© BRANCO/media@LimitGov.org
If the GRU (or any other hostile foreign agent) had hacked the DNC servers why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz refuse to allow the FBI access to the servers to perform a proper forensics examination of the servers, when her (false) allegations of Russian hacking were first made in 2016?
Why did she rely on Crowdstrike who are a completely disreputable outfit, known liars and anti-Russia propagandists with massive conflicts of interest who are known to have lied about the attribution of previous hacks?
Crowdstrike didn't produce any credible evidence of any Russian hack. The only "hard evidence" they produced was a piece of 4 year old Ukrainian malware, that was freely available on the net, could have been put on the DNC server by any hacker, and even then it wasn't linked to any data extraction activity. Oh they also said some of the metadata or docs had Cyrillic lettering. Why the f*ck would Russian government hackers insert Cyrillic lettering into the metadata or document info? This was obviously a fraud and red herring by someone else (or this metadata was just fabricated by Crowdstrike and didn't exist before Crowdstrike doctored the evidence).
If Comey thought there was any credibility whatsoever in the DNC allegations that their servers had been hacked by Russians (or any other hostile foreign entity) posing a potential "National Security threat" why didn't Comey subpoena the servers so that the FBI could do a proper analysis? That's what the FBI have done in every previous similar case where there was a potential National Security angle and the owner of the server or data refused access.
The truth is that neither DWS or Comey thought there was the slightest chance the server was hacked by Russians. They both knew the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider who was pissed off at the DNC and the Hillary Campaign rigging the Primaries against Bernie Sanders.
Mueller's evidence-free allegations of the GRU hacking the servers don't change these facts. Mueller's allegations are against Russians living in Russia who will never be extradited to the US.
Mueller does not expect his indictment to ever see the light of day in a court room, and if it is ever challenged by American lawyers hired by the Russians he can always hide behind "National Security" and drop the case.
The purpose of Mueller's indictment is not to convict the accused Russians. The purpose is pure propaganda for unthinking gullible fools who still want to believe there is something to the "Russian meddling" hoax and for the Fake News Neoliberal Corporate media to stir up more anti Russia hysteria to try and sabotage the Trump-Putin summit on Monday.
The current evidence-free allegations are very similar to Mueller's allegations against the 13 Russians operating the Clickbait farm in St Petersburg. Allegations that are now being challenged by American lawyers hired by the accused Russians to start Discovery.
Mueller asked the judge for a delay in providing the evidence in this case (because he hasn't got any) but the judge refused. The case is pending.
Comment: There are certain similarities between this accusatory movement in the US and how the UK has parlayed its Novichok incidences into full-blown accusations towards Russia. Different time, different place, different scenario - but the blame without evidence is the same. Repetition is a marketing tool. And that is what clueless people remember.