Andrew Weissmann was intimately involved in some of the biggest corruption scandals in US history. Weissmann was involved in FBI activities with the mob in New York in the 1990s. He was a key member of the Enron Task Force and also was involved in the sale of 20% of US Uranium to Russia. After all of his corrupt acts, he then led the corrupt Mueller Special Counsel.
In all of these scandals, Weissmann’s actions have been consistently corrupt and abhorrent.
Attorney Sidney Powell shared the following with Joe Hoft at The Gateway Pundit about Andrew Weissmann:
The hallmark of the Department of Justice for decades has been to seek justice not convictions and if that meant letting a guilty person go free to make sure the government did it all right, then that was supposed to happen.
But Mr. Weissman, he couldn’t spell the word “ethics” despite the fact somebody actually had him teach a course in it one time, I think over in England. His mantra is ‘the end justifies the means’… he targets people, individuals. And you’re right, I had no doubt from the moment he was picked for the Mueller Special Counsel operation, that he would have filed RICO charges against President Trump and seized every asset he ever had, if there had been any way he could do that.
He’s just filled with hatred for apparently most Americans and certainly anybody affiliated with President Trump. And he’s willing to do anything to destroy them.
Attorney David Schoen shared on Weissmann:
I have said, from my personal experience at least with this case, I consider Andrew Weissmann to be the most ethically bankrupt prosecutor I have ever encountered, and that’s a pretty broad spectrum of prosecutors over the course of my career…
Roger Stone says about Weissmann:
I believe what the bible says in Hebrews 10: Vengence is served for the Lord – but there is a special place in hell for Andrew Weissmann.”
As previously reported, the Trump-Russia collusion sham that Wiessmann was running had no Russians. So Weissmann and the corrupt FBI indicted 13 Russians and 3 companies on charges of using social media accounts to influence the 2016 Election against Hillary Clinton. (There is no such crime.) One of the companies indicted showed up (to Weissmann’s horror) to court and two years later the DOJ dropped the case after it was clear that no crimes were committed.
But a few months after the indictment of the first group of Russians, Weissmann and the DOJ were back announcing another group of 11 Russians had been indicted, this time for “a computer hacking conspiracy involving gaining unauthorized access into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stealing documents from those computers, and staging releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
The majority of individuals indicted in the Mueller-Weissmann Special Counsel ended up being Russians that never were brought to trial and likely never will be because we don’t even know if they are real people.
Expert Yaacov Apelbaum posted an incredible report back in January 2019 that destroyed Weissmann and the DOJ’s story that the Russians had hacked the DNC and then funneled the emails to WikiLeaks.
Apelbaum’s first argument was this –
According to the WaPo (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack on the DNC was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek who allegedly crafted a malware called X-Agent and used it to get into the network and install keystroke loggers on several PCs. This allowed them to see what the employees were typing and take screenshots of the employees’ computer.
This is pretty detailed information, but if this was the case, then how did the DOJ learn all of these ‘details’ and use them in the indictments without the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC/HRC computers? And since when does the DOJ, an organization that only speaks the language of indictments use hearsay and 3rd parties like the British national Matt Tait (a former GCHQ collector and a connoisseur of all things related to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or any other evidence lacking chain of custody certification as a primary source for prosecution?
A second point by Apelbaum was –
… that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ wanted list were allegedly working concurrently on multiple non-related projects like interfering with the 2016 United States elections (both HRC and DNC) while at the same time they were also allegedly hacking anti-doping agencies (Images 2-3).
Above are pictures of the individuals the FBI says were working on both the DNC/HRC email hacking and the Olympic doping projects.
The same guys were allegedly working on both projects which is all but impossible.
The fact that the three had multiple concurrent high impact and high visibility project assignments is odd because this is not how typical offensive cyber intelligence teams operate. These units tend to be compartmentalized, they are assigned to a specific mission, and the taskforce stays together for the entire duration of the project.
Next Apelbaum questioned the Mueller gang’s assertion that the ‘hacker’ named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian –
Any evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian should be evaluated while keeping these points in mind:
-
He used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address, but did not use TOR. Using a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] agencies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]
-
He used the AOL email service that captured and forwarded his IP address and the same AOL email to contact various media outlets on the same day of the attack. This is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and seems like a deliberate attempt to leave traceable breadcrumbs.
-
He named his Office User account Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Dzerzhinsky), after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Devices and accounts used in offensive cyberspace operations use random names to prevent tractability and identification. Why would anyone in the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the obvious reason) is beyond comprehension.
-
He copied the original Trump opposition research document and pasted it into a new .dotm template (with an editing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the “Last Modified by” field from “Warren Flood” to “Феликс Эдмундович” and the creation of additional Russian metadata in the document. Why waste the time and effort doing this?
-
About 4 hours after creating the ‘Russian’ version of the document, he exported it to a PDF using LibreOffice 4.2 (in the process he lost/removed about 20 of the original pages). This was most likely done to show additional ‘Russian fingerprints’ in the form of broken hyperlink error messages in Russian (Images 4 and 5). Why bother with re-formatting and converting the source documents? Why not just get the raw data out in the original format ASAP?
Apelbaum next discusses Guccifer 2.0 –
In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed a person who identified himself as “Guccifer 2.0”. During their on-line chat session, the individual claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview below). His poor Romanian language skills were later used to unmask his Russian identify.
…I’m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know where to find one if my life depended on it, but I’m certain that you can’t reliably determine nationality based on someone impersonating another language or from the use of fake metadata in files. This elaborate theory also has the obvious flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence services are dumb enough to show up to an interview posing as Romanians without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian.
After providing a couple more examples of why the Russian story doesn’t stick, Apelbaum closes with this –
The bottom line is that if we want to go beyond the speculative trivia, the pseudo science, and the bombastic unverified claims, we have to ask the real tough questions, mainly: is Guccifer 2.0 even the real attacker and how did he circumvent all of the logs during several weeks of repeated visits while downloading close to 2 GB of data?
WikiLeaks stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange stated that Russias had nothing to do with the Wikileaks leak.
Weissmann and the Mueller gang never interviewed WikiLeaks in an effort to determine how they received the Clinton emails. Of course, the Mueller team could not risk WikiLeaks saying the emails were not received from Russia which would destroy their Russia hacked the DNC fairy tale.
Eventually, information held under seal by the corrupt Democrats in the House related to their interview of the head of Crowdstrike showed that Crowdstrike never concluded that the DNC was hacked by Russia and the emails obtained were sent to WikiLeaks.
It was all just another big fat lie.
SEE ALSO:
