#DCLeaks

[rpgse7enx4]

All that glitters is not gold - The realities behind the image/story/object (a real life aspect): Political meddling in the US Elections, 2016 - By RPG.

United States of America, 2016.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton battle for a place on the US's metaphorical throne. A battle between the Democrats and Republicans.

It being the 58th quadrennial president election, it was a pretty major event that year; sparking new interests for either a "new America", or an America interested in repairing its society.

Trump wanted to bring a right-wing approach to US politics as a political candidate, advertising a campaign which was followed by masses; in the form of populist, nationalist rallies and visits to different states in hopes to convince those with power to vote.

The election was faulted, very much so in fact. December 9th 2016 gave light to a new internal controversy that exposed the inner workings of a operation to swindle the election onto one side. To thwart the potential of a win by the Democrats.

Headed by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), an thorough investigation was launched that spearheaded and identified the entity behind multiple cyber attacks; those of Russian origin.

As the CIA issued an assessment to lawmakers in the US senate, the FBI followed suit. Barrack Obama intialised a "full review" into what exactly happened, and what had caused it to happen. DNR James R. Clapper, in early 2017, testified that the campaign to swindle the election was more than just base-level hacking of email services and internal agency computer systems; making light that fake news was to blame for much of it, and that dissemination of such problem would need to be rid of to partially uncover how the operation took place.

Facebook revealed during the election that a company with Russian origin, owned by Yevgeny Prigozhin (Former leader of Wagner Group, businessman who owns "Concord Catering", Putin's chef and internal delegate to Vladimir Putin), had bought advertisements amounting to $100,000 of which 25% of the total were specifically targeting the US.

A second modus operandi of Russian involvement in the campaign swindling was from the GRU, or Russia's Main Directorate of General Staff of the Armed Forces. This was exposed when the FBI, along with a slew of other government agencies uncovered that emails of volunteers and employees of the Clinton political campaign, along with the campaign chairman John Podesta, and the hacking of computer systems of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and the DNC (Democratic National Committee). As a result of these breaches, the GRU obtained hundreds of classified documents; of which the GRU arranged leaks of damaging documented material to WikiLeaks, and under GRU alias/personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks".

You could say it was like a game of cat and mouse; the GRU having its tail chased by the FBI and the GRU always finding a way to escape and cover up. The greed of those perpetrators who wanted nothing but good for themselves and misdeed for others; hypocritical and two-faced.

RPG-7

[gwydionmisha]

A little late, doncha think?

[lima-norte]

#DCLeaks : La guerra informática Rusia vs Estados Unidos

#DCLeaks : La guerra informática Rusia vs Estados Unidos

Las oficinas europeas de Facebook, en Dublín. En Facebook y Twitter, hay huellas de los rusos en cientos o miles de cuentas falsas que publicaron mensajes en contra de Hillary Clinton — Rusia creó perfiles falsos de estadounidenses para influenciar en las elecciones » A veces los ataques internacionales comienzan con unos pocos disparos que casi no llaman la atención. Así sucedió el año pasado,…

[thelibertybeaconproject-blog]

Hacked Emails... UNITED ARAB EMIRATES...Close Relationship with D.C.

Hacked Emails… UNITED ARAB EMIRATES…Close Relationship with D.C.

HACKED EMAILS SHOW UAE BUILDING CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH D.C. THINK TANKS THAT PUSH ITS AGENDA by Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons

THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES has one of the most repressive governments in the world. The Gulf dictatorship brutally cracks down on internal dissent and enables abusive conditionsfor its massive migrant labor force. It also plays a key role in the bloody war in Yemen, running a…

[dragoni]

A deep dive into Russia’s GRU and the intelligence officers involved in helping Trump and Republicans, as ordered by Putin - “Yes I did. Yes I did”.

[professionalhackersindia]

Most Fancy Bear hacking targets weren’t warned by FBI

by Lisa Vaas

An investigation by the Associated Press has revealed that the FBI never got around to telling a majority of US officials that they’d been targeted by “Fancy Bear” Russian hackers who tried to pry open their email accounts.

At all. Whatsoever. In some cases, that includes not being contacted by the FBI even after their emails had been stolen and published online.

Working off a hit…

[ericvanderburg]

Twitter suspends Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks accounts

http://i.securitythinkingcap.com/QbyZ2b

[wuyuren5849]

George Soros's Next Target: The USA

George Soros, 90 years old,  said in his autobiography that his greatest wish was to be remembered as a philanthropist and philosopher. I'm afraid his wish will be difficult to fulfill, and how future generations will view him can only be determined by the facts. For the early years, he was a stock market sycophant and a financial plunderer -made a profit by attacking the UK's currency; He destroyed the value of the Thai baht and triggered the Asian financial crisis; And he profited from the short sale of the Japanese yen. Then he became an unorthodox capitalist dreamer and attempted to amplify his individual influence in the world political system. With his great wealth, he spreads US ideologies and values to the world through his Open Society Foundations. The organization allegedly fueled political changes in countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. It has also attempted to stir up color revolutions in multiple countries. In the last two decades, Soros, known more as the "initiator of the color revolutions" than as a Speculator, has brought the fires of the color revolutions to America. In 2015 and 2016 only, Mr. Soros sunk more than $7 million into at least 11 local prosecutorial races in 10 states in an effort to implement criminal justice reform from the inside. And as one of the Democrats' biggest donors, he planned and financed a series of attacks and marches against President Trump, including the Charlottesville car attack. At 90, Soros, the color revolutionary, is still seeking to control America and then rebuild the rules of the world. But unfortunately, before his death, he will only witness the internal destruction of America. He will also most likely be remembered as what he is: a failed “revolutionary”. Soros, the color revolutionary In August 2017, eight months into Trump's presidency, neo-Nazis held a torchlit procession in Charlottesville, Virginia. Clashes with counter-protesters ended in tragedy when a white supremacist drove a car into a crowd and killed 32-year-old Heather Heyer. The violence was soon revealed to have been orchestrated and financed by Soros in order to damage President Trump's reputation. And they said the key to the secret plot was a man called Brennan Gilmore, who filmed the car being driven into the counter-protesters. Right-wing radio host Alex Jones claimed Gilmore was paid $320,000 a year by Soros and was part of a deep-state coup to oust the president. At that point, analysts recall that “This was effectively a semi-colored revolution in the U.S.-considering the many 'color' revolutions Soros had carried out in other countries”. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term “Color Revolution”, it refers to what has now become the routine for promoting “regime change” in targeted nations. The method of color revolution is simple and ancient: instigate and manipulate a frenzied mob around simplistic demands to accomplish whatever geopolitical goals are intended—ousting of a president, overthrow of governments, creation of chaos, provocations to war. The term “color” refers to how a single color, symbol, slogan, or demand is promoted and repeated, to inflame passion and retard reason. Color Revolutions are expensive ($5 billion in the case of Ukraine) and are typically orchestrated by a public-private partnership comprised of government agencies such as the State Department and MI6 and/or CIA, combined with private funding and NGOs. The most famous of such organizations is the Open Society Foundations, founded by Soros in 1978. Soros-affiliated organizations across the world are deeply connected to various color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other political uprisings across the globe. According to a report, the totality of what is revealed in three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kyiv. Soros Foundation’s Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. Soros’ foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department. In 2004 just weeks after Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine. Anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe and around the world since the late 1980s will know that his supposedly philanthropic “democracy-building” projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990s allowed Soros the businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries’ wealth. Moreover, Soros and his foundation have made at least the following outstanding "contributions" to the color revolutions in these former Soviet countries: In 2003, the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia led to the ousting of President Shevardnadze and the election of opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili as president. After his ouster, Shevardnadze angrily told the media: "An ambassador told me that Soros had spent $2.5-3 million on the Rose Revolution campaign". In March 2005, the world was shocked by the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan, which forced President Akayev into exile. Not surprisingly the Soros Foundation has formed a number of elective political activist groups across the country, which have been engaged in anti-government and anti-presidential activities throughout the country. Of course, a shrewd businessman always has a plan B. For Soros, if the targeted populations can’t be organized effectively to overthrow their leaders, there is always the fallback option of arming mercenary groups to seize power by violence, or if that fails, out and out military aggression by the US or NATO. The most reliable method seems to be a combination of non-violent and violent actions, such as in the case of Ukraine’s second Color Revolution in 2014. A similar case was the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, where gang violence was deployed in hopes of provoking a crackdown by the state which could then be exploited for political propaganda purposes. Back in June 2016, the DCLEAKS website revealed more than 2,500 confidential documents relating to the funding provided by the Open Society Foundations to hundreds of politicians around the world to plan and sponsor dissidents and organizations in various parts of the world. Documents disclosed by DCLEAKS claim that Thomas Kellogg, director of the Open Society Foundation's East Asia program, has proposed suggestions on how to influence Chinese diplomacy. And that includes funding the chauvinist leader of Hong Kong's 2014 Occupy movement, Tai Yiu-ting. Soros, the American divider Soros's ambitions did not stop there. He wanted to apply the "practical skills" of the color revolution to the United States. Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of reducing US reliance on Regime Change wars and NATO “out-of-area deployments” as a centerpiece of foreign policy. This is unacceptable to the Soroses. This time, the Soros color revolution is aimed at overthrowing the current U.S. president. As one of the Democrats' biggest donors, Soros committed $25 million dollars to the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton. Per the standard Clinton operating procedure, this was indicative of the symbiotic relationship of favors between the billionaire and his array of political puppets across the globe. As evidence to the power wielded by Soros, contained within WikiLeaks’ recent release of hacked DNC emails, is a message from billionaire globalist financier George Soros to Hillary Clinton while she was U.S. Secretary of State, that clearly reveals Clinton as a Soros puppet and directs her to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Revealing the influence he wields within the corridors of power, Soros then provides Secretary of State Clinton with three names from which to choose. Unsurprisingly, Clinton acquiesced and chose one of the officials recommended by Soros — Miroslav Lajcak. In return, Soros has became the driving force behind the organizing of nationwide protests against the election of Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down operation. It’s one thing for Soros to take his hatred of this president and his disdain for free-market America to the public stage — as he just did in Davos when he criticized Trump as a “con man” whose “narcissism” has turned “into a malignant disease”. It’s another for Soros to slide, on the sly, his anti-American influences deep into America’s politics and culture. Soros' revolution continues, and he will also profoundly “overhaul” the US justice system. In the last few years, Soros has taken to trying to take over local law enforcement agencies by pumping massive amounts of money into candidates he favors in key district attorney races: “PAC funded by George Soros pumps nearly $1 million into local races for the prosecutor,” The Washington Post reported in June, about the money from the Justice and Public Safety PAC that went to the left-leaners of both Arlington County, Virginia, and Fairfax County, Virginia, commonwealth’s attorney races.’ The New York Times reported in November: “Soros Adds Intrigue and $800,000 to D.A. Race.” In 2015 and 2016 Mr. Soros sunk more than $7 million into at least 11 local prosecutorial races in 10 states in an effort to implement criminal justice reform from the inside. Most of the time it paid off: Of the 11 races for county district attorney examined by The Washington Times, the Soros-backed candidate won nine. In two of those contests, Republicans took themselves out of the running before the election. The district attorney’s office is one of the first local lines of defense of the Constitution and the rule of law. That means the potential for immediate progressive impact is huge — and it’s an impact that can be had without all that costly political fighting over, say, a senator’s seat, or a Supreme Court slot. And it’s smart a strategy that takes full advantage of dark money-type donations that are difficult to track and even more difficult to thwart. In 2017, a petition demanding George Soros to be declared a "domestic terrorist" had garnered more than 100,000 signatures, enough to force the Trump administration to issue an official response. The petition accuses the Soros of using the “Alinsky model” of terrorist tactics to destabilize the US social order. Saul Alinsky was a Chicago-based community organizer who wrote the infamous “Rules for Radicals,” a book meant to be a guide to aid leftists in the violent overthrow of the US government. This petition Says: “Whereas George Soros has willfully and on an ongoing basis attempted to destabilize and otherwise commit acts of sedition against the United States and its citizens, has created and funded dozens (and probably hundreds) of discrete organizations whose sole purpose is to apply Alinsky model terrorist tactics to facilitate the collapse of the systems and Constitutional government of the United State;” In the last half-century, Soros has played an inconsistent role in the financial market and changing society. He is a financial predator who has been influenced by liberal philosophy and market Darwinism. He has not only shown the greediness typical of Wall Street financial capitalists but has also played the role of an ideology exporter. However, under circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, Soros continues to make enemies everywhere for the United States, leading to its division. He claims that President Putin is a bigger threat than ISIS. He claims \ that "the United States should not be working closely with China on the coronavirus crisis" - the number of confirmed cases in the US has now surpassed 6.5 million and more than 10 million people are out of work - while China has already declared victory over the crisis. Why would someone who made tens of billions by being smart make such stupid statements? Combine that with his recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he says his interest in defeating China "goes beyond US national interests”. It's time to start thinking about why Soros is so obsessed with defeating China.

[douglaswelch]

What I’m Reading: The Mueller Report – 61 in a series – “…the evidence was sufficient to support computer-intrusion (and other) charges against GRU”… 

“In sum, the investigation established that the GRU hacked into email accounts of persons affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, as well as the computers of the DNC and DCCC. The GRU then exfiltrated data related to the 2016 election from these accounts and computers, and disseminated that data through fictitious online personas (DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0) and later through WikiLeaks. The investigation also established that the Trump Campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks releases, and that [REDACTED: Harm to Ongoing Matter] As explained in Volume I, Section V.B, infra, the evidence was sufficient to support computer-intrusion (and other) charges against GRU officers for their role in election-related hacking.” 

[professorjaykesan]

TAKING A DEEP DIVE INTO THE RUSSIAN INDICTMENT BASED ON THEIR CYBER ATTACKS

https://www.jaykesanpublications.com/

https://www.jaykesanpublications.com/jaykesan/

https://www.jaykesanpublications.com/category/commentary-on-law-and-technology/

https://www.jaykesanpublications.com/2019/06/17/taking-a-deep-dive-into-the-russian-indictment-based-on-their-cyber-attacks/

On Friday, July 13th, Robert Mueller’s special prosecution team announced an indictment of twelve Russian agents in connection with cyber attacks against us.

The indictment discusses two computer intrusion units in the Russian military. One of these units is associated with actions to publicize private data, and the other unit is associated with attempts to disrupt our election infrastructure. Both of these sets of crimes include violations of federal law – the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—the CFAA. The defendants in the indictment are charged with two violations of the CFAA: accessing a computer without authorization and obtaining information, and transmitting something that causes damage to a computer.

Information gathering was one focus of the Russian cyber intrusions.According to the indictment, Russian intelligence agencies have been deploying hackers against a variety of systems in the U.S.Arguably the most visible victim is the DNC, which experienced multiple intrusions resulting in the theft of emails and other digital information.Then, posting under names like DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, they staged releases of these documents.An unnamed organization – generally assumed to be Wikileaks – is described as working directly with Guccifer 2.0 to release the documents.

When someone wants to break into a computer system, they must find a security vulnerability.In many cases, that security vulnerability is situated right between the chair and the computer keyboard.The indictment alleges that units of the Russian military used spear phishing tactics to obtain passwords or other methods of access. Spear phishing involves sending emails by personalizing them so they appear to be from a trusted source thereby inducing the targeted individuals to reveal confidential information. Once they had access, they installed malware on the computers, including key loggers. That way, the hackers were able to record every keystroke that the user made.

When there is evidence that someone committed a crime, you want to know everyone who interacts with that evidence in the so-called chain of custody.You want the evidence to be in the same shape in court as it was when the crime was committed.An unknown hacker is hardly a reliable link in any chain of custody.When the documents were posted to Wikileaks, journalists immediately started reading them and identifying significant things.But there is no way of ensuring that the hacker didn’t plant dozens or hundreds of little lies throughout the stolen documents.

Another part of the indictment concerns interference with election infrastructure.The indictment refers to an unnamed state board of elections that was the target of a cyber attack by the defendants resulting in the theft of the personal information of about 500,000 voters.In the months following that data breach, some of the defendants also hacked into an American company that makes software to help state and local election boards verify voter registration information.The company is referred to as “Vendor 1.”Some journalists have suggested that this company might be VR Systems.

The indictment also alleges that the defendants used email addresses that resembled Vendor 1 as part of spear phishing campaigns against election officials across the country in November 2016.They used the company’s logo to make the emails seem more legitimate as coming from a company that election officials trust, but the attached Word documents contained malware.It is unknown how many of these spear phishing attempts were successful or what the hackers did when they got access.It’s possible that some of those problems were part of a hacking operation aimed at causing confusion and long lines and lowering voter turnout on election day.

But perhaps the strongest effect that we are experiencing is psychological, as the entire country is concerned about the legitimacy of our political system.

I’m Jay Kesan.

[joelhar]

How Julian Assange Conspired With RT, Wikileaks, And Russian Hackers Before The US 2016 Elections

How Julian Assange Conspired With RT, Wikileaks, And Russian Hackers Before The US 2016 Elections

This is an excellent investigative article by CNN, granting us unprecedented insight into the meetings between RT, Wikileaks, Russian hackers, Guccifer 2.0, and DCLeaks.  We do not know the relationship between Assange and these Russias and their proxies. 

It is implied but not proven that visitors to the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange stayed for years, carried information in to Assange on…

[quotablemueller]

Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations: A Summary

“Beginning in March 2016, units of the Russian Federation’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) hacked the computers and email accounts of organizations, employees, and volunteers supporting the Clinton campaign, including the email account of campaign chairman John Podesta. Starting in April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU targeted hundreds of email accounts used by Clinton campaign employees, advisors, and volunteers. In total, the GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. The GRU later released stolen Clinton Campaign and DNC documents through online personas, “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0,” and later through the organization WikiLeaks. The release of documents was designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and undermine the Clinton Campaign.”

The Mueller Report, Volume i, Chapter 3: Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations (emphasis mine)

Read the Mueller Report here

[dragoni]

Worst Jobs in America

[plusorminuscongress]

New story in Politics from Time: The Mueller Report’s Key Lessons for the Press

Scattered across the 448-page report released by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller are noteworthy findings about the extent of the Russians’ machinations, the ploys they used to insinuate themselves into the voting structure of a battleground county, and the ways in which Kremlin-tied saboteurs interacted with reporters. These disclosures contain cautions. For the social media platforms: Imposters lurk in unexpected places. For our nation’s secretaries of state: The Russians made greater inroads into our voting systems than we thought. And for the press: Some of you were the object of special Kremlin attention. The relevant Mueller passages should be seen as both a forewarning and an invitation to action.

Contrary to presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner’s pooh-poohing of the Russian intervention as “a couple Facebook ads,” the Special Counsel’s report confirms that the Kremlin’s efforts were “sweeping and systematic.” This finding comports with the one I advanced in Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President – the Russian social media messages aligned with those of the Trump campaign, focused on constituencies crucial to a Republican victory, and were sufficiently widespread to make a difference. For Russia to help the Trump campaign, no coordination was necessary.

Importantly, the “sweeping and systematic” Russian sabotage involved the theft of “hundreds of thousands of documents” as well as infiltration of social media platforms from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram to Reddit, Tumblr, and 9GAG. From cyberspace, Kremlin-tied players instigated rallies, sold merchandise, and even created a video game called Hilltendo. The lessons? In the run-up to the 2020 elections, campaign operatives should safeguard their digital musings and the social media platforms should look for interventions in any venue harboring an audience.

Like the story of the Russian social media manipulations, the extent of Russian intrusion in our electoral infrastructure went unrecognized for too long. Although in September 2017, 21 states were notified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the Russians had targeted their voting systems, not until April 2019 did the FBI and DHS report that there was related Russian research and reconnaissance in all 50 states. To that, the Mueller Report added a chronicle of Kremlin spearphishing of over 120 email accounts of Florida county election officials and of Russian insertion of “malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer.” To that tale of subversion, the Special Counsel then adds an ominous coda. The Russian saboteurs may have accessed the network of “at least one Florida county government.” Not only should any anomalies in registration or voting in that locale be scrutinized, but our news feeds should now be clogged with accounts of secretaries of state vigilantly hacker-proofing our elections. The lesson: forewarned is forearmed.

An additional take-away lurks nearby: appearance can have a reality of its own. The legitimacy of an election can be undercut without changing the outcome or mangling ballots. All that is needed is the assumption that a malign force may have done so. This dynamic comes alive in Mueller’s revelation that President-Elect Trump considered the intelligence community assessment about Russian interventions his “Achilles heel” insofar as “[E]ven if Russia had no impact on the election, people would think Russia helped him win, taking away from what he had accomplished.”

At the same time, for media outlets that have disregarded Matthew 7:5’s injunction to cast out the plank in their own eyes before focusing on the speck afflicting others, a cornea-stabbing sliver in the Special Counsel’s report indicates that Russian intelligence agents cloaked in their DCLeaks persona “gave certain reporters early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not yet become public.”

Those unnamed journalists might ask whether their hack-based stories withstand the test of time. Across the country, newsrooms should consider the possibility posited by the New York Times’ Amy Chozick that hurried and largely uncritical coverage of stolen Democratic missives may have made journalists, as Amy Chozick writes in Chasing Hillary, “puppets in Putin’s shadowy campaign.” There’s been little public evidence of the kinds of introspection that would suggest that, confronted with a similar situation in 2020, the press would respond differently.

If my argument in Cyberwar is correct, that debate matters. Evidence offered there suggests that the media’s use of the Russian-hacked private emails probably altered the electoral outcome by changing the news agenda during the Democratic convention, the weekend of the disclosure of the Access Hollywood tape, and the final four weeks of the campaign. In that closing month, coverage of the WikiLeak’d releases plausibly explains an October erosion in public confidence in Clinton’s qualification to be president.

The press, the platforms, and those safeguarding our electoral processes exist in a moment that may determine whether the words Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons in May 1935 will apply to them. “When the situation was manageable it was neglected,” he said, “and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.”

By Kathleen Hall Jamieson on April 30, 2019 at 12:45PM

[noramoya]

JOHN PODESTA, THE CHAIR OF HILLARY CLINTON’S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN,SERVED AS COUNSELOR TO PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON.

“Attorney General William P. Barr spoke to an audience of one, President Trump,and in so doing let down 329 million Americans.

After too many days, the Justice Department, on Thursday, finally released a redacted version of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings on Russian government interference in the 2016 election. It’s not hard to see why Barr dragged his feet — the report has reams of detail on Russia’s information warfare, connections with the Trump campaign and the lines Trump crossed in the name of self-preservation. It also fundamentally undermines the spin that Barr put on the report, in his March 24 letter to congressional leaders. Long before the report was released, we knew quite a lot about the Kremlin’s effort to elect Trump. Through indictments and public reporting, we’ve learned that the two camps were in regular contact, with at least 28 meetings and more than 100 contacts between the Trump campaign and transition team and Kremlin-linked figure.

We also knew that many of the president’s closest associates, including his former national security adviser, campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer and foreign policy campaign adviser, were convicted of or pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes.

The report further confirmed that Russians deployed an 80-person, multimillion-dollar digital campaign to undermine our fair and free elections by sowing division and spreading disinformation — particularly about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A troll farm with links to the Kremlin, the Internet Research Agency, reportedly, according to Mueller, used Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram to incite and amplify chaos in the most aggressive election intervention by a hostile power in U.S. history.

Russian intelligence operatives reportedly hacked Democratic Party computer networks and the email accounts of Clinton campaign volunteers and employees (including mine). Senior Russian intelligence operatives now under indictment reportedly stole hundreds of thousands of documents and published them under the cover of DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. Mueller, through indictments and his partially redacted report, confirmed that the Trump campaign communicated with WikiLeaks, and that WikiLeaks was a conduit for the Russian government.

Michael Gerson: THERE IS NO VINDICATION FOR TRUMP . Trump went out of his way to call attention to WikiLeaks.He mentioned the website 164 times — an average of more than five times per day — during the final month of the campaign, and mentioned it during all three presidential debates.

Trump tweeted about WikiLeaks at least 10 times in that same time period. At least one of those tweets came just 15 minutes after WikiLeaks messaged Donald Trump Jr. suggesting that Donald Trump promote the latest batch of hacked emails — which he promptly did.

TRUMP DIDN’T JUST WATCH THIS HAPPEN. HE ACTIVELY SUPPORTED IT, EVEN INVITING THE RUSSIANS TO STEAL CLINTON’S EMAILS.

The interactions between WikiLeaks and Trump operatives are the most heavily redacted part of the report. Nonetheless, we learned in the Mueller report that, by late summer 2016, Trump seemed to have advance warning of what WikiLeaks would be releasing, as evidenced by his conversation with then-deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates.

That’s it. That’s the ballgame right there. The Trump campaign knew that Russian intelligence hacked their political opponent, knew at least something about how stolen content would be disseminated and made the stolen materials a part of the campaign strategy.

THIS WAS AN ASSAULT ON OUR DEMOCRACY, PERPETRATED BY THE KREMLIN AND ITS CUTOUTS AND SUPPORTED BY THE, NOW, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The report explains why Trump was so determined to undermine and obstruct this investigation. Perhaps most troubling, the report completely undermines the attorney general’s spin in his March letter that “The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The report doesn’t say, “I can’t make up my mind.” Rather, Mueller lays out a devastating case against the president, but explicitly says in the introduction to the obstruction section that given the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president, it would be unfair to draw the conclusion that seems obvious from the facts that follow, because Trump wouldn’t be able to defend himself in a court of law.

Our country now faces an important question of accountability :

1- What happens when a presidential candidate teams up with a hostile foreign power to undermine an election ?

2- Do we care about potentially irreversible damage to our democratic institutions, political norms and national security?

3- Do we think an attorney general, who is acting as the president’s defense counsel rather than the top lawyer for the American people, can be trusted?

4- Do we think the dangerous precedents set here are worth looking into?

Mueller got us this far. Now it’s Congress’s turn to weigh the evidence against the president, decide what merits a response and act in the best interests of our democracy.”