An NSA whistleblower claims to have evidence the Democratic National Convention (DNC) server was not hacked by Russians making the Mueller Report completely based on lies.
Roger Stone’s legal defense team has requested a report, the whistleblower says undermines the basic premise of Special Counsel Muller’s investigation.
Newly release court documents show that Stone’s lawyers are seeking unredacted copies of the Crowdstrike Reports. Crowdstrike is the private computer security firm that reportedly inspected the DNC server after WikiLeaks published the hacked emails about what how they cheated Bernie Sanders out of his fair shot and Hillary’s monetary takeover of the DNC.
Crowdstrike announced on June 15, 2016 that it has detected “Russian” malware on the DNC computer server. The next day, self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be a WikiLeaks source and had hacked the DNC’s server. Guccifer 2.0 posted metadata from the hacked files that indicated Russian involvement.
In a Motion to Compel Unredacted Versions of The Crowdstike Reports a request is made for an unredacted version of the same report. The motion read:
The defense believes that the unredacted copies of these Reports constitute Brady material because they likely contain evidence that is material as [Stone’s] innocence.
Part of the defense team’s motion is based on the fact such a report is “not subject to redactions” or “any kind of government oversight.”
The term Brady material or Brady Rule material is named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). That ruling requires prosecutors “to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession to the defense.”
Stone’s petition for disclosure is based on the fact redacting anything in the Crowdstrike report effectively withheld material evidence useful for their defense team.
While this may sound like legal maneuvering, it raises the question as to why the Department of Justice withheld information about the findings of Crowdstrike.
As the motion shows, the reports on the email hack contained information the government and media relies on to “claim the DNC was a victim of a hostile … government, aka Russia.”
The reason these reports should not have been redacted, according to the Brady Rule are, “They were not commissioned by the government, they did not contain any information that would be detrimental to national security, nor does the government have any legitimate reasons to redact the report.”
At the heart of the issue is that the DNC, not the federal government, commissioned these reports. Therefore the government had no legal reason to “pick and choose which pieces of evidence” the reports contained might be disclose.
The motion concludes by noting Stone is “entitled to full access of these reports” because whether the DNC server was hacked by a foreign entity is central to Stone’s defense.
Stone’s position boils down to this: If the Mueller team and the FBI did not inspect the DNC server, then how can they know that the server was hacked?
Many news outlets have been saying for months the entire Trump/Russia collusion narrative is a total sham. In two years, not one piece of verifiable information shows Russians hacked the DNC server.
More suspicious is no evidence to date has surfaced that shows Mueller and the FBI ever inspected the server. This has led to sound speculation that an insider stole the over 30,000 emails.
It has no reason to say differently and WikiLeaks has stated repeatedly that Russians did not provide it with the DNC emails.
We now know that at about the same time that WikiLeaks made its announcement in 2016, the Clinton campaign along with cooperation from the DNC and with funding by Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to concoct anti-Trump dirt supposedly from Russian sources. They then fed that fake news dossier to the FBI and claimed it was viable intelligence against her campaign competitor, Donald Trump.
In spite of the fact that the DNC claims, WikiLeaks stole what it calls “legal and legitimate private” emails, they refused to cooperate with law enforcement in solving that crime before the election.
At the time virtually everyone believed Hillary Clinton would be elected president some were already asking if she and the DNC were afraid the server’s contents would discredit the Russia-hacking story?
More than one intelligence community insider has now confirmed what some already guessed – the basis for investigating Donald Trump for colluding with Russia was fabricated to undermine the election of 2016.
Last year media outlet The Spectator asked if Mueller would investigate if someone besides Russia leaked the “hacked” emails. Now we have the answer.