What is it with CrowdStrike?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

CrowdStrike, The DNC's Security Firm, Was Under Contract ...

CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike’s “period of performance” on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike’s findings regarding the DNC server breach — which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor Megyn Kelly — were issued in June 2016, when the contract was still active.

Some may believe this is all old news. It may be years old, however, it remains unsolved. With a new Biden administration, it is important that many, many of those old players are now part of the Biden presidential operation, especially Susan Rice and the others that did unmasking. Beware of what comes.

Meanwhile… when governments collude… especially intelligence agencies and operatives…

Real Clear Politics published in May of 2020 the following:

CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, privately acknowledged more than two years ago that it had no evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry’s admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI’s probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.

And the Crowdstrike CEO is proud of the work his company does with the FBI. Going back further, it is noted: Attorney Andrew Bagley has been employed by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike since January 2015; this company was involved deeply in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hacking debacle. In 2010, Bagley served as a visiting researcher at the Link Campus University in Rome; while there, his résumé notes that Bagley, “Conducted research and held discussions with Italian and American prosecutors, special agents, and intelligence officials about intelligence analysis, national security, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism policy.”


According to Bagley’s online résumé, he served as the E-Discovery Technical Advisor to the FBI, conducting legal research, advising on technical issues, and drafting policy for the Discovery Coordination and Policy Unit within the FBI, from 2012 to 2015.

In its capacity as attorney for the DNC, Perkins Coie – through another of its partners, Michael Sussman – is also the law firm that retained CrowdStrike, the cyber security outfit, upon learning in April 2016 that the DNC’s servers had been hacked.

Interesting: Despite the patent importance of the physical server system to the FBI and Intelligence-Community investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the Bureau never examined the DNC servers. Evidently, the DNC declined to cooperate to that degree, and the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue a subpoena to demand that the servers be turned over (just like the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue subpoenas to demand the surrender of critical physical evidence in the Clinton e-mails investigation).

Instead, the conclusion that Russia is responsible for the invasion of the DNC servers rests on the forensic analysis conducted by CrowdStrike. Rather than do its own investigation, the FBI relied on a contractor retained by the DNC’s lawyers.

Link International - Link Campus University of Rome

Link University, Rome

As Senator Lindsey Graham published the now declassified documents/testimonies on RussiaGate, CrowdStrike comes into view again. Why? Well, the FBI has a long and comprehensive history with the Link Campus in Rome and now we learn more about Joseph Mifsud. He was on staff at the Link Campus in Italy. Remember how AG Barr flew to Italy for some one on one interviews? Those he interviewed remain unknown. Could AG Barr have met with Vincenzo Scotti or maybe even Mifsud himself? As for Link Campus University, Italy: Mifsud, Scotti, and Frattini were all employed by this Italian university. ‘Enzo’ Scotti is Scotti is an Italian politician and member of Christian Democracy. He was Minister of the Interior and Minister of Foreign Affairs. And it could be that Mifsud is hiding in Russia….just a suggestion.

As intelligence expert Chris Blackburn notes on Twitter, leafing through the minutes, “the FBI knew that Joseph Mifsud was working with Italian intelligence figures-trainers at the Link Campus in Rome. Because the FBI worked there, too. Of course, Mueller didn’t want to include it in his report.” Nothing but “Russian agent”, then. As RealClearInvestigations points out, after Mifsud was identified as the man who would talk to Papadopoulos, Mueller’s team described him as someone with important Russian contacts. This description of the Maltese lecturer, however, ignored Mifsud’s own ties to Western governments, politicians, and institutions, including the CIA, FBI, and British intelligence services. It’s really curious that, despite Mifsud’s central role in the investigation, the FBI conducted only a brief interview with him in an atrium of a Washington, D.C., hotel in February 2017. Mueller’s team later claimed that Mifsud provided false statements to FBI agents but did not charge him as happened with Papadopoulos. How could he be a Russian agent? And if he did, why wasn’t he questioned?

Then there is CrowdStrike and Ukraine, or is there?

FILE – CrowdStrike co-founder and CTO Dmitri Alperovitch speaks during the Reuters Media and Technology Summit in New York, June 11, 2012.

After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by “Fancy Bear,” a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.

CrowdStrike’s claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.

On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.

The company removed language that said Ukraine’s artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.

The original CrowdStrike report was dated Dec. 22, 2016, and the updated report was dated March 23, 2017.

The company also removed language saying Ukraine’s howitzers suffered “the highest percentage of loss of any … artillery pieces in Ukraine’s arsenal.”

Just a few months ago, in fact, in June of 2020, CrowdStrike on their website apparently felt compelled to put forth the following detail for reasons that may be coming clear.
June 5, 2020 UPDATE

Blog update following the release of the testimony by Shawn Henry, CSO, and President of CrowdStrike Services, before the House Intelligence Committee that was recently declassified.

What was CrowdStrike’s role in investigating the hack of the DNC?

CrowdStrike was contacted on April 30, 2016, to respond to a suspected breach. We began our work with the DNC on May 1, 2016, collecting intelligence and analyzing the breach. After conducting this analysis and identifying the adversaries on the network, on June 10, 2016, we initiated a coordinated remediation event to ensure the intruders were removed and could not regain access. That remediation process lasted approximately 2-3 days and was completed on June 13, 2016.

Why did the DNC contact CrowdStrike?

The DNC contacted CrowdStrike to respond to a suspected cyber attack impacting its network. The DNC was first alerted to the hack by the FBI in September 2015. According to testimony by DNC IT contractor Yared Tamene Wolde-Yohannes, the FBI attributed the breach to the Russian Government in September 2015 (page 7).

Why did the DNC hire CrowdStrike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack?

The FBI doesn’t perform incident response or network remediation services when organizations need to get back to business after a breach.

CrowdStrike is a leader in protecting customers around the world from cyber threats. It is common for organizations to hire third-party industry experts, like CrowdStrike, to investigate and remediate cyber-attacks when they suspect a breach even if they are collaborating with law enforcement. As John Carlin, former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at The Department of Justice testified before the House Intelligence Committee (cited from page 21 of his testimony):

“A lot of — outside of any political organization, companies, most corporations, they often would use these third party contractors, who they hired through their own counsel, and maximize the control from the point of view of the victim.”

What the heck is going on here for real? Outside of this little website of mine, is anyone else going deeper and seeking truths when it comes to CrowdStrike, Perkins Coie, Link University, and the FBI… much less the all things DNC?

Other key citations for reference include:





Chinese Communist Party is “Inside the Gates”

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

In part from Breitbart:

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo warned lawmakers that the threat from the Chinese Communist Party is “inside the gates” during a meeting with House Republican lawmakers on Friday.

Pompeo told members of the conservative Republican Study Committee that as a former lawmaker, he is aware of the threat posed by China but that he did not appreciate “the scope and the scale and the nature” of how close the threat is until he became Central Intelligence Agency director.

This CCP infection inside the United States goes beyond Senator Feinstein, Congressman Eric Swalwell, former California Senator, Barbara Boxer or even closing the Chinese embassy in Houston. There is the Thousand Talents Program that has wormed its way through academia and the Confucius Institutes.

How about a little known Florida congresswoman, Stephanie Murphy (D-FL)? She is quite dedicated to China due in part to her husband Sean and his manufacturing company, 3N2. His company produces sports equipment/apparel in China. Further, she advocates for all the democrat policy points including open-border policies and more studies into “gun-violence”. Crazy enough, Murphy actually joined a small group of Democrats in calling to remove tariffs on the Chinese government.

None of this is actually new when it comes to Stephanie Murphy, in fact, it goes back as far as 2017. Did anyone notice?

When you are on social media, do you actually work hard to determine if you are being trolled by some foreign entity? We are quite aware of Russian disinformation but going back years, at least to 2016 (interesting year), China’s own troll farm has been just as successful in the social media sphere and you are likely a victim. DC politicians are just as likely to be willing accomplices.

There is or was a Chinese operation called the 50-centers and you probably clicked on a lot of their social media posts.

The Left-leaning policy organization Foreign Policy published the following in 2016.

A May 17 paper written by professors at Harvard, Stanford, and the University of California, San Diego provides the most detailed and ambitious description of China’s 50-centers available to date. It confirms the existence of a “massive secret operation” in China pumping out an estimated 488 million fabricated social media posts per year, part of an effort to “regularly distract the public and change the subject” from any policy-related issues that threaten to anger citizens enough to turn them out onto the streets. But the research finds no evidence these 50-centers are, in fact, paid 50 cents, nor does it find they engage in direct and angry argument with their opponents. Instead, they are mostly bureaucrats already on the public payroll, responding to government directives at a time of heightened tension to flood social media with pro-government cheerleading.

Opinion: How Chinese paid cyber-troll farms are upending ...

Understanding the behavior of pro-government netizens is important, given the stakes. In the past two and a half years, the Chinese government has used a combination of muscle and guile to cow online opinion leaders into submission, muzzling social media as a political force, and leaching public dialogue of much of its independence. But beneath the peppy, pablum-filled surface that has resulted, Chinese social media remains a contested space. In countless online chat rooms, bulletin boards, and Weibo threads, Chinese social media roils with the same ideological debates that also increasingly consume Chinese academics and elites.

Broadly speaking, the clash pits so-called leftists — that is, conservatives and neo-Confucianists who marry stout Chinese nationalism, a yearning for reconstructed socialism, and the quest for a reversion to hierarchy and filial piety — against rightists, or reformists, who continue to espouse what a Westerner would recognize as universal values, such as civil and human rights, government transparency, and democracy and constitutionalism. It’s more common for the two camps to exchange barbs than ideas. The leftists label the rightists sellouts, turncoats, and “public intellectuals,” the latter delivered with an implicit sneer. The rightists often call the leftists “50-centers,” regardless of who really pays their bills.

What is worse is a separate issue known as the Chinese cyber-attacks. A for instance, however:

More than two dozen universities in the United States and around the world were targeted as part of an effort by the People’s Liberation Army, the Chinese military, to build up its naval and submarine forces.

iDefense, one security firm, tracked the Chinese cyberattacks to a hacking group known variously as Temp. Periscope, Leviathan, or Mudcarp. A second firm, FireEye, calls the hacking group APT40 or Temp. Periscope.

FireEye said the operations appear linked to Chinese activities in the South China Sea, where Beijing has built disputed islands and deployed advanced missiles on them beginning a year ago. The Chinese military hacker unit in charge of that region is the Chengdu-based Unit 78020.

The 27 universities included the University of Hawaii, the University of Washington, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Take caution, judge slowly. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is right.


Trevor Loudon Videos – 01/18/21

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

True Agenda of Communism: How society is being taken over by hidden forces | Counterpunch

Black Lives Matter is Actually Part of the Maoist Playbook Against America

Dyed in Red: The sinister background of “Moderate” Kamala Harris, China’s American dream president

New Virginia Majority: How China-backed American communists manipulated minority groups to vote blue | Counterpunch With Trevor Loudon

How the CCP mobilized its US networks to take down the US | Counterpunch With Trevor Loudon

Russia’s Hidden Puppet in America: What is the Council of a Livable World and who does it sponsor? | Counterpunch With Trevor Loudon

8M Phone Calls And 1M Doors Knocked, Minorities Targeted; Leader Vows To Make America Ungovernable | Counterpunch With Trevor Loudon


The Consolidation of the One-Party Dictatorship

By: Cliff Kincaid

With the centralization of the means of communication in the hands of the state, the consolidation of a one-party dictatorship in the United States is well underway. We have to quickly dispense with the notion that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, and Apple are “private” entities that can do what they want. They represent the power of the state and their conduct is therefore in violation of the First Amendment.

Big Tech companies, said conservative attorney Mark Fitzgibbons on an edition of America’s Survival TV, have assumed the role of “state actors.” This means they are doing the bidding of Congressional Democrats such as Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. Led by Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, left-wing politicians have, in effect, pressured Big Tech into “helping the government regulate political speech.”

In the Wall Street Journal article, “Save the Constitution from Big Tech,” Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld argue that, “Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.”

Ramaswamy says, “We’ve gone from a 3-branch government to one with a branch office in Silicon Valley. The right answer is to open channels of dialogue, not close them.” But massive censorship is now underway, violating the First Amendment rights of the American people.

The practice is also known as “government censorship by proxy,” in the words of the officer of a competitor, Parler, which went off-line because of actions by other Big tech companies.

But all of this begs the question: state actors on whose behalf?

On one level, liberal politicians threaten and pressure these companies to restrict “hate speech.” That’s the typical charge leveled by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center against conservatives.

On another level, the Russia-gate allegations, the kind openly made by Senator Warner, were part of the political campaign to undermine the Trump presidency. The CIA and FBI were behind their circulation to get Trump and used media outlets for their own purposes. For example, Amazon, a company with extensive links to the CIA, is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, a mouthpiece for the agency.

Amazon played a key role in forcing Parler off the Internet.

Under the watchful eye of the Deep State, it was an easy step to go from supposedly targeting the Russians for disinformation to actual censorship of Trump and his supporters. In this way, Big Tech companies became actors on behalf of the Deep State.

Remember that former intelligence officers, dominated by those associated with the CIA, issued a letter insisting that revelations in the New York Post from a Hunter Biden laptop about foreign payments to the Biden family were somehow associated with the Russian government.  This was a lie. Joe Biden cited this letter as he was running for president in an effort to dismiss the charges against his family.

In an example of how these Big Tech companies function as state actors, Facebook and Twitter restricted the distribution of the article, with Twitter claiming its ban on posting “hacked materials” was the justification for the censorship. That was a phony charge as well. Indeed, charges that the material from the laptop was hacked appear to have been CIA disinformation designed to help Biden deflect public interest away from his own foreign connections, including to China.

But the pro-China slant is not just evident in what former CIA people say and do. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has now confirmed that intelligence about China’s 2020 election interference was suppressed by current top CIA officials.

Hence, the Deep State has covered up the extent of Red China’s support for the candidate Trump called “China Joe Biden.” No wonder the American people are angry.

More relevant than ever before, America’s Survival, Inc. has released a hard-to-find copy of the 1961 House Committee on Un-American Activities analysis of the book, How Parliament can Play a Revolutionary Part in Transition to Socialism. This is a how-to-book on how communists overthrow non-communist majorities and make democracies into dictatorships.  The book outlines how a parliament or legislative body (such as the U.S. Congress) can be helpful in “transforming democratic nations” into communist countries.

Pressure on Big Tech by Democrats in Congress is one means toward this end. Big Tech suppresses stories, such as the Biden family’s ties to China, and follows up allegations of a stolen election by suppressing the voices of dissent to this unfolding catastrophe for our nation.

America is becoming a one-party socialist state, with the Republicans relegated to permanent minority status. Those looking for the Supreme Court to stop this rush into totalitarianism are going to be disappointed.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities report examines the case of the communist takeover of Guatemala, citing an analysis of where the judiciary “made one valiant attempt to protect its integrity and independence, but the communists, using their control of the legislative body, caused the Supreme Court to be absolved when it refused to give approval to a Communist contrived law.”

The national legislature “legally removed” the Supreme Court, “the only remaining restraint on the national legislature’s actions.”

Eventually, of course, an armed revolt “was required to end their [communist] rule in 1954.”

A similar thing is in the process here, with the proposals for expanding the Court to a sufficient number to outmaneuver any possible combination of “conservative” justices. Democratic Senator Ed Markey says “we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

In looking at how this could happen, the Washington Post said last October 8: “Let’s say Democrats are in a position to seriously consider this: They win the presidency, keep control of the House of Representatives and win the majority in the Senate, thus controlling the White House and all of Congress…what if Democrats start passing Biden’s agenda, and inevitable challenges by Republicans make their way to a conservative Supreme Court, which stops some of the legislation?”

The Post, sympathetic to these schemes, said Biden would need majority votes in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to approve expanding the court, just like any other piece of legislation, “though Senate Republicans could try to filibuster it.” That’s when they vote to abolish the filibuster.

If the American people revolted against the stealing of a presidential election, they will not tolerate the thieves and their allies consolidating their power by silencing voices of opposition.