Skip to content

Further Analysis of the Mueller Kangaroo Investigation’s Most Recent Indictments

Journalist Joe Lauria has this analysis of the recent indictments of Russian military officers (GRU) by the Mueller kangaroo special counsel team. Lauria explains why evidence will probably never be produced.

Lauria quotes former CIA analyst Larry Johnson as wondering how the indictment could possibly name specific Russian GRU officers, and that the U.S. intelligence experts on GRU are the Defense Intelligence Agency, which were “not allowed” to take part in the Intelligence (sic) Community Assessment from January of 2017. Johnson said the information for the indictments was probably obtained by the NSA.

The Democrat National Committee didn’t let the FBI have access to their computers to investigate the “hacking,” but they did hire a private company to look into it, CrowdStrike, which was referred to in the indictments as Company 1.

Lauria writes:

The indictment doesn’t mention it, but within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia in the hack.

CrowdStrike claimed the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy or amateur hackers—or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.

One of CrowdStrike’s founders has ties to the anti-Russian Atlantic Council raising questions of political bias. And the software it used to determine Russia’s alleged involvement in the DNC hack, was later proved to be faulty in a high-profile case in Ukraine, reported by the Voice of America.

The indictment then is based at least partially on evidence produced by an interested private company, rather than the FBI.

Lauria says that a trial of the Russian suspects is unlikely, and therefore the indictment is a political one, not a legal one. And he compares the indictment to the one earlier this year of the Russian click bait ad company, in which its workers were charged with “conspiracy to defraud the United States” and “conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud,” even though all what they were doing was engaging in a marketing scheme, which wasn’t even shown to influence the election in any way.

Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks which received the leaked emails copied from the DNC servers, continues to state that the emails did not come from the Russian government but were leaked by a DNC insider, and Lauria mentions that Assange has implied the leaker was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich.

One of the commenters on the Lauria article posted a link to this True Pundit article, suggesting that the Mueller team plagiarized a YouTube journalist’s lawsuit against John Podesta. Like they just threw something together on the fly, to try to overshadow FBI agent Peter Strzok’s grilling by Congress the day before, and because they wanted to throw ice on the Trump-Putin meeting this week? Who knows?

In my view, I think there really was conniving and scheming going on with Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Lynch, and John Brennan the former CIA director. That’s my conclusion on all this made-up stuff. The “deep state” saw Trump as a threat to their little power fiefdoms, so they had to make stuff up, get their media groupies to repeat their propaganda about Russia “hacking the election” and “Russia-Trump collusions,” and entrap some of Trump’s associates.

I think this Zero Hedge article from March 2017 gives some good information about various shenanigans that were then blamed on the Russians.

Published inMueller investigation