My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery, so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.

Guccifer2 sounded like someone jealous about Wikileaks' announcement about upcoming DNC emails, so he made it up he did it...but he actually had documents from Podesta's inbox. Strange. But the complaint says g2 had DNC documents. But nothing weirder than NYTimes/Deep State belief that Papadopoulos' talk about Hillary's missing emails or "dirt" was evidence the Russians tipped off Papadopoulos about their upcoming plans to hack Podesta and the DNC.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.

The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.

I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email investigation.

Can it not be both ineptitude and bias? (My bias is that lerfties cannot be very bright and so it is possible that they are also quite inept.)

You're not so bright yourself if you perceive any of the individuals in this matter to be "lefties", princess.

Well, that is the very first time this small town farm girl from CO was ever called a princess. I just wonder how it would have been driving the tractor in the cornfields, feeding the calves, and rounding the cows up from the pasture wearing my gown and tiara.

Now, since I won't call you the name for you that came to my mind ("prig," if you really want to know), I will just say "Bless your heart" in response.

And then I'll put my ego back in place by reminding myself of how many IQ tests I was subjected to because no one could guess that I, a short, skinny, young girl from a farm, could always earn the best test scores at a school populated by the sons and daughters of professors, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and business owners and such.

A person can be intelligent, I know, but that does not always amount to wisdom, don't you think, especially if they have some bias they are holding close to their hearts.

I've read Ecclesiastes, studied the commentaries in regard to it in detail, in fact. Though it's doubtful Solomon wrote it, there is a reason people thought he did. I do have a reasoned belief about what makes wisdom.

So, I'll just fall back on my early assessment of the people involved in this ineptitude and bias as being somehow two sides of the same coin.

I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.

The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility, the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.

Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has great Road Runner-like instincts :)

Catapulta https://www.youtube.com/wat...

PT and all,

A report appeared yesterday on the ‘True Pundit’ site entitled ‘Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist’s Lawsuit Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ’s Big Splash Appears Fabricated.’

(See https://truepundit.com/muel... .)

According to the report:

‘‘George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb’s suit appeared in the Justice Department’s indictment. Beyond strange.

‘Mueller swiped Webb’s hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them — almost word for word – and made the exact allegations against Russian operatives.’

The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.

The complaint by Sweigert is at https://www.classaction.org... .

A record to the proceedings to date is at https://www.pacermonitor.co... .

It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the ‘True Pundit’ report and the material presented by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine ‘fake news’, or some combination of both.

I would be most interested in what others make of this.

Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017https://squawker.org/all/st...

Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018

"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family... for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"

www.c-span.org/video/?c4733...

In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.

The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems fundraiser site; actblue.com. The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another example of significant repeat language.

Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for both.

Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.

It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a speedy trial!!!

From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial. Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review. I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?

Moreover, the Russian company that filed for discovery didn't even exist when the alleged crimes took place. Mueller and Co. indicted a company that only later came into existence. How sloppy can you get? It's as bad as claiming that Wikileaks published only 20,000 emails! Who is in charge of this careless investigation?

Thank you.

I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.

However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.

Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.

I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.

It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place he's been all along.

I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks and weeks.

I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack. They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.

There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in our lifetimes.

My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some answers.

I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.

If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior to order them to front up and demand their day in court?

Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this. A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.

Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.

Pretty big risk that his confidence is misplaced.

yes

I watched Peter Strzok before Congress for what seemed for ever and wished I hadn't. His stonewalling was so effective it was time wasted. Then I saw a brief clip of Trey Gowdy and Rosenstein. Not, I thought, time wasted.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Strzok's demeanor reminded me of the CEO who defended his price gouging. https://tytnetwork.com/2015...
I'm not a fan of false contriteness but I found that weird smile disturbing.

I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly, of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate ) https://www.zerohedge.com/n...

So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress controlled by the other party. Is this correct?

How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a direct attack at Rosenstein.

The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?

My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.

No trial, no disputing the narrative. Purely propaganda. Although that completely backfire previously.

Beyond that, I admittedly found this domain name interesting. Russians seem to have a lot of humor.

linuxkrnl.net

I agree. But Tump has?

PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion" agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind circus.

Putin never do that.

He knows that trying to manipulate Trump in that manner would infuriate him and more likely than not, blow up in his face. I don't see Putin as that reckless.

Trump is so emotional and has such a visceral need to be in control that he would very likely divulge the threat, and turn it around to go on a rampage against CNN, the Democrats, etc, 'see what happens when you go on a fake news witch hunt!'. Trump would then go completely psycho against Russia with the full support of the Russian hating Foreign Policy Establishment.

Putin doesn't take cheap short cuts. That's why he beats our evil foreign policy establishment, 100% of the time.

Chris Chuba,
If Crimea was at risk? I generally disagree with what you say. If Putin played that card, Trump wouldn't be there to do all those things that you predict. He'd be promptly impeached. Anything he said would be used as evidence of his dishonesty and insanity.

Spot on. The DOJ has just provided the best kompromat on Trump (regardless of any factual basis to it) that Putin could ever hope for.

Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions, but this one seemed reasonable.

My guess is the nature of Trump and Putin make any such play a nonstarter. I'm not sure Trump is blackmailable under any circumstances and Putin has spent decades crafting a reputation for prudence, straight dealing and reliability.

In any case, wouldn't it potentially risk snatching defeat from looming victory? Seems to me the mere fact that Trump feels confident enough to invite this summit tells us most of what we need to know about who's on top and who isn't in the internal US power struggle.

I don't know enough about either man and I'd say the internal power struggle is fluid. My guess is that Putin wouldn't play that card. It appears to be nuclear option, as they say. IMO, It at least limits Trump asking for the moon and weighs as a general caution in all things. It also draws Trump and Putin closer in some ways and keeps them apart in others. The extent of Trump's smarts and balls is the ultimate factor in this. IMO, Trump was looking for a final challenge and this is it. It will be his ultimate test. Trump has more on the line than Putin and that gives more juice to the nuclear option.

If much of the west wasn't quite so beset by paranoia and extreme partisanship, US and Russian interests would be largely complementary. I think Trump well understands this. My guess is he's fairly relaxed about this meeting with the main concern being fashioning a result that won't stir up the harpies back home too much. IMO, Putin is fully aware of this and will do what he can.

But the Russian Foreign Ministry has already denied that any of the names on the list is or has been a member of GRU.

seesee2468,
Of course he did! The lying sneaking Ruskie! The media chorus sounds as ONE when it comes to Russia and the song is not nice. The Borg is impervious to logic and facts. Our voices howling in the wilderness trouble it not.

Few observations and questions:

1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story. In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free, politically beneficial indictment?

In regard to your point 4, isn't that required by Mueller's job description in his appointment? He was, after all, appointed as an investigator, not as a prosecutor.

Mueller is prosecuting Manafort, Gen. Flynn and the Russian trolls in court. This case of the Russian intelligence agents has been handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution. Is it so that it can be buried? This is the same DOJ division that is at the center of the FISA abuse allegations.

Crowdstrike is the weak link in all this. A recap of their next op - trying to pin another hack on the Russians that failed badly -

https://medium.com/@REEL_IC...

For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?

I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.

I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.

The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury Dept. attempts to block any funding.

Unfortunately, we don't know how many of the accusations against Putin are true (my belief is not many, but I have no evidence), so we cannot make reasonable guesses as to what he really thinks his best course of action is.

Desperation. Fair bet the MSM starts calling Trump's summit with Putin treason by the end of next week.

Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment "proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.

One can only imagine the reaction if Trump were to announce US curtailing support of planned Nato maneuvers on the "eastern front".

Also regarding the indictment itself Mueller has an indefensible position.

He claims to know what terms the GRU officers searched for in Summer 2016. He was appointed sometime in 2017, so he's talking about acts in the past.

How could he know?

He has either; a spy in the GRU, who he's just outed and possibly killed. Or he's hacked the GRU, which is ironic in the circumstances. Or he has used the product of a huge scale surveillance operation on everyone on the planet with a database of all searches by everyone ever. Or he plain lied.

He cannot admit to any one of those in court. So if the GRU say "Bring it", what can he do? He's already running from the Concord indictment, so I suspect these new Russians are intended as a replacement show-trial by media.

The timing is obviously suspect with the Trump-Putin meeting. Even more so when one considers that *all* of this information was in the Republican Nunes memo, although the key sections have been redacted (... by the DOJ...).

Regarding DCLeaks please see: https://twitter.com/HisBlak...

It can be traced back, not to 8th June as stated above, but to 2012, maybe 2010, and with Electionleaks[.]com registered to Ronald Vanyur of Huntington Beach California. The most recent mailserver addition leads back to Darrell Hubbard, also of California (now in Switzerland).

The server and metadata from the logo image date the creation of the site as we know it to 19th April 2016.

Also note there's nothing damaging to HRC on DCLeaks.

Regarding Guccifer2.0 please see: https://twitter.com/HisBlak...

The first documents were undisputedly altered to include Russian themes, and very specifically timezones. Unfortunately for Mueller they discredit his claims. Both "hacker units" of the GRU are in Moscow (GMT+3), but the documents have been altered to exclude the possibility of a Romainian hacker (also GMT+3) by making one of them GMT+4.

Again there's nothing damaging to HRC on Guccifer2.0's site. Remarkable considering the wealth of material that apparently "he chose to share" with Wikileaks.

The conclusion is the only genuine leak/hack was the Wikileaks one. The others were done after the fact to control the narrative: HRC is a strong woman in a white pantsuit cruelly abused by misogynist Putin.

"Mueller’s Politicized Indictment of Twelve Russian Intelligence Officers"
By Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 2018-07-16

What there will be, though, is a new international order in which
nation-states are encouraged to file criminal charges against each
other’s officials for actions deemed to be provocative (or, more
accurately, actions that can be exploited for domestic political
purposes).
Of all government officials in the world,
American officials are the most active on the global stage — and that includes meddling in other countries’ elections.
I doubt our diplomats, intelligence operatives, elected officials, and citizens will much like living in the world Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein have given us.
If the idea was to give Vladimir Putin and his thug regime a new way to sabotage the
United States, nice work.

Sounds like a good point, and one the MSM seems to have totally ignored.

PT, regarding your questions
"How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers",
"what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?",
I believe the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:

"The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S."
By Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger and Scott Shane
New York Times, 2016-12-13.

It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015,
the FBI tried strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia,
but the DNC, remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.

Here's how the article begins:

When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network,
he was transferred, naturally [sic!], to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming.
At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised
by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,”
a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well:
The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.

BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.

Keith et al,

The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.

The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.

The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such intelligence information in future indictments.