The only thread that holds the DNI report together at first glance is the false testimony and fake evidence Crowdstrike and Dmitri Alperovitch provided to the FBI and other agencies involved. When you look at the evidence presented and the sources it becomes evident that the Russian hack story doesn't stand up against Crowdstrike's own facts.
By examining facts, timelines, and sources needed for the DNI report, the only conclusion is the DNI report is strictly political. Because of this Craig Murray- Julian Assange's story showing the emails were leaked is the only version of the story that stands. The facts on hand show criminality and negligence on the part of Crowdstrike, the FBI, and the DNI.
The Murray and Assange story stands on evidence many heavyweights in the Intel community are backing up their account as the only way the emails could have gotten to Wiki Leaks.
The DNI report uses of information obtained by self-identifying Ukrainian neo-nazis (Pravy Sektor members). For US Intel to offer this proof of Russian involvement is really bizarre. While heading 17 Intel agencies, the DNI was not concerned enough about Russia hacking or influencing the 2016 election to look into. Why is it that during the 10 days following the election, James Clapper knew so little about the subject?
According to the Washington Times" As recently as Nov. 17, James Clapper, the nation's top intelligence officer, told Congress his agencies "don't have good insight" into a direct link between WikiLeaks and the emails supposedly hacked by a Russian operation from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign."
But the FBI had it covered for months. James Comey, Director of the FBI is in charge of the domestic version of the CIA. According to the 2006 update of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, "the FBI's job in the streets of the United States would thus be a domestic equivalent, operating under the U.S. Constitution and quite different laws and rules, to the job of the CIA's operations officers abroad.
According to the FBI Director, "there are now 5,000 agents and 2,000 intelligence analysts" 41 in the branch.
It is our hope that open source will become an integral part of all intelligence activities (FBI) and that, at some point in the future, there may no longer be a need for a separate directorate."
With this in mind, Comey could have and should have simply phoned the NSA and received all the information he needed, chose not to. The question is why? Comey could have asked any of over 2000 analysts to look into it. Why didn't the Director of the domestic CIA request information?
"According to William Binney(former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets."
After spending time in the election spotlight this year the only way FBI Director James Comey could not know any information about the alleged hack is that he didn't want to.
The FBI report is based solely on Crowdstrike's evidence which has become a laughing stock across the cyber security industry. Cyber security professionals are standing up saying how laughable Dimitri Alperovitch's information is. For there to be any evidence of a hack, the DNI report has to use the FBI report and Crowdstrike's evidence. This includes the tool X-Agent.
X-Agent was a key proof for Crowdstrike. In the NPR interview with Judy Woodruff, Crowdstrike's CTO, Dimitri Alperovitch says the use of X-agent shows guilt as clearly as DNA results. This proof, according to him is unique to a single hacker group. Crowdstrike labeled this hacker group "Fancy Bear." Just as important is the timeline it was used in.
According to Marcy Wheeler, Crowdstrike's story of a Russian hacker falls apart on this point. Part of the problem is that Alperovitch stated his final undeniable and overwhelming proof was that it was used to target Ukrainian artillerymen throughout 2014. She argues given that timeline, the GRU, X-Agent had to be in development at least 6 months BEFORE Victor Yanukovych was ousted in a coup. Ukraine and Russia were on friendly terms.
Further, citing Jeffery Carr, X-Agent doesn't have anywhere near the functionality that Crowdstrike claims it does. Carr goes on further to say two other entities have access to X-Agent which Crowdstrike presents as unique. The first is Crowdstrike itself. The second is the Ukrainian hacking group RUH8 which self-identifies with Pravy Sektor.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).