My Questions About the Ashli Babbitt Incident

When and by whom was the furniture barricade constructed?

The furniture barricade behind the portal

What was the reason to expect an attempt to break through this portal?

---

Why was the SWAT team not stationed in front of the portal?

Since an attempt to break through that portal was expected, why was the SWAT team not stationed in front of the portal? Why was the SWAT team downstairs? Who decided where the SWAT team would be? What caused the SWAT team to come up the stairs to the portal?

How many such SWAT teams were in the Capitol?

---

Why did the four officials leave the portal?

Four officials were standing in front of the portal.

The Wooz News video calls the four officials Vetter, Cop 2, Fredo and S.A.M. They stood in front of the portal for a while, but them moved to the right wall. 

The four officials move from the portal to the right wall 

The four officials stand by the corner of the portal and right wall

The four officials move away from the wall corner

Then Vetter, Cop 2 and Fredo walked down the stairs.

Vetter, Cop 2 and Fredo walk downstairs

Who decided where the four officials would be and when and where they would move? What caused their movements away from the portal?

---

Why didn't the SWAT team stop the attack on the portal?

The SWAT guys stay on the stairs

The SWAT team came up the stairs, and the three officials went down the stairs. However, the SWAT team stayed on the stairs and did not advance to the portal, which was being attacked by unarmed civilians. Why didn't the SWAT team seize control of the situation and stop the attack?

---

Why didn't the gunman come out into the empty corridor ?

The gunman shoots across empty corridor at Babbitt

Why didn't the gunman walk out into the empty corridor and confront the unarmed civilians face-to-face? Why did the gunman feel compelled to remain hidden in the door and to shoot across the empty corridor at unarmed Babbitt?

What did the gunman expect Babbitt to do after she jumped from the window into the empty corridor? Did the gunman consider that Babbitt intended merely to clear away some of the furniture barricade and unlock the doors from the corridor side?

---

Why did so little blood come out of Babbitt's neck wound?

No blood visible on the wall where Babbitt had been shot

Was there any blood splatter on the wall next to the place where Babbitt was shot through her neck? If not, then what is the explanation? If there was blood splatter on the wall, then what does that indicate about the bullet's trajectory from the gun through Babbitt's body? What was the bullet's path through Babbitt's body? Was the bullet found, and if so, then where?

Why was there so little blood on the floor where she lay?

---

What is the legal status of Rufio and Yellow?

Yellow hands helmet to Rufio

Rufio uses helmet to break windows

The Wooz News video points out that one man ("Yellow") gave a helmet to another man ("Rufio"), who used the helmet to break through the windows. These two men are seen without masks.

Yellow

Rufio agitating the mob

Rufio using the helmet to break the windows

Rufio also helped Babbitt climb up into the window.

Who are "Yellow" and "Rufio"? What steps have been taken to prosecute them? If no such steps have been taken, then why not?

---

Why was Babbitt carried downstairs?

Babbitt being carried downstairs

Why was Babbitt carried downstairs with her wounded neck angled downwards? Why was she not moved downstairs on an elevator? If she was obviously dead, then why was her body not left on the lobby floor so that the crime scene could be studied properly?

---

Why was Babbitt wearing a back-brace?

Back-brace around Babbitt's abdomen

Stunt actor wearing a Blood-Squib Rig FX 

Babbitt was wearing a back-brace that looks just like the back-brace on on a Blood-Squib Rig FX, which is used to eject blood from actors in movie stunts? Why was Babbitt wearing a back-brace?

Why was her body not covered with a sheet when the above photograph was taken?

---

When was Babbitt obviously dead?

If Babbitt was obviously dead a few moments after the shooting, then why were resuscitation efforts displayed to the public more than an hour after the shooting? Exactly when was the determination made that she was obviously dead?

I've changed my mind about the Ashli Babbitt incident

During the past two weeks, I have published many posts arguing that Ashli Babbitt was not shot and killed in the Capitol building on January 6. Today I  watched three videos -- this and this and this -- that changed my opinion. I had not watched them until today. I have deleted my previous posts on the subject.










I now understand that the people in the lobby were not a select group of actors. 

I understand much better that people near the portal were breaking through the central doors and windows violently when Babbitt climbed up into the right window. 

Now I think that Babbitt indeed was shot and indeed did die. 

Anyone who has been convinced by the Wooz News video but has not watched the above three videos should watch them. Some such people might change their minds, as I have done.

---

Some aspects of the incident continue to puzzle me -- for example:

* The absence of blood splatter on the right wall and the small amount of blood on Babbitt immediately after the shooting.

* The decision by the four officials to move from the front of the portal to the right wall and then down the stairs.

* The ineffective actions of the SWAT guys.

However, I expect that such puzzling aspects eventually will be explained satisfactorily.

Yuri Shvets and FBI Counterintelligence -- Part 1

For sure, FBI Counterintelligence believes former KGB Major Yuri Shvets's allegations that the KGB arranged Donald Trump's trip to the Soviet Union in 1987. Shvets's reports to the FBI are a big reason why the FBI thinks that Russian Intelligence controlled Trump.

=======

Yuri Shvets's autobiography Washington Station, published in 1994, begins with these paragraphs:

Soon after I resigned from the KGB in September 1990, I started to work on a book based on my experiences as a spy. Since my former bosses at the KGB were watching me closely, I decided to write a novel to avoid prosecution for revealing state secrets. My novel, however, consisted largely of true facts about recent KGB efforts to recruit U.S. citizens.

When the book was finished, I started to look for potential publishers. I could not publish my novel in Russia; even though the Soviet Union had collapsed, the KGB remained as powerful as before. So in February 1993, I walked into the Moscow office of the Washington Post and gave the Post an interview. This interview helped me to find my literary agent in America, and in April 1993 I came to the United States to meet with publishers and negotiate a possible book contract.

Since my publisher was going to be based in the United States, I no longer had to disguise my book as a novel. And in fact, all the U.S. publishers I met with were interested in knowing about my actual KGB experiences in Washington and Moscow.

I returned to Moscow to write my book. My former bosses at the Russian intelligence service were becoming increasingly alarmed even though they believed I was still writing a novel. My application for a new foreign passport was denied, and I was told that I was under an eight-year ban against travel abroad.

In September 1993 I crossed the Russian border illegally and came with a draft version of my new book as an immigrant to the United States.

A few pages later, Shvets begins to tell about his spying experience:

One evening in late April 1985, I arrived in Washington, D.C., with my wife and two sons as a correspondent of the Soviet news agency Tass. I was thirty-three, could speak English, French, and Spanish, and was somewhat ambitious, even though I had already realized that in my country ambition was a recipe for misery.

At that time very few people know that, in fact, I was a KGB officer attached to the First Chief Directorate (external intelligence). My position as a journalist was a convenient cover.

About five years and four months later, on September 12, 199, Shvets resigned from the KGB.

Yuri Shvets

The cover of Shvets's 1994 book

Shvets was born in 1952. In 1980, he graduated from Patrice Lumumba People's Friendship University, in Moscow, which was attended by many foreigners. He majored in international law.

From 1980 to 1982 he attended the Soviet Union's Intelligence Academy, and from 1982 to 1985 he worked in the KGB First Chief Directorate's North American Department.

From April 1985 to April 1987, he worked as an intelligence-collector (under a journalist cover) at the KGB's "Washington Station". During those two years, his wife and two sons lived with him in Alexandria, Virginia.

Then he was rotated routinely back to the KGB's North American Department in Moscow. That is where he resigned in September 1990.

After that resignation, he apparently worked as a journalist in the Soviet Union. His autobiography Washington Station does not not say anything about his post-KGB journalist work.

The book Washington Station does not say how he left the Soviet Union illegally in September 1993. I assume that he left with his wife and sons.

(I vaguely remember meeting Shvets for a few minutes about twenty years ago, when he gave me a little help on a Russian-translation job that I was doing for the US Justice Department. In our conversation, he mentioned that one of his sons played on a local high school's football team.)

In his book, Shvets does not say whether he ever collaborated with a US Intelligence service during or after his KGB years. In particular, he does not say whether the US Government helped him and his family to escape from the Soviet Union in September 1993. However, the book gave me the impression that that he managed to escape before he began any such collaboration.

He applied for political asylum in the USA in April 1994, and his initial application was denied. He appealed and then was granted political asylum in May 1994. From that sequence of events, I suppose he began to provide information to the FBI during April or May 1994.

=======

The book Washington Station does not say anything about Donald Trump or anything related to Shvet's recent allegations against Trump. Shvets does not say anything about any KGB activities in New York.

=======

In about the second half of 1985, Shvets recruited a married couple as informants. The husband was John Helmer, to whom Shvets gives the pseudonym Martin Snow in the book and to whom the KGB gave the code name Socrates. The wife was Claudia Wright, to whom Shvets gave the pseudonym Phillis Barber in the book and to whom the KGB gave the code name Sputnitsa (a Russian word meaning "female companion").

Wright came to the KGB's attention because she wrote many articles that were "virulently anti-American". Shvets arranged to meet Wright, who then introduced him to her husband Helmer. Both Wright and Helmer were Australian leftist journalists based in the USA. Shvets introduced himself to Wright and Helmer as a Soviet journalist, which Shvets indeed was.

Of the two, Shvets's more important informant was Helmer. (Wright was becoming incapacitated because of a neurological disorder.) The Wikipedia article about Helmer includes the following passage:

Born and raised in Australia, Helmer graduated in political science from Harvard University in the United States, and worked in the White House as an aide of President Jimmy Carter.

He published several books on military and political topics, including essays on the American presidency and on urban policy in the US and essays on Greek, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern politics and foreign policy. Since 1989 he has published almost exclusively on Russian topics.

He was married to Australian journalist and foreign correspondent Claudia Wright who died in 2005.

He was allegedly recruited by the KGB in the 1980s (according to the claims of Yuri Shvets) and left to live in Russia permanently. However, Victor Cherkashin claims that Helmer was unaware that Shvets was a KGB officer, and that Cherkashin himself called Shvets off. Later, after Shvets' concerns attracted controversy, Cherkashin confirmed that Helmer was not an agent.

Helmer has been based in Moscow since 1989 and, from there, has worked for The Australian Financial Review, The Australian and other newspapers.

Although Helmer allegedly had occupied some unspecified position in President Jimmy Carter's White House staff, Carter had left the White House in January 1981 -- more than four years before Helmer met Shvets.

Helmer seems to be merely a free-lance journalist during his collaboration with Shvets. While Shvets was stationed in Washington, his relationship with Helmer essentially was a Soviet journalist and an Australian journalist sharing news tips with each other. The only remarkable aspect of this relationship was that Shvets was a Soviet spy -- not merely a journalist -- and therefore was very secretive about meeting with and obtaining information from Helmer and Wright.

The most important information that Helmer provided to Shvets was some early indications about the US attack on Libya in April 1986 and about the the Iran-Contra deal, before it became public in November 1986.

=======

After Shvets rotated routinely from Washington to Moscow in April 1987, the KGB brought Helmer and Wright to Moscow, where (according to Shvets) Helmer was formally recruited to become a witting agent. Although Cherkashin denies that Helmer did become an agent, I believe Shvets's account.

At that time, Wright was very incapacitated by her neurological disorder, and both Wright and Helmer were impoverished free-lance journalists. Helmer agreed to become a Soviet agent largely for monetary motives. Helmer was hoping that Michael Dukakis would win the 1988 Presidential election and then would appoint Helmer again to a position on the White House staff. In the meantime, though, Helmer was just a desperately impoverished free-lance journalist with a very sick wife.

The last part of Shvets's book is largely about his futile efforts to convince his KGB superiors that Helmer eventually might turn out to be a valuable agent. Shvets's frustration in this effort was a major cause of his decision to quit the KGB in September 1990. In general, Shvets felt that his intelligence-collection for the KGB might provide valuable information to Mikhail Gorbachev, whom Shvets admired and supported.

However, Shvets's hopes about Helmer's potential intelligence value seem, in retrospect, to be futile. The skepticism of Shvets's superiors about Helmer's reliability and potential value seems to be well justified.

Having read Shvets's book, he impressed me as a dedicated, intelligent, energetic and well-meaning KGB official, who sincerely wanted to help Gorbachev to reform the Soviet Union. However, Helmer was a useless agent, and so the KGB leadership's evaluation of Helmer was wiser than Shvet's own evaluation of Helmer.

=======

I speculate that Shvets managed to bring his family into the USA on his own resources in early 1994. At that time, he intended to make a career as a free-lance writer. However, the rejection in his initial request for political asylum in April 1994 compelled him to reveal himself to the FBI in April 1994. Following that revelation, he was granted political asylum in May 1994, but agreed to provide all his knowledge to the FBI Counterintelligence Division.

I perceive that in recent years Shvets has speculated recklessly about Donald Trump being targeted and controlled by Russian Intelligence. In this regard, I hope that Shvets himself will refute -- or at least refrain from -- such reckless allegations about Trump, a legitimately elected US President.

======

Shvets interviewed on BookTV about Washington Station in 1995

Shvets and Craig Unger on BookTV about the book American Kompromat

======

Continued in Part 2

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.

Michael Gaeta and FBI Counterintelligence -- Part 11

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

=======

On June 21, 2016, the character Guccifer 2.0 arranged to be interviewed, by means of e-mail, by a journalist named Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai (aka "Motherboard"). In that interview, Guccifer 2.0 provided a plausible explanation of how he had hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer system, beginning in the summer of 2015 and ending on June 12, 2016, when the computer system had been rebooted.

Although Guccifer 2.0 purported to be a Romanian, I speculate (see my Part 10) that he actually was an American employee of the NGP VAN company, which maintained some databases on the DNC computer system. In his NGP VAN position, he enjoyed some administrative access on the DNC computer system.

It was not actually in the summer of 2015 that this NGP VAN employee "hacked" that system. Rather, it was sometime during the period from April 15 to May 2, 2016 (dates explained in my Part 10) that he used his administrative access to place onto the DNC system a computer virus. He did so in order to collect files that would reveal the DNC's partisan support of Hillary Clinton in her primary-election race against Bernie Sanders. The computer virus had been developed by Russian Intelligence, but he had obtained it from an inadequately protected CIA collection of foreign computer viruses.

CrowdStrike found the computer viruses on the DNC computer system and removed them by June 12, 2016. After the viruses had been removed, CrowdStrike rebooted the system. If so, then how did Guccifer 2.0 (or Russian Intelligence) know that the system was rebooted on that date?

======

Here is the interview's relevant passage, where the reboot date is specified:

Motherboard:
Tell me about the DNC hack. How did you get in?

Guccifer 2.0:
I hacked that server through the NGP VAN soft [software], if u understand what I’m talking about.

Motherboard:
So that was your entry point, what happened next?

Guccifer 2.0:
I used 0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft [software] then I installed shell-code into the DNC server. it allowed me to intrude into DNC network. They have Windows-based domain architecture. then I installed my Trojans on several PCs. I had to go from one PC to another every week so Crowdstrike couldn’t catch me for a long time. I know that they have cool intrusion detection system. But my heuristic algorithms are better.

Motherboard:
When did you first hack them?

Guccifer 2.0:
Last summer [2015].

Motherboard:
And when did you get kicked out?

Guccifer 2.0:
June 12 [], when they rebooted their system.

The NGP VAN employee thus revealed a secret hacking route on the DNC computer system. Perhaps he himself had discovered the route during his own work on the DNC system. Perhaps he learned about it from CrowdStrike's findings. A real hacker -- in particular, a Romanian hacker or a Russian Intelligence hacker -- would not reveal such a hacking route so gratuitously.

The NGP VAN employee revealed this hacking route in order to deflect any further investigation that might eventually discover himself as the actual culprit who placed the virus on the computer system.

======

Russian Intelligence never had anything to do with hacking the DNC computer system. Russian Intelligence had developed the computer virus that CrowdStrike found on that system. However, that computer virus was in the possession of the CIA, and it eventually came into the possession of a NGP VAN employee, who put it on that system for his own political reasons.

The non-involvement of Russian Intelligence in the placement of the virus on the DNC computer system has many ramifications in the following events. Since the CIA and FBI believed mistakenly that Russian Intelligence was involved, those two organizations foolishly whipped up a stupid hysteria about Russian meddling the the USA's 2016 election and an even stupider hysteria that Trump and some of his supporters were collaborating with Russian Intelligence.

======

Since Russian Intelligence had nothing to do with the placement of the virus on the DNC computer system, then the FBI did not have any true information that Russian Intelligence was hacking the DNC computer system. Keep in mind that in the third week of April 2016, an unidentified FBI official requested the DNC's computer logs and that on April 29, this same FBI 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.

What was the basis of that FBI suspicion? The only basis was the false reporting that FBI Counterintelligence was receiving from Christopher Steele.

=======

Concluded in Part 12

Michael Gaeta and FBI Counterintelligence -- Part 10

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

=======

In Part 9, I speculated that computer viruses were placed onto the DNC's computer server not by Russian Intelligence, but rather by American computer experts who supported Bernie Sanders. Part 9 began as follows:

In 2015 and 2016, a company called NGP VAN provided the software that controlled the voter database of the Democrat National Committee (DNC). On the morning of December 16, 2015, NGP VAN launched a modification of that software.

On that same morning, Josh Uretsky, a member of Sanders' campaign staff, exploited a bug in the modification and thus accessed some database files that belonged to Hillary Clinton's campaign staff. Uretsky instructed three fellow members of Sanders' campaign staff how to exploit the bug. Then those four Sanders staff members accessed and downloaded data from Clinton's database files for about 45 minutes. Within about four hours of the modification's launch, the improper exploitation of the bug was discovered and stopped.

That incident was followed by a sequence of actions:

* The DNC restricted the Sanders campaign staff's use of the DNC server on December 17, 2015.

* The Sanders campaign staff filed a lawsuit against the DNC on December 18, 2015.

* The Sanders campaign staff served the lawsuit to the DNC on March 24, 2016.

* The DNC was allowed to initiate legal discovery processes against the Sanders campaign staff.

* The DNC terminated its lawsuit on April 29, 2016.

In regard to that sequence, I speculated:

For some Sanders-supporters, the fact that the DNC now was examining and searching the Sanders campaign staff's files aggravated resentments that the DNC was treating Sanders unfairly. In contrast, Clinton's campaign staff was not being examined and searched.

During the discovery process, the political circumstances were that from March 22 through April 9, 2016, the DNC conducted eight primary elections, and Sanders won seven of the eight elections. Specifically, Sanders won in Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- and lost only in Arizona. Sanders' supporters felt that Sanders' campaign might be on the verge of passing Clinton decisively in the primary election race.

Perhaps a Sanders-supporter with the necessary computer skills decided that the time was ripe to discover information inside the Clinton campaign staff.

If such a Sanders-supporter indeed did decide to discover such information, then a key action occurred on March 19, 2016, when there was a successful phishing of the e-mail account of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff. That phishing occurred five days before the Sanders campaign staff served the lawsuit to the DNC on March 24 -- the last legal day to serve the lawsuit.

=======

Let's imagine the perspective of the hypothetical Sanders-supporter computer expert on March 16, 2016. On the previous day, March 15, Clinton had defeated Sanders in five primary elections -- in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. However, in the following days (through April 9) Sanders was favored to win (and did win) primary elections in seven states -- Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Sanders still had a real chance to defeat Clinton in the primary race.

In such circumstances, however, the Sanders campaign staff had to serve its lawsuit on the DNC no later than March 24. Beginning on that day, the DNC would be able to initiate a legal discovery procedure against the Sanders campaign staff. If the DNC did discover any information discrediting or incriminating the Sanders campaign staff, then the DNC surely would share such information immediately with the Clinton campaign staff. In such circumstances, the Sanders-supporter computer expert felt morally justified in initiating his own secret "discovery procedure" against the DNC and against the Clinton campaign staff. One of the first actions in this secret "discovery procedure" was the phishing of Podesta on March 19.

Another eventual action in this secret "discovery procedure" was to place computer viruses onto the DNC server in order to collect information about the DNC. I speculate that the Sanders-supporter computer expert did so between April 15 and May 2 2016. (I will explain those two dates below.)

I speculate further that he used computer viruses that apparently had been developed by Russian Intelligence. As I told in my Part 9, the CIA had collected a so-called "arsenal" of foreign computer viruses but had lost its exclusive control of this arsenal. Therefore computer viruses developed by Russian Intelligence were available to the Sanders-supporter computer expert, who put them onto the DNC computer in late March 2016 during his own secret "discovery procedure".

Later, those computer viruses were found by CrowdStrike, and that finding eventually enabled the FBI to argue falsely that Russian Intelligence was meddling in the US elections in 2016.

======

CrowdStrike investigated the DNC computer system twice.

1) CrowdStrike investigated that system in regard to the Uretsky affair. This investigation took place sometime between December 16, 2015 and April 29, 2016.

2) CrowdStrike investigated that system in regard to the FBI's suspicion that Russian Intelligence had infiltrated the system. This investigation too place between May 2 and June 14, 2016.

The second CrowdStrike investigation began as follows.

On the late afternoon of Friday, April 29, 2016 -- the very same day when the Sanders campaign staff terminated its lawsuit that had been caused by a Sanders supporter's hack of the DNC's computers -- an unidentified FBI official conducted a conference call with two people:

1) an unidentified DNC staff member who managed the DNC computer system

2) Michael Sussman, a computer-security expert employed by the Perkins Coie law firm, which provided legal services to the DNC.

The FBI official discussed with them the FBI's suspicion that Russian Intelligence was hacking into the DNC computer system.

During the following weekend, April 30-May 1, Sussman called Shawn Henry, a CrowdStrike manager. Sussman arranged with Henry that CrowdStrike would study the alleged Russian Intelligence hack of DNC computers. Thus, the second investigation began on May 2.

I speculate that the first investigation ended by April 15. I say so because that FBI official contacted the DNC computer manager in about the third week of April 2016 (i.e. April 17-23) to request the DNC's computer server logs. I speculate that the FBI's request was prompted at least partially by the conclusion of CrowdStrike's first investigation.

Since CrowdStrike apparently did not find any allegedly Russian-Intelligence computer viruses on the DNC system during the first investigation, the computer viruses were placed on the DNC system during the interval between April 15 and May 2, 2016.

(Keep in mind that I can only guess that the first CrowdStrike investigation ended on April 15, 2016. If the actual date ever is revealed, then I will be able to correct the interval.)

========

CrowdStrike's second investigation ended by June 14, 2016, since on that day The Washington Post published an article about that investigation's findings. Essentially, the second investigation found computer viruses that were attributed to Russian Intelligence.

However, I am suggesting in my article here that those viruses actually were placed on the DNC computer system by a Sanders-supporter computer expert who was conducting his own "discovery procedure" against Hillary Clinton's campaign. Furthermore, I am suggesting that that computer expert did so sometime between April 15 and May 2, 2016.

The Washington Post article that was published on June 14 would have informed the Sanders-supporter computer expert that CrowdStrike had found the computer viruses that he had placed onto the DNC system. However, if that computer expert was an "insider" -- if he worked, for example, at DNC or in the Sanders campaign or at NGP VAN -- then he might have been informed a couple days before June 14. (As you will see below, something significant happened on June 12.)

In any case, the computer expert had to deal with the possibility that further investigation might find the actual truth -- that the computer viruses had been placed on the DNC not by Russian Intelligence, but rather by the Sanders-supporter computer expert.

Let's suppose that the computer expert worked at the DNC or at NGP VAN and that his normal access to the DNC system enabled him to simply infiltrate the viruses directly onto the DNC system. In other words, the viruses were not "hacked" onto DNC by phishing or some other such trick.

Let's suppose further that CrowdStrike did find the computer viruses on the DNC system but could not figure out for sure how the viruses infiltrated onto the system. Until CrowdStrike did figure out that mystery, the Sanders-supporter computer expert had to worry that CrowdStrike eventually might figure out the actual culprit and infiltration method.

Therefore, the Sanders-supporter computer expert had to provide to CrowdStrike a plausible explanation of how the computer viruses were infiltrated onto the DNC by means of a hacking trick. Because of his computer expertise and because of his actual experience in working with the DNC computer system, he indeed was able to provide such plausible explanation. To commuicate that plausible explanation to CrowdStrike, the Sanders-supporter computer expert created the fictional character Guccifer 2.0.

=======

The actual person who pretended to be Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be a Romanian hacker. The actual person spoke native English but apparently spoke also Romanian, but not with native skill. (Or he at least was helped by some such Romanian speaker.) Pretending to speak Russian would have made more sense in this situation, but the actual person apparently did not speak Russian adequately.

On June 21, 2016, the character Guccifer 2.0 (i.e. the Sanders-supporter computer expert) arranged to be interviewed, by means of e-mail, by a journalist named Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai. In that interview, Guccifer provided a plausible explanation of how the DNC computer system was hacked.

Why else would this supposed hacker reveal his hacking method to a journalist?

The below interview transcript was published by Yaacov Apelbaum in his superb blog article Who Done It?. There, the journalist is called "Motherboard". I have added the emphasis to the transcript.

========

[Motherboard:] So, first of all, what can you tell me about yourself? Who are you?

[Guccifer 2.0:] i’m a hacker, manager, philosopher, women lover. I also like Gucci! I bring the light to people. I’m a freedom fighter! So u can choose what u like!

[Motherboard:] And where are you from?

[Guccifer 2.0:] From Romania.

[Motherboard:] Do you work with Russia or the Russian government?

[Guccifer 2.0:] No because I don’t like Russians and their foreign policy. I hate being attributed to Russia.

[Motherboard:] Why?

[Guccifer 2.0:] I’ve already told! Also I made a big deal, why you glorify them?

[Motherboard:] Tell me about the DNC hack. How did you get in?

[Guccifer 2.0:] I hacked that server through the NGP VAN soft, if u understand what I’m talking about.

[Motherboard:] So that was your entry point, what happened next?

[Guccifer 2.0:] I used 0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft then I installed shell-code into the DNC server. it allowed me to intrude into DNC network. They have Windows-based domain architecture. then I installed my Trojans on several PCs. I had to go from one PC to another every week so Crowdstrike couldn’t catch me for a long time. I know that they have cool intrusion detection system. But my heuristic algorithms are better.

[Motherboard:] When did you first hack them?

[Guccifer 2.0:] Last summer.

[Motherboard:] And when did you get kicked out?

[Guccifer 2.0:] June 12, when they rebooted their system.

[Motherboard:] And why did you hack the DNC in the first place?

[Guccifer 2.0:] DNC isn’t my first deal.

[Motherboard:] Who else have you hacked?

[Guccifer 2.0:] Follow my blog and u’ll know! I can’t tell u now about all my deals. My safety depends on it.

[Motherboard:] OK, I understand. But why did u target DNC? why are you interested in them?

[Guccifer 2.0:] Lazar began this deal and I follow him! I think we must fight for freedom of minds, fight for the world without Illuminati

[Motherboard:] Lazar?

[Guccifer 2.0:] Marcel Lazăr [The original Gufficer]

[Motherboard:] Ah yeah of course. Did you know him personally?

[Guccifer 2.0:] I can’t answer cause I care for Marcel.

[Motherboard:] Ai vrea să vorbească în română pentru un pic? [You want to talk for a bit in Romanian?]

[Guccifer 2.0:] Vorbiți limbă română? [Speak Romanian?]

[Motherboard:] Putin. Poți să-mi spui despre hack în română? cum ai făcut-o? [A little. Can you tell me about hack in Romanian? How did you do it?]

[Motherboard:] Or u just use Google translate?

[Motherboard:] Poți să răspunzi la întrebarea mea? [Can you answer my question?]

Guccifer 2.0: V-am spus deja. încercați să-mi verifica? [I have already said. try to check?]

Guccifer 2.0: Da [Yes]

Guccifer 2.0: Nu vreau să-mi pierd timpul [I do not want to waste my time]

[Motherboard:] De ce ai pus metadate rusă în primul lot de documente? [Why did you put Russian metadata in the first batch of documents?]

Guccifer 2.0: Este filigranul meu [It is my watermark]

[Motherboard:] De ce nu l-ai pus pe documentele de azi? [Why didn’t you put it in the documents today?]

Guccifer 2.0: Puteți găsi de asemenea alte filigrane în limbă spaniolă. Caută mai bine. [You can also find other watermarks in Spanish. Look better]

[Motherboard:] Sunt confuz de ceea ce spui, filigran, pentru că este mereu în schimbare. Pot să vă rog să-mi explicați în propria ta limba maternă? Așa că este mult mai clar. [I’m confused by what you say, why is watermark changing? Can you please explain to me in your own language? So it is more clear.]

[Guccifer 2.0:] Oare nu știți ce este filigran? [You do not know what watermark?]

[Motherboard:] Eu fac. Dar eu nu înțeleg de ce ai folosit filigrane rusești în unele Docs și nu în altele [I do. But I do not understand why you use watermarks in Russian in some documents and not in others?]

[Guccifer 2.0:] îți voi arăta [I will show you]

[Motherboard:] Please do.

[Motherboard:] De ce faci toate astea? [Why are you doing this?]

[Guccifer 2.0:] Asta e din partea următoare [That’s the next]

[Motherboard:] What?

[Guccifer 2.0:] Am spus deja, e un filigran, un semn special [I have already said, it’s a watermark, a special sign]

[Motherboard:] Do you like Trump?

[Guccifer 2.0:] I don’t care at all

[Motherboard:] кто-то говорит мне, что ты румынская полна ошибок [Someone tells me that your Romanian is full of mistakes.]

[Guccifer 2.0:] What’s this? Is it russian?

[Motherboard:] You don’t understand it?

[Guccifer 2.0:] R u kidding? Just a moment I’ll look in google translate what u meant. “Someone tells me that you are full of mistakes Romanian.”

[Motherboard:] Hai sa-ti pun cateva intrebari, ca sa vad ca esti cu adevarat roman [Let me ask you a few questions to see that you are truly native.]

[Guccifer 2.0:] Man, I’m not a pupil at school.

[Motherboard:] What do you mean?

[Guccifer 2.0:] If u have serious questions u can ask. Don’t waste my time.

[Guccifer 2.0:] Am mult de făcut [I have much to do]

[Motherboard:] Si cat umblai prin reteaua astora de la DNC, mai hackuise si altcineva in afara de tine [When you got into the DNC network was someone else there besides you?]

[No answer]

=======

Continued in Part 11

Will Brad Raffensperger ever explain the water incident?

This article elaborates my preceding three articles:

1) How long did the imaginary burst waterpipe delay the ballot-counting?,

2) The Scanners' Long, Covered Table.

3) The Target Dot on the Scanners' Long, Covered Table

=======

On December 4, 2020, President Donald Trump submitted to the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, a civil action titled Verified Petition to Contest Georgia's Presidential Election Results for Violations of the Constitution and Laws of the State of Georgia. The primary respondent is Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State.

The Petition complains that "There were systemic irregularities and violations of the Georgia election code in the contested election" (page 16).

In particular, "Respondents have admitted misconduct, fraud, and widespread irregularities committed by multiple counties" (page 41).

In particular (pages 42-44):

186.

The Secretary of State’s [i.e. Raffensperger's] Office claims it is currently investigating an incident where Fulton County election officials fraudulently stated there was a "flood" and "a pipe burst," which was later revealed to be a "leaky' toilet.

187.

At approximately 10:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, Fulton County Election Officials, who were handling and scanning thousands of ballots at the State Farm Arena, instructed Republican poll watchers and the press that they were finished working for the day and that the Republican poll watchers and the press were to leave. The Fulton County Elections Officials further stated that they would restart their work at approximately 8:00 a.m. on November 4, 2020.

188.

The Fulton County Election Officials lied.

189.

Deliberate misinformation was used to instruct Republican poll watchers and members of the press to leave the premises for the night at approximately 10:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020. Exhibits 12, 13, and 14 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

190.

After Fulton County Elections Officials lied and defrauded the Republican poll watchers and members of the press, whereby in reasonable reliance the Republican poll watchers and members of the press left the State Farm Arena (where they had been observing the ballots being processed), without public transparency Fulton County Elections Officials continued to process, handle, and transfer many thousands of ballots. See Exhibit 14

191.

Fulton County Elections Officials’ fraudulent statements not only defrauded the Republican poll watchers and the press, but also deprived every single Fulton County voter, Georgian, American, and Petitioners of the opportunity for a transparent election process and have thereby placed the Election Contest in doubt.

On January 2, 2021, the Petition was discussed in a phone conversation that included Trump and Raffensperger. That conversation has been analyzed by an anonymous lawyer, alias "Shipwreckedcrew", in an article titled The President's Call With the Georgia Sec. of State -- a Case Study in the Media Duplicity That Pres. Trump Has Battled From Day One, published on the Red State website. That article's relevant passages:

The President spent a lot of time in his comments talking about the videotaped events in the counting room of the State Farm Arena in Fulton County. The President repeated many of the claims that have been made by his supporters about the Observers being ordered to leave the room when they were told the counting was be stopped for the night. He raised the issue of the ballots being kept in boxes under the table, only to be brought out and run through the counting machines after the Observers were gone. He made several references to the names of the Democrat party operative who has been the subject of much speculation, particularly with regard to what appears to be her running the same set of ballots through the counting machine more than one time.

In response, Raffensperger claimed that the video that was put out on the internet has been edited, but didn’t specify how. He claimed that investigators from his office as well as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation interviewed everyone in the room, and studied the videotape themselves. They have concluded that nothing evidencing fraud is shown in the videotape, and none of the individuals interviewed provided any information of anything suspicious.

The President’s attorney Cleta Mitchell spoke up again. She asked why Raffensperger’s Office won’t make the reports of that investigation available to the campaign? She said she has asked to see them, but the response of the State has only been words to the effect of “We’ve looked into it and we’re satisfied nothing took place to impact the accuracy of the vote count.” Mitchell asked why the State is insisting that the Campaign simply take their word for it rather than share the results of the investigation that supposedly proves nothing happened. ...

I [Shipwreckedcrew] came away from listening to the call thinking that Raffensperger had been warned ahead of time to not saying anything too specific on any particular claim. They seemed content to just let Pres. Trump talk himself out and say little of substance in response other than they had looked at the claims and found nothing suggesting fraud or invalid voting in the quantity claimed by the complaint. ...

I have been informed that the Petition has been dismissed, but without prejudice. Meanwhile, Raffensperger has agreed to provide real evidence to Trump's lawyers, who will be able to examine that evidence and then re-submit an amended Petition. 

I doubt that Raffensperger ever will explain the flowing-water incident satisfactorily. After all, the incident was a fiction that was concocted to justify two to four hours of unobserved vote-counting in the middle of the night. However, Raffensperger still is not entirely free from a potential deposition about the incident.