Intro to Butowsky Lawsuit, Seth Rich Gave DNC Server to Assange


Intro by John R. Houk

© July 24, 2019

 

Mueller and many Clinton-invested DOJ members stick to the story the DNC email server was hacked by Russians then shared with Julian Assange’s Wikileaks. Many of us anti-Crooked Hillary folks believe Seth Rich had a hand in delivering the DNC email server content to Assange. There is plenty of respectable tech analysis the DNC server content was downloaded to a thumb drive and delivered to Wikileaks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If indeed the later is truer than the former, it is a strong indication Rich was assassinated rather than murdered in random street mugging. ALSO the implication looms some in the DOJ (Obamanistas & Clintonistas) insisted on a Russian hack as part of a path to perpetuate Trump/Russian Collusion in the 2016 Election. AND THAT implication indicates very dark government corruption in perpetuating a hoax as a coup against President Trump.

 

JRH 7/24/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

************************

VIDEO Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich

 

Posted by MyLegalHelpUSA

July 23, 2019

My Legal Help USA

Cross Posted from The Last Refuge/TheConservativeTreeHouse.com

By sundance

July 21, 2019

 

Not a Russian Hack…

 

A lawsuit filed a week ago by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleged that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron. [Full Backstory Here]

 

Due to the scale of ramification, there was some valid skepticism about the Butowsky assertion.  However, recently unearthed footage from Ellen Ratner talking about her visit with Assange in November of 2016 seems to validate what the Butowsky’s lawsuit alleges.

 

In the video [Full Video Here] taken during a November 9th, 2016, Embry Riddle University symposium, Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner, representing the left, and former Congressman now Fox political analyst John Leboutillier, from the right, discussed the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.  WATCH EXCERPT:

 

VIDEO: Ellen Ratner (Fox News) tells of her meeting with Julian Assange on Nov. 5 2016

 

[Posted by Baxter

Published on Jul 21, 2019

 

READ THE REST]

 

The excerpt is taken from 01:01:00 of the FULL VIDEO HERE

 

[h/t Michael Sheridan for the excerpt]  The date of the Ratner symposium November 9, 2016, aligns with the time-frame of Ratner’s travel and meeting with Assange as outlined by Butowsky in his lawsuit.   As noted Mrs. Ratner confirms that she did meet with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that he did in fact tell her the leaked DNC emails came from inside the DNC.  It was not a Russian hack.

 

Hopefully this will spur the DOJ under Attorney General Bill Barr to launch an inquiry which must obviously start with the questioning of Ratner.

 

Accepting some enhanced credibility now exists, the details contained within the lawsuit filing (full pdf below) are stunning.

 

If this information is true and accurate, now bolstered by the video of Ratner, the DOJ claim of a Russian hack – based on assertions by DNC contractor, Crowdstrike – would be entirely false. Additionally the DC murder of Seth Rich would hold a far more alarming motive.

 

Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs

 

(Source, lawsuit filing – pdf link, page 13)

 

Here’s the Full Butowsky Court Filing:

 

View this document on Scribd

 

The ramifications here are almost too large to describe.

 

If this information turns out to be true and accurate, the entire narrative around the DNC “hack” will have been proven to be intentionally manufactured.

 

Despite the FBI’s prior admissions about never reviewing the DNC servers; and despite their recent admissions about never actually seeing the forensic computer analysis, the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and former DAG Rod Rosenstein, cannot blame a simple investigative ‘mistake‘ for the wrong attribution of who gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

 

The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016. If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses.

 

Mr. Butowsky is making a very serious allegation in this court filing.

 

Additionally, the previously discussed motive to arrest Julian Assange would now be further enhanced. Heck, the reason for Assange’ arrest would be brutally obvious.

 

♦Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when Boente actually left the DOJ-NSD or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) role.

 

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Dana Boente had shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker) where Boente remains today. As Mueller was using 19 lawyers, and 50 FBI investigators, Boente was/is the legal counsel to FBI Director Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

 

[Remember, Robert Mueller never interviewed Julian Assange. Additionally, it is worth noting for the U.S. side of the legal framework, the charges against Assange are not related to Russian efforts in a hack of the DNC; nor is Assange charged with anything related to the 2016 U.S. election interference activities, the Podesta email release or anything therein as previously described by the DOJ.]

 

The April 11th, 2019, Julian Assange indictment stemmed from the Eastern District of Virginia. From a review of the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018: (The DOJ sat on the indictment for 13 months, until Mueller finished)

 

Assange requested more info from Manning

 

(Link to pdf)

 

However, on Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to December ’17..

 

FBI-investigation-assange

 

The investigation of Assange took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

 

Assange-indictment Under Seal

 

Why was there a delay?

 

Why did the DOJ wait until the Mueller report was complete?

 

Here’s where it gets interesting….

 

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

 

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

 

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

 

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

 

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

 

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

 

If you overlay the timing, it would appear the FBI took a keen interest in Assange after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

 

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report (needed for Obama – December 29th, ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story.

 

The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.

 

Right there is the FBI motive to shut Assange down when the Mueller report was released.

 

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike.

 

Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.

 

Lastly, if we are to believe everything that is factually visible; including the admissions by the FBI and DOJ itself; and it is proven that Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails and there was no hack; well,… what does that say about Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, who would have had to know they were pushing abject lies in their dubious Russian indictments.

 

The ramifications of this court filing are huge.

 

Barr-Rosenstein-Sessions

 

IMPORTANT – Video Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich – Not a Russian Hack…

______________________

Intro to Butowsky Lawsuit, Seth Rich Gave DNC Server to Assange

Intro by John R. Houk

© July 24, 2019

_______________________

VIDEO Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich

 

My Legal Help USA Homepage

 

Is Braverman a Victim or Hidden?


eric-braverman

John R. Houk

© January 2, 2017

 

Ever heard of Eric Braverman? I have not myself noticed the name. Evidently, he WAS the CEO for the Clinton Foundation.

 

Braverman Yale Profile:

 

Eric Braverman was chief executive officer of the Clinton Foundation from 2013 to 2015.  At the Foundation, Braverman led an effort to help ensure long-term sustainability—securing an endowment, transforming the organization’s use of data, establishing governance practices to reflect changing laws and public expectations, consolidating entities, and creating professional development for staff. 

 

Previously, Braverman served as a partner at McKinsey & Company, where he advised leaders in the public, private, and non-profit sectors on strategy, organization, and operations. Named by Fortune magazine in 2010 as one of the “40 Most Influential Leaders in Business” worldwide under 40 years old, Braverman co-founded McKinsey’s public sector practice and directed its work on government innovation globally. He also served as an advisor on performance management and technology for President Obama’s transition team in 2008.

 

Braverman is a frequent speaker on government at events, conferences, and seminars around the world—both in academic and practitioner-oriented settings—focusing particularly on innovation in government and the importance of partnership between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to improve lives.

 

The Angry Patriot has noticed that Braverman not only resigned from the Clinton Foundation but has seemingly disappeared from public view. Angry Patriot then goes into educated speculation mode.

 

As we know the Democratic National Committee (DNC) either had their email server hacked or someone leaked server info to Wikileaks. The Dems say the Russians hacked their servers and released the data to Wikileaks. Julian Assange of Wikileaks says the Russians didn’t do the whistleblowing but a disgruntled Clinton insider gave the data to Wikileaks. (See Also 12/14/16 Washington Times report)

 

Angry Patriot wonders if Eric Braverman was the disgruntled insider because of the timing of Braverman going off the public grid.

 

With Clintons’ history of potential finger-pointers disappearing by prison or death, I wonder if Braverman was disposed by the Clintons or if Wikileaks helped him disappear to protect him from nefarious designs by the Clintons or Dem Party Cleaners.

 

On December 29, 2016 a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) was released as the combine work of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entitled, “GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity”. The report definitely fingers Russian hacking. Here is the PDF first paragraph:

 

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

 

“RIS” is the acronym for Russian Intelligence Services. Meaning more than one specific Russian intelligence agency was involved in hacking the DNC.

 

Here are some articles that does a decent job in translating the technical language of the report into normal English:

 

The Guardian:

 

 

The government report follows several from the private sector, notably a lengthy section in a Microsoft report from 2015 on a hacking team referred to as “advanced persistent threat 28” (APT 28), which the company’s internal nomenclature calls Strontium and others have called Fancy Bear. Also mentioned in the government document is another group called APT 29 or Cozy Bear.

 

 

The Microsoft report contains a history of the groups’ operation; a report by security analysts ThreatConnect describes the team’s modus operandi; and competing firm CrowdStrike detailed the attack on the Democratic National Committee shortly before subsequent breaches of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign were discovered.

 

Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.

 

Tom Killalea, former vice-president of security at Amazon and a Capital One board member, wrote: “Russian attack on DNC similar to so many other attacks in past 15yrs. Big question: Why such poor incident response?”

 

READ ENTIRETY (FBI and Homeland Security detail Russian hacking campaign in new report; By Sam Thielman; The Guardian; 12/29/16 17.19 EST)

 

Robert M. Lee:

 

 

If anyone is like me, when I read the above I became very excited. This was a clear statement from the White House that they were going to help network defenders, give out a combination of previously classified data as well as validate private sector data, release information about Russian malware that was previously classified, and detail new tactics and techniques used by Russia. Unfortunately, while the intent was laid out clearly by the White House that intent was not captured in the DHS/FBI report.

 

 

 The report is intended to help network defenders; it is not the technical evidence of attribution

 

There is no mention of the focus of attribution in any of the White House’s statements. Across multiple statements from government officials and agencies it is clear that the technical data and attribution will be a report prepared for Congress and later declassified (likely prepared by the NSA). Yet, the GRIZZLY STEPPE report reads like a poorly done vendor intelligence report stringing together various aspects of attribution without evidence. The beginning of the report (Figure 2) specifically notes that the DHS/FBI has avoided attribution before in their JARs but that based off of their technical indicators they can confirm the private sector attribution to RIS.

 

 

But why is this so bad? Because it does not follow the intent laid out by the White House and confuses readers to think that this report is about attribution and not the intended purpose of helping network defenders. The public is looking for evidence of the attribution, the White House and the DHS/FBI clearly laid out that this report is meant for network defense, and then the entire discussion in the document is on how the DHS/FBI confirms that APT28 and APT29 are RIS groups that compromised a political party. The technical indicators they released later in the report (which we will discuss more below) are in no way related to that attribution though.

 

Or said more simply: the written portion of the report has little to nothing to do with the intended purpose or the technical data released.

 

Even worse, page 4 of the document notes other groups identified as RIS (Figure 4). This would be exciting normally. Government validation of private sector intelligence helps raise the confidence level of the public information. Unfortunately, the list in the report detracts from the confidence because of the interweaving of unrelated data.

 

As an example, the list contains campaign/group names such as APT28, APT29, COZYBEAR, Sandworm, Sofacy, and others. This is exactly what you’d want to see although the government’s justification for this assessment is completely lacking (for a better exploration on the topic of naming see Sergio Caltagirone’s blog post here). But as the list progresses it becomes worrisome as the list also contains malware names (HAVEX and BlackEnergy v3 as examples) which are different than campaign names. Campaign names describe a collection of intrusions into one or more victims by the same adversary. Those campaigns can utilize various pieces of malware and sometimes malware is consistent across unrelated campaigns and unrelated actors. It gets worse though when the list includes things such as “Powershell Backdoor”. This is not even a malware family at this point but instead a classification of a capability that can be found in various malware families.

 

Or said more simply: the list of reported RIS names includes relevant and specific names such as campaign names, more general and often unrelated malware family names, and extremely broad and non-descriptive classification of capabilities. It was a mixing of data types that didn’t meet any objective in the report and only added confusion as to whether the DHS/FBI knows what they are doing or if they are instead just telling teams in the government “contribute anything you have that has been affiliated with Russian activity.”

 

 

In some locations in the CSV the indicators are IP addresses with a request to network administrators to look for it and in other locations there are IP addresses with just what country it was located in. This information is nearly useless for a few reasons. First, we do not know what data set these indicators belong to (see my previous point, are these IPs for “Sandworm”, “APT28” “Powershell” or what?). Second, many (30%+) of these IP addresses are mostly useless as they are VPS, TOR exit nodes, proxies, and other non-descriptive internet traffic sites (you can use this type of information but not in the way being positioned in the report and not well without additional information such as timestamps). Third, IP addresses as indicators especially when associated with malware or adversary campaigns must contain information around timing. I.e. when were these IP addresses associated with the malware or campaign and when were they in active usage? IP addresses and domains are constantly getting shuffled around the Internet and are mostly useful when seen in a snapshot of time.

 

 

So what’s the problem? All but the two hashes released that state they belong to the OnionDuke family do not contain the appropriate context for defenders to leverage them. Without knowing what campaign they were associated with and when there’s not appropriate information for defenders to investigate these discoveries on their network. They can block the activity (play the equivalent of whack-a-mole) but not leverage it for real defense without considerable effort. Additionally, the report specifically said this was newly declassified information. However, looking the samples in VirusTotal Intelligence (Figure 7) reveals that many of them were already known dating back to April 2016.

 

 

The only thing that would thus be classified about this data (note they said newly declassified and not private sector information) would be the association of this malware to a specific family or campaign instead of leaving it as “generic.” But as noted that information was left out. It’s also not fair to say it’s all “RIS” given the DHS/FBI’s inappropriate aggregation of campaign, malware, and capability names in their “Reported RIS” list. As an example, they used one name from their “Reported RIS” list (OnionDuke) and thus some of the other samples might be from there as well such as “Powershell Backdoor” which is wholly not descriptive. Either way we don’t know because they left that information out. Also as a general pet peeve, the hashes are sometimes given as MD5, sometimes as SHA1, and sometimes as SHA256. It’s ok to choose whatever standard you want if you’re giving out information but be consistent in the data format.

 

 

The report goes beyond indicators to include new tradecraft and techniques used by the Russian intelligence services

 

The report was to detail new tradecraft and techniques used by the RIS and specifically noted that defenders could leverage this to find new tactics and techniques. Except – it doesn’t. The report instead gives a high-level overview of how APT28 and APT29 have been reported to operate which is very generic and similar to many adversary campaigns (Figure 8). The tradecraft and techniques presented specific to the RIS include things such as “using shortened URLs”, “spear phishing”, “lateral movement”, and “escalating privileges” once in the network. This is basically the same set of tactics used across unrelated campaigns for the last decade or more.

 

 

This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations. It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little.

 

We must do better as a community. This report is a good example of how a really strong strategic message (POTUS statement) and really good data (government and private sector combination) can be opened to critique due to poor report writing. READ ENTIRETY (Critiques of the DHS/FBI’s GRIZZLY STEPPE Report; By Robert M. Lee; 12/30/16)

 

So, I’m not an expert, but the JAR data suggests a combination of RIS and private hackers. Because of the lackluster of specific finger pointing in the JAR data made public how the DNC had their server data dispersed is still up in the air.

 

A whistleblower could have sent data to a private Russian hacker in which the RIS picked up and then either the RIS or private Russian hacker dispersed the data to Wikileaks.

 

Of course, either way, there is something rotten going on in Russia in connection American private and public organizations. As such, some kind of American response should proceed. HOWEVER, the deed was done and the DNC and Crooked Hillary have been exposed as just as corrupt and manipulative as anything of Russian origin. ERGO, the DNC and the Crooked Hillary campaign must be investigated as well. EVEN IF THE SOURCE IS AN OUTSIDE HACKER!

 

JRH 1/2/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

REPORT – Clinton Foundation CEO Disappears, Media HIDING What REALLY Happened

 

Email alert sent December 31, 2016

Angry Patriot

 

Someone has to step up and ask questions about the disappearance of Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation CEO from 2013 to 2015, or no one will!

 

Eric Braverman disappeared in October, just a few weeks before Hillary Clinton’s defeat sent shock waves through Washington, D.C. and liberal cities across the country. So far, few outside the political blogosphere even knew the man existed, let alone disappeared without a trace.

 

Why are the mainstream media ignoring the disappearance of a top-level Clinton Foundation official? Perhaps because many have speculated Braverman went into hiding after an email mentioning his name surfaced on WikiLeaks just days before he went missing.

 

In a leaked email from March 2015, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager and longtime pal, John Podesta, that they had a mole within the Clinton Foundation. In his responding email, Podesta told Tanden the mole was none other than Eric Braverman, the Stream reports.

 

Shortly before the emails between John Podesta and Neera Tanden had taken place, Braverman abruptly resigned as the CEO of the Clinton Foundation. Almost immediately after WikiLeaks made the emails public, the former executive completely vanished.

 

This not only sounds like a story in dire need of good old fashioned investigative reporting—it sounds like the makings of a television movie special. Once upon a time, a real free press would be all over the sudden disappearance of a top official who worked for a former president and a former Oval Office contender.

 

The last evidence of Eric Braverman being active on a public level was on October 12. He made a post to Twitter, which he reportedly did about once a month.

 

Braverman’s partner, Neil Brown, has reportedly not tweeted since August. The former Clinton Foundation CEO is still listed as a lecturer at Yale where he has given speeches for the past several years.

 

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and close friend of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, claims the leaked emails from the Democrat Party were not taken by the Russians but by a disgruntled insider. Could this have been Eric Braverman, who sadly got caught up in his own behind-the-scenes whistleblowing on the Clintons?

 

Braverman was allegedly hired as the Clinton Foundation CEO by Chelsea Clinton, who wanted to find and clean up any corruption within the family charity. Braverman was allegedly forced out of the job by John Podesta.

 

Chelsea was allegedly very upset by examples of misspent funds. One example of such corruption was the more than $1 billion Bill Clinton raised to rebuild 100 villages in India. Reportedly, only $53 million was ever actually spent on the project.

 

Click here to get my DAILY Trump email newsletter free!!

 

Please share this story on Facebook and tell us what you think because we want to hear YOUR voice! You can also reach out to me on Twitter at @AP_SgtFreefall to discuss this story.

 

_________________

Is Braverman a Victim or Hidden?

John R. Houk

© January 2, 2017

_______________

REPORT – Clinton Foundation CEO Disappears, Media HIDING What REALLY Happened

 

The Angry Patriot Copyright © 2017.

 

About Sgt. Freefall – Angry Patriot

 

The Making of Sergeant Freefall

 

Some people are born angry, some are made angry through tragic life events. The latter is true for Marine Gunnery Sergeant Freefall.

 

While we sat in front of our TVs in horror on 9/11, a family of American Eagles was tragically destroyed. Sgt. Freefall’s parents created a nest at the top of the World Trade Center in early August. They thought they had found the perfect home to raise a family. Soon thereafter, Sgt. Freefall’s mother laid her first egg.

 

Unfortunately, just as the egg was ready to hatch, the terrorist attack took place in New York City. While Sgt. Freefall’s mother and father were killed in the bombing, the egg fell from the sky and miraculously landed in the hands of a fireman. Inspired by these events, that fireman would join the Marines to fight for his country.

 

Once again,  READ THE REST