|
When Ukraine’s Prosecutor Came After His Son’s Sponsor Joe Biden Sprang Into Action
There are some serious questions around the Biden family involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that assertion.
At Naked Capitalism Yves Smith reposted a 2014 piece by Richard Smith who at that time looked into the Hunter Biden appointment to the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas producer. Yves writes:
Richard [Smith] did a deep dive into the dodgy appointment of Hunter Biden and then Secretary of State John Kerry’s long-standing bundler, Devon Archer, to the board of Burisma Holdings. Richard quickly got past the noteworthy fact that Biden Jr. was being paid quite a lot for no relevant expertise and no investment in the company…so what was he being paid for, exactly? Oh, and Richard also describes how Hunter’s and his uncle James Biden’s past financial rides were with con artists.
But the real puzzlement is that from everything that can be inferred, Burisma is either tiny or just a shell company. So who is behind these big director payoffs payouts? Richard found some bread crumbs that pointed to Burisma being owned by Privat Group, a conglomerate controlled by the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.
Burisma is officially owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian Minister for Natural Resources who (illegitimately) issued oil and gas licenses to companies he himself owned. But Richard's trail shows that Burisma was sold or raided with the help of various shell companies and that the real owner is probably the Nazi loving criminal oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.
The German state funded DW notes an additional candidate:
In late 2013, [Zlochevsky] denied that he owned Burisma, and an employee in his office reported that he sold the company – but no evidence of this has come to light yet. Two oligarchs, Ihor Kolomojski and Viktor Pinchuk, have been named as the possible new owners.
…
DW could not reach Kolomojski for comment about Burisma. Pinchuk refused to comment, but is said to have a good relationship with the Democratic Party in the US, and is also believed to have been a long time friend of former Polish President Kwasniewski.
Kwasniewski was, like Hunter Biden and his friend Devon Archer, appointed to the board of Burisma.
Kolomoisky is the sponsor of the current President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.
No one seems to know who really owns the company. Whoever does has hidden behind a bunch of shell companies in Cyprus and Britain. DW says that Zlochevsky denied in 2013 that he was the owner but several Bursima press releases name and quote Mykola Zlochevsky as owner and president of the Burisma Group. Is he now just a front man for a bigger oligarch?
Joe Biden himself bragged that he blackmailed the Ukrainian government to get the "corrupt" prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired:
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.
So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Several papers claimed that the story Biden told happened in March 2016. That is however not correct:
Biden never traveled to Ukraine that month. The Ukrainian president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, traveled to Washington in March — but only after the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, had already been dismissed by the Ukrainian parliament.
Why the confusion? Because Biden managed to squeeze months of diplomacy into a few hours when he recounted the story years later at the Council on Foreign Relations.
After the U.S. sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 then Vice President Joe Biden led the Ukraine policy of the Obama administration. His campaign against prosecutor general Shokin started in September 2015:
[The U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey] Pyatt kicked off the effort with a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for “openly and aggressively undermining reform” and having “undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.” In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Oct. 8, Nuland declared: “The Prosecutor General’s Office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.”
Biden followed up with a visit to Kiev in December. On Dec. 7, he held a news conference with Poroshenko and announced $190 million to “fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the justice sector.” He made no public mention of the loan guarantee, but behind the scenes he had explicitly linked the $1 billion loan guarantee to reform efforts, including removing Shokin, according to Colin Kahl, Biden’s national security adviser at the time.
A day after the news conference, he addressed the Ukrainian parliament and decried the “cancer of corruption” in the country. “The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform,” he noted.
…
Biden next met on Jan. 20 with Poroshenko on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when he also pressed “the need to continue to move forward on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda,” according to a White House statement.
The campaign was rather slow. But in February Biden's efforts to get Shokin fired suddenly went into overdrive:
Feb. 12: Biden spoke to Poroshenko by phone. “The two leaders agreed on the importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption,” the White House said.
Feb. 16: Poroshenko announced he had asked Shokin to resign. […]
Feb. 18: Another call took place between Biden and Poroshenko. […]
Feb. 19: Poroshenko announced he has received Shokin’s resignation letter. It still required parliamentary approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly.
That same day, Biden spoke separately to Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. […]
March 16: Reports emerged that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation. […]
March 22: Biden and Poroshenko spoke again by phone […]
March 29: The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approved Shokin’s dismissal.
On March 31, Poroshenko met with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasized that the loan guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin’s removal.
On April 14, Biden and Poroshenko had another call. Biden congratulated the president on his new cabinet and “stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General […]
May 12: Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general.
On May 13, in a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko’s appointment […]
The Biden driven campaign against Shokin started slow but in February 2016 it went into a frenzy. What had happened? Did it have to do with Burisma?
U.S. mainstream reporting denies that. The Washington Post wrote:
Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists.
…
Even as he overhauled Burisma, Zlochevsky remained in the crosshairs of authorities in Ukraine. By 2015, prosecutors had opened two probes into the former ecology minister — one into claims of unlawful enrichment and the other into alleged abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement, according to documents from the prosecutor general’s office reviewed by the Wall Street Journal at the time. Zlochevsky denied wrongdoing in those cases.
…
Shokin — who has provided information about Biden to Giuliani — told The Post earlier this year that he believes he was ousted in March 2016 because he was investigating Burisma. If he had been allowed to remain in the job, he would have questioned Hunter Biden’s qualifications to be a board member, he said, noting that “this person had no work experience in Ukraine or in the energy sector.”
But at the time, the Zlochevsky case was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
[Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center,] recalled how she and other anti-corruption activists in Ukraine criticized Shokin heavily for not pursuing the investigation and hoped his dismissal would re-energize the case.
The New York Times makes a slightly different claim:
Mr. Zlochevsky’s allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation.
Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma. But the oligarch’s allies say Mr. Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team, and that left the oligarch’s team leery of dealing with the prosecutor.
The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into a frenzy.
On February 4 2016 Interfax-Ukraine reported:
The movable and immovable property of former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine Mykola Zlochevsky in Ukraine has been seized, according to the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine (PGO).
"The PGO filed a petition to court to arrest the property of the ex-Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, from which arrest was withdrawn, and other property he actually uses, namely housing estate with a total area of 922 square meters, a land plot of 0.24 hectares, a garden house with a total area of 299.8 square meters, a garden house in the territory of Vyshgorod district, a garden house of 2,312 square meters, a land plot of 0.0394 hectares, a Rolls-Royce Phantom car, a Knott 924-5014 trainer," reads the report.
The PGO clarifies that the court satisfied the petition on February 2, 2016.
…
Zlochevsky is suspected of committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illicit enrichment).
On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
The Washington Post falsely claimed that the Zlochevsky case was "dormant". The executive director of the U.S. and EU financed Anti-Corruption Action Center falsely claimed that the prosecutor was "not pursuing the investigation". The NYT repeated that false claim and added an obvious false claim from unnamed Zlochevsky "allies". Why did the media claim Shokin did nothing against Zlochevsky when the record shows the opposite?
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky:
Mr. Shokin was replaced by a prosecutor named Yuriy Lutsenko, whom former Vice President Biden later called “someone who was solid at the time.” Mr. Zlochevsky’s representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch’s legal issues, according to the people familiar with the situation.
While Mr. Lutsenko initially took a hard line against Burisma, within 10 months after he took office, Burisma announced that Mr. Lutsenko and the courts had “fully closed” all “legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations” against Mr. Zlochevsky and his companies.
The oligarch, who had fled the country amid investigations by previous prosecutors, was removed by a Ukrainian court from “the wanted list,” and returned to the country.
When the political wind from Washington changed the prosecutor general Biden earlier lauded proved to be flexible:
This year, though, Mr. Lutsenko’s office moved to restart scrutiny of Mr. Zlochevsky.
The timeline above seems to support Shokin's claim that he was fired on Joe Biden's order because he went after Zlochevsky who paid Biden's son a very significant monthly sum.
That U.S. main stream media try to obfuscate or even deny that Shokin was serious in his investigation lets one doubt their other claims about the Biden affair and the now evolving impeachment inquiry.
I am not against an impeachment of Trump. But to go after him because he asks serious questions about Biden's shenanigan in the Ukraine is not a productive way do that. Those questions must be asked and answered.
There must be a lot more to the replacement (Prosecutor General) Lutsenko story than we are being told. No idea if he’s a good guy or not, but it seems to me that the MSM is bending over backwards to spin everything relating to him in a decidedly negative light, i.e., he’s corrupt and ‘anti-DNC’ or ‘pro-Trump’. My immediate inclination, therefore, is to assume the exact opposite: he found some kind of DNC/State Department shenanigans linked with Ukraine corruption and (like his predecessor) is outraged enough to investigate it. Naturally, the MSM has to pillory him to discredit anything he says about… well, everything.
Yonatan@9 – Thanks for the link, but the Yandex translation is difficult to understand. Is he no longer Prosecutor General? Did he go to London to live there? What would he be ‘running’ from?
What do you think of the MSM trying to discredit him? Maybe they’re right and he is just another corrupt weasel – I have no idea besides noting the tone of the current MSM narrative. My impression about him so far based on this:
The thread I was following on him was his interactions with the (then) U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. From what I can tell, he was investigating the embezzlement of $4 million in US aid that was suppose to go to his office for anti-corruption efforts. His investigation was focusing on Ukraine anti-corruption ‘activists’ (?) that had repeatedly visited the US embassy around that time.
There was much made in the press about his statement that he got a ‘do not prosecute’ list from Ambassador Yovanovitch at that first meeting, then he supposedly ‘walked back’ that claim. Seems odd – this article seems to explain the situation, but I have no idea about the veracity of source, UNIAN. The details are never mentioned in western MSM aside to suggest he lied about the list – which is a bit disingenuous given UNIAN’s article.
link
[bold emphasis mine]
“She was accompanied, so was I. Mrs. Yovanovitch was interested in Vitaliy Kasko’s case. The fact was that Mr. Kasko’s mother got registered for official housing [in Kyiv], while she had never left Lviv. That had signs of abuse.”
Lutsenko recalled Yovanovitch insisted Kasko was an outstanding anti-corruption activist, and “the criminal case discredited those who were fighting against corruption.”
“I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: ‘Give me a do not prosecute list.’ She said: “No, you got me wrong.’ I said: “No, I didn’t get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [the presidential administration’s address, Lutsenko meant the Yanukovych administration], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [the former name of Sikorsky Street, where the U.S. Embassy is located]. The meeting ended. I’m afraid the emotions were not very good,” Lutsenko gave the details of his meeting with the ambassador.
link
The weirdness of the missing $4 million in technical aid:
“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. “At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy.”
“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts,” he said. “The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general’s office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem.”
link
Yovanovich was recalled from Ukraine May – highly unusual for someone of her tenure. Supposedly Trump’s doing – I have no idea. It’s notable that the MSM is silent about the possible embezzlement (theft, misappropriation) of aid intended for the Prosecutor General’s office. If the US Embassy did steal this money, divert it from an unfriendly Shokin’s office and distributed it to their ‘anti-corruption activists’ in Ukraine instead, well… that would be kind of bad.
The Biden criminal clown-show is unrelated to whatever happened above other than the overarching actions of the US meddling in Ukrainian matters of state.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 3 2019 21:10 utc | 25
I still think that Biden is just a side issue and the real reason for the whistleblower memo, for the impeachment drive and the all-around panic in the media and among the Democrats is the fact that the Barr-Giuliani investigation is getting close to CrowdStrike. With that in mind I am slightly changing the topic…
THE NEW YORK TIMES QUOTES ME
Thank you Stever @16 for linking to the article in The New York Times by Scott Shane. (archive link) The article goes out of its way to dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory. But unexpectedly, about three fourths way down the page they actually discuss the issue itself. They even went so far as to contact George Eliason via email for a comment.
The CrowdStrike Plot: How a Fringe Theory Took Root in the White House – The New York Times, October 3, 2019
George Eliason, an American journalist who lives in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists fought Ukrainian forces, has written extensively about what he considers to be a “coup attempt” against President Trump involving American and Ukrainian intelligence agencies and CrowdStrike. He said he did not know if his writings for obscure websites might have influenced the president.
“CrowdStrike and Ukrainian Intel are working hand in glove,” he wrote in an email. “Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the U.S. to take a hardline stance against Russia? Are they using CrowdStrike to carry this out?”
Mr. Eliason and other purveyors of Ukraine conspiracies often point to the Atlantic Council, a research group in Washington, as the locus of the schemes. The Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk has made donations to the council and serves on its international advisory board; Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder, who was born in Russia and came to the United States as a child, is an Atlantic Council senior fellow.
A bit later in the article they cite an interview I did for Sputnik.
And Russian state news outlets are always ready to cheer on Mr. Trump’s efforts to point the blame for the 2016 hack away from Moscow. On Sept. 25, after the White House released its memo on the Zelensky call, Russia’s Sputnik news website ran a story supporting Mr. Trump’s remarks.
The Sputnik article cited Mr. Eliason’s writings and suggested that CrowdStrike might have framed Russia for the D.N.C. hack — if it occurred at all. It quoted a Twitter account called “The Last Refuge” declaring: “The D.N.C. servers were never hacked.”
The Sputnik article by Ekaterina Blinova is here:
Cyber Expert Explains the Theory of Crowdstrike’s Connection to Ukraine, DNC Hacking Controversy
Krohn notes that many of those Russian-speaking hackers actually originate from Ukraine. According to him, they are using hacking tools widely accessible in the web.
“It is my belief that ‘Fancy Bear’ or the hacking group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 may be little more that the collection of hacking tools.”
To illustrate his point, Krohn refers to his January 2017 research of malicious activity called Gryzzly Steppe, outlined in a joint report by the Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in October 2016 and attributed to the so-called “Russian hacker” groups, including ‘Fancy Bear’ and ‘Cozy Bear’. The report described a sample of a malware, also known as the “PAS web shell”.
Having analysed the YARA signature file of the malware tool, the cyber-security analyst traced it to the Ukrainian download site Profexer.name and finally to an information technology student at Poltava National Technical University.
In August 2017, The New York Times de facto confirmed Krohn’s story, reporting about “a young man from a provincial Ukrainian city” who created the malware described in the DHS/DNI report.
(Actually it was Wordfence that matched the YARA signature to the download site.)
The article only used about a third of the interview. Adam Carter and The Forensicator also need credit. I hope no one is offended if I post the full unpublished interview here.
1. In the transcript of Donald Trump’s phone talk with Volodymyr Zelensky, the US president touched upon the issue of Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor that carried out the examination of the alleged “hack” of the committee’s server. He asked his Ukrainian counterpart to “do him a favor” and get “to the bottom of this”. What did Trump mean? Why does he believe that the American cybersecurity firm has any relation to Ukraine?
Trump is referring to the origins of Russiagate that are widely known outside mainstream media, but regarded as conspiracy theories by the media.
According to this narrative, CrowdStrike fabricated the evidence of a hack in order to hide a real leak and to put blame on Russia. Some independent investigators have suggested that the hack was real but it was done on CrowdStrike’s order by hacker groups tied to the Ukrainian security services.
It is also well established that Russiagate, or as some call it, the Russia collusion hoax, has its origins in Ukrainian Americans working for the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. CrowdStrike, through its Russian-born but pro-Ukrainian co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is closely linked to the Ukrainian-American community.
2. On 25 September, The New York Times denounced the “theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, were behind the DNC hacking” an “unfounded conspiracy”. What do you make of this theory? What’s your opinion about the Dems’ narrative of the DNC’s server “hack”? Does it seem more plausible than the theory allegedly cited by Trump?
Cyber attribution or using forensic methods to establish the origin of cyber attacks and operations is extremely difficult. Intelligence services have an array of tools to hide their tracks and make it seem like the attack is the work of their opponent.
When Americans speak about “Russian hackers” they do not specifically refer to the Russian Federation and its citizens. Russian hackers are people who communicate in Russian on the Russian language Internet, “Runet” and Russian language dark web. A large part of these “Russians” are actually Ukrainians. Many of the hacking tools used are openly shared by the Russian hacking community. The motive is more often fame, even pseudonymous fame than money. It is my belief that “Fancy Bear” or the hacking group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 may be little more that the collection of hacking tools shared by this community.
CrowdStrike, no doubt, is active following, if not participating in this scene. In some cases CrowdStrike and their Ukrainian contacts seem to have exclusive access to the Fancy Bear malware.
There is evidence that directly links “Fancy Bear” and the alleged tools used in the DNC “hack” to Ukraine.
The journalist George Eliason has written extensively on the Ukrainian connection to Russiagate. He believes, based on evidence that “Fancy Bear”, the Ukrainian CyberHunta, and the Russian hacker group Shaltai Boltai are actually one and the same or at least closely collaborating. They again are allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. Leading Shaltai Boltai members have been arrested in Russia, some of them FSB officers, and charged with treason for working for the US.
In January 2017 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claimed that the DNC was hacked by Russian intelligence services using a Russian malware tool they have named “Grizzly Steppe”. I identified the author of the software using cyber forensics. He was a Ukrainian university student from the Poltava National Technical University. Almost a year later the New York Times confirmed the story. Supposedly he has become a witness for the FBI in the Russiagate case.
The hacking tool was made publicly on the web. Anyone could have used it. Ukraine is at least as likely a suspect as Russia is.
3. VIPS has repeatedly stated that the DNC server had never been hacked. What’s your take on their technical report and are there any other independent cyber analysts who came to similar conclusions?
VIPS follows work originally done by Adam Carter and The Forensicator. Their aim was to prove that the Guccifer 2.0 persona is a hoax created intentionally to act as Russian intelligence. The evidence comes from the material leaked by Guccifer 2.0.
The US Intelligence community and special counsel Mueller claim that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence, more specifically 12 Russian intelligence officers indicted by the US Department of Justice in July 2018. Guccifer 2.0 allegedly hacked the DNC. They also claim that Guccifer 2.0 was the source that leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
What The Forensicator and VIPS has shown is that it would have been impossible for Guccifer 2.0 to hack the DNC. This is done by a forensic analysis of the DNC material released by Guccifer 2.0 independent of Wikileaks. The important evidence is in the multiple layers of timestamps in the emails and the email archives. They show that the files were copied to an USB flash drive by an insider with physical access to the DNC servers.
The VIPS material says nothing about how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails. Wikileaks says they were passed by an insider. Ray McGovern and Craig Murray say they have first-hand knowledge of how the transfer happened. Some people claim that that the insider was Seth Rich. The VIPS report throws no light on this. What it does is it proves that the Mueller narrative of Guccufer 2.0 hacking the DNC and passing the material on to Wikileaks is a hoax. It also suggests that whoever created Guccifer 2.0 was close to DNC and CrowdStrike.
4. What technical measures should be taken to find out whether the much discussed “hacking” took place and who was behind it? Could the examination of the DNC server help sort this issue now and for all?
Is Trump suggesting that the DNC servers are stored in Ukraine? Not the physical servers, naturally but a copy of their contents or parts of it after the alleged “hack” is claimed to have happened? I do not think a search of the DNC servers this late would reveal anything new. A search of the CrowdStrike servers could be far more revealing.
Adam Carter claims malware on the DNC servers was compiled after CrowdStrike started working at the DNC. How did it get there? Was it inserted by CrowdStrike or their Ukrainian collaborators?
There is one piece of critical evidence that that could solve all this. If Seth Rich truly was the leaker inside DNC then the Federal Government must have some evidence of this. Trump would save himself from a lot of trouble if he was ablate release this evidence.
Off-Guardian has unexpectedly gone offline. My January 2017 article can also be found here:
Did a Ukrainian University Student Create Grizzly Steppe?
Posted by: Petri Krohn | Oct 3 2019 22:12 utc | 37
|
