Saturday, June 19, 2021

Michael Gaeta and FBI Counterintelligence -- Part 12

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11

=======

In the third week of April 2016, an unidentified FBI offical requested the computer logs of the DNC (Democratic National Committee). Then on April 29 he initiated a conference call in which he informed a DNC computer expert and lawyer Michael Sussman that the FBI suspected that the DNC system was being hacked by Russian Intelligence. In the days following that conference call, Sussman arranged for the CrowdStrike company to examine the DNC computers. In that examination, CrowdStrike found computer viruses that allegedly had been created by Russian Intelligence. Those viruses were removed from the DNC computer, which then was rebooted on June 12, 2016.

The fact that the DNC computer was rebooted -- after the computer viruses had been removed -- on June 12 was not public knowledge, but it seemed to be known by some people in Eastern Europe. A person who called himself "Guccifer 2.0" and claimed to be a Romanian hacker who had planted the computer viruses on the DNC computer stated in an interview on June 21 that the computer had rebooted on June 12. According to US Intelligence, however, Guccifer 2.0 was really Russian Intelligence. If so, then Russian Intelligence knew that the DNC computer had been rebooted on June 12.

In either case -- either Guccifer 2.0 or Russian Intelligence -- activities on the DNC computer were known abroad because of a computer virus on the DNC computer. After that virus had been removed, however, the fact that the DNC computer was rebooted on June 12 nevertheless was known by someone in Eastern Europe or Russia.

=======

In this series of blog articles, I have argued (begin reading about this in my Part 9) that the computer virus -- although perhaps indeed created by Russian Intelligence -- really was planted on the DNC computer by an American who enjoyed some administrative access to the computer. In particular, I have speculated that the culprit was an employee of the NGP VAN company, which managed some data bases on the computer. I have speculated further that the culprit's motive was to collect information that the DNC was helping Hillary Clinton unfairly against Bernie Sanders in the primary election races that were underway until the party convention in mid-August 2016.

Such a culprit would know as part of his normal work that the DNC computer was rebooted on June 12. That knowledge did not come from any computer virus. Rather, it came from his routine personal involvement in the administration of the DNC computer system.

=======

If Russian Intelligence indeed had nothing at to do with the hacking of the DNC computer -- beyond the fact that Russian Intelligence had created that particular virus several years previously -- then what was the basis of the FBI's suspicion that Russian Intelligence was hacking the DNC computer in April 2016?

For example, there was no intercepted communications from or to Russian Intelligence indicating such hacking. There was no secret agent within Russian Intelligence reporting secretly to US Intelligence that Russian Intelligence was hacking the DNC computer. 

In the third week of April 2016, an unidentified FBI official requested the DNC computer logs. Subsequently, on April 29, 2016, that same unidentified official initiated a conference call in which he informed a DNC computer expert and Michael Sussman that the FBI suspected that the DNC system was being hacked by Russian Intelligence. Sussman, an expert cybercrime lawyer in a law firm that served the DNC, subsequently arranged for the CrowdStrike company to study the DNC computer. In that study, CrowdStrike found the computer virus, which allegedly had been developed by Russian Intelligence.

Based on that finding, the FBI subsequently launched a years-long hysteria that Russian Intelligence was meddling -- with the collaboration of Donald Trump's campaign staff -- in the USA's 2016 election. The FBI's hysteria has poisoned US politics -- and US-Russia relatons -- from 2016 to the present day.

So, what was the basis of the the FBI's suspision? Who was the FBI official who contacted and warned the DNC in April 2016?

=======

A couple months later, on July 5, Michael Gaeta, an FBI official based at the US Embassy in Rome, flew to London in order to get one short report from an Englisman named Christopher Steele. This report is so-called "Report 80" of Steele's so-called "Dossier". Although Gaeta supposedly got Report 80 on July 5, the report was not delivered to FBI Headquarters in Washington DC until September 19, 2016. In the meantime, Report 80 was stored in the office of the Chief Division Counsel in the FBI's New York Field Office.

That is the yarn that the FBI has told the public through the report published by FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz in December 2019. I myself think that several FBI officials deceived Horowitz's team about the delivery of Steele's report to FBI Headquarters. I hope that the truth eventually be told to the public, despite the FBI's persistent stone-walling.

=======

That first report in Steele's Dossier is numbered 80, because it was the 80th report that Steele had delivered to the company Fusion GPS -- one of Steele's several clients. Steele had begun selling his reports to Fusion GPS in 2015 or in some earlier year. Specifically, Steele had sold 79 reports to Fusion GPS before July 2016, when he gave #80 to Gaeta in London.

It's likely that Steele had given some -- or many or even all -- of those 79 reports also to Gaeta well before July 2016. Furthermore, it is likely that Gaeta had sent any such reports promptly and directly to the Counterintelligence Division of FBI Headquarters.

If so, then it's likely that the FBI suspicion in April 2016 -- that Russian Intelligence was hacking the DNC computer -- was based on a still unknown Steele report that the FBI Counterintelligence Division had received via Gaeta from Steele in April 2016.

=======

This is the conclusion of this series of articles.

No comments: