Obama & Russiagate

With the release of today’s report, criminal cases could now be articulated for John Brennan and potentially, other senior leaders of our intelligence community for their testimony regarding the ICA and the Steele dossier - notwithstanding some challenges around statute of limitations for simple false statement cases.

On President Obama, we reported the following in March: “Post-election, Sleuth News sources allege that President Obama ordered Brennan to oversee the Intelligence Community Assessment and support a Russian interference narrative, and to also exclude any contradictory pieces of information, which would have included materials the CIA had obtained relating to the Clinton plan intelligence.”

Sleuth News sources have also painted a troubling picture around Obama’s approval of the October 7, 2016 joint attribution statement that blamed Russia for hacking the DNC.

Tonight, Tulsi Gabbard appeared on Jesse Watters Primetime. Her comments, citing a whistleblower, largely track with Sleuth News reporting as far as the ICA is concerned. However, based on the strong narrative being attached to some of the released reports, Gabbard has raised the political risk profile. None of the documents released thus far establish wrong-doing by Obama. None of them come close.

Left wing pundits, to the extent they are covering the story, are pushing back with claims that Russia interfered in 2016 and hacked the DNC. It’s clear that SVR (Cozy Bear) hacked the DNC for intelligence collection.

We have long held the belief that the Guccifer 2.0 persona is completely fraudulent and on the whole, there was no Russian interference campaign. Certainly nothing abnormal from any other election in the modern era.

Our analysis suggests that Crowdstrike’s work on the attribution played a much smaller role than we have been led to believe.

Instead, attribution reports from outside parties connected to the Alfa Bank allegations began ariving in August 2016 and those same researchers later submitted material to Special Counsel Mueller on the DNC hack—raising obvious questions. We won’t re-hash everything we’ve reported on that here, we’ve written about it extensively over the last 3 years.

Everything we have learned since then suggests that it leads back to Clinton, not Seth Rich or some other nonsense explanation. Clinton needed a “hack” to set the playing field for the Steele dossier and other allegations she wanted to make.

There are simply too many red flags with the DNC hack as the public knows it, and everything Sam Biddle wrote in December 2016 remains a problem. There is actually too much evidence pointing at Russia, it’s too inconsistent with a professional intelligence organization known for their technical sophistication at the time.

We have talked to numerous persons connected to other private companies who analyzed the DNC hack in the summer of 2016. Some of these experts were quoted extensively in the media. What they say today is vastly different than what they said publicly 9 years ago.

They suggest that a thorough review of the hack is now needed, with an eye towards fraud.