Did you know that the cybersecurity firm that investigated the hack of the Democrat(ic) National Committee ("DNC") servers also investigated the alleged breach of targeted Ukrainian military units in December 2016? The firm was CrowdStrike, largely owned by a Russian ex-pat, Dmitri Alperovitch. CrowdStrike concluded that the alleged hack was perpetrated by Russian military intelligence agency (“GRU”) … dubbed ‘Fancy Bear’. CrowdStrike maintained that they had linked the GRU and 'Fancy Bear' through malware implanted in a Ukrainian military Android app which assists Soviet-era artillery process data. The malware known as ‘X-Agent’ allegedly facilitated the compromise of the communication and location functions of the Ukrainian military app. CrowdStrike reported that it was responsible for the extensive loss of equipment and Ukrainian military personnel. Not coincidentally … CrowdStrike ‘found’ that this was the same malware used in the DNC hack. This conclusion was predicated upon their contention that ‘no other hacking group has been seen using X-Agent” … therefore the ‘Fancy Bear’ hackers must be Russian military intelligence. Convincing?
In 2017, CrowdStrike was compelled to ‘revise’ and retract its statements concerning alleged Russian hacking of the Ukrainian military after the International Institute for Strategic Studies (“IISS”) responsible for the assessment and publication of the relative strength of global armed forces … disavowed the December 22, 2016 CrowdStrike report stating that references to contacts with them NEVER HAPPENED. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also stated that the combat losses and hacking cited therein NEVER HAPPENED. But, not before Alpervitch had made the rounds using the findings of each report (DNC and Ukrainian Military) to bolster the credibility of CrowdStrike and the results of the other report. Subsequent to the IISS and UMD exposure, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its December 22, 2016 Ukrainian report and reissued revised findings on March 23, 2017 retracting the above-referenced misrepresentations and ‘inaccuracies’. CrowdStrike. The very same vendor that the DNC hired and that our intelligence community relied exclusively upon in the issuance of their report … had fabricated and later been forced to retract portions of their Ukrainian Report. CrowdStrike. The DNC vendor that imaged the server drives and oversaw the destruction of the actual servers. The very same CrowdStrike.
It is perfectly reasonable to inquire into the location of the imaging removed from the server drives prior to their destruction and revisit the accuracy of their report upon which the intelligence community exclusively relied ... failing to conduct their own forensic analysis. The President’s mention of it and the Department of Justice’s interest in the server imaging is not only reasonable … but it is necessary if we are committed to seeking truth and the pursuit of justice.
Are we? Or has 'justice' become 'just-us'?