When special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference was released in April 2019 and said that the 22-month investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and the Russians, attorneys for the defendants renewed their arguments for dismissing the DNC suit. At the time, a source familiar with the DNC’s legal strategy told ABC News they were unbowed by Mueller’s finding and said that the bar for criminality was higher than for civil liability.
On Tuesday, Judge Koeltl ruled against the DNC, emphasizing that they did not allege that anyone other than the Russian government participated in the hacking of their systems, and failed to “raise a factual allegation that suggests that any of the defendants were even aware that the Russian Federation was planning to hack the DNC’s computers until after it had already done so.”
“The DNC argues that the various meetings and conversations between the defendants in this case and with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC’s information show that the defendants conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials,” Koeltl wrote. “That argument is entirely divorced from the facts actually alleged in the Second Amended complaint.”
Source: Federal judge dismisses DNC suit against Russia, Trump campaign, Wikileaks – ABC News
Barr’s ongoing review, and Mueller’s pending appearance before Congress, offer fresh opportunities to re-examine the affair’s fundamental inconsistencies. Authorized by the president to declassify documents, Barr could shed light on the role that CrowdStrike and other sources played in informing Mueller and the Brennan-directed ICA’s claims of a Russian interference campaign. When he appears before lawmakers, Mueller will likely face questions on other matters: from Democrats, his decision to punt on obstruction; from Republicans, his decision to carry out a prolonged investigation of Trump-Russia collusion despite likely knowing quite early on that there was no such case to make.
If the U.S. government does not have a solid case to make against Russia, then the origins of Russiagate, and its subsequent predominance of U.S. political and media focus, are potentially even more suspect. Given that allegation’s importance, and Mueller’s own uncertainty and inconsistencies, the special counsel and his aides deserve scrutiny for making a “central allegation” that they have yet to substantiate.
Source: CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims | RealClearInvestigations
It’s a long read, but well worth your time.
If Assange is guilty, he’s guilty, but I suspect this is more about the embarrassment of the leak than the leak itself, and a warning to any other independent journalist that the US government will come after you.
The Justice Department leveled an 18-count superseding indictment against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on May 23.
The new charges include conspiring with former army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning to obtain classified materials, compromising sources in the Middle East and China, and conspiracy to hack into a more secure military database.
Manning provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan War-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq War-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.
Source: US Hits Wikileaks Founder Assange With 18-Count Indictment