something, it finally struck me. Not only is this a great documentary, it’s really a work of genius, the author having taken his mastery of sardonicism to a cosmic level. The question itself is so ridiculous that asking it immediately brings up the idea, “Is this guy for real?”…..but only for level headed, sane, rational human beings. Those who have some agenda, are paid provocateurs or who cannot seem to find or disdain their own penis or vagina will of course, take it seriously and as with one interviewee who actually found the inquiry itself to be transphobic. Huh??
The wonderful part is that they do not even know they have been had.
A woman has a vagina and can reproduce. A man has a penis and can produce sperm.
If you think otherwise, Walsh is laughing hilariously on the inside and smirking oh so subtly on the outside.
That’s all folks!~
“What is a Woman” 2022…..(Matt Walsh)….a documentary that was just released. I get it on a pirate channel called solarmovie.one. I will not put up the link to the actual movie since it may cause copyright problems for this blog. Highly, highly recommend. This will put transgenderism where it belongs….in the garbage pail of history. Much of the movie deals with the narrator having interviews attempting to find the definition of a woman from all those who seem to be more than confused. Many just walk away unable to face the truth. One idiot actually calls the “truth” transphobic. At about 1 hour you will finally understand what is really behind this utter insanity (other than attempting to destroy this country…and others through demasculinization). Please do not miss this brilliantly made documentary. It will clear up many facets of this sickness. Just a remarkable piece of work!
Remember when Nixon said:
Well, now when the Dems do it, it’s not illegal. What else to say? Payback? Equal opportunity deception? Call it what you will, it’s just another example of the decline of this country….UNTIL IF AND WHEN WE THE DAMN PEOPLE DECIDE WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH.
Ask Sussman…he knows.
By the time ”we the people” decide we’ve had enough, it’ll be too late.