Everyone by now has heard the “Russian hackers” conspiracy theory at least a hundred times. Anytime a Democrat fails at something, we can be sure that it wasn’t actually their fault! It was those darn Russian hackers! No one can provide any proof that they exist, but they are apparently responsible for nearly everything in history. However, it turns out that the origin point of the scandal, a cyber security team named CrowdStrike, has started to abandon their claims.
Back in June 2016, CrowdStrike was hired by the Democratic National Committee to discover who “hacked” them with a simple phishing scandal. CrowdStrike concluded that it was spies from Moscow. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the one in particular to hire CrowdStrike. Debbie was also the one behind the plan to screw Bernie Sanders and more recently was caught threatening police officers in another IT scandal.
CrowdStrike has deep ties to Atlantic Council which is a George Soros funded “think-tank”, both have a history of fomenting hatred against Russia. CrowdStrike has also made a lucrative business off demonizing Russia. While the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other intelligence agencies published a joint report stating that Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking campaign against the DNC in order to favor Trump in the election, they never offered any evidence of their own.
The entirety of the case relied on the work done by CrowdStrike, as they were the only firm to ever examine the DNC server despite orders for the DNC to turn it over to the federal government. All intelligence agencies are relying on CrowdStrike’s report, not one of them have seen the DNC servers themselves. Nor has there been any other event that supports their claim of Russian hackers, the entire conspiracy relies solely on the DNC servers being hacked. Now CrowdStrike is retracting portions of its report after taking criticism while they refuse to address Congress as well.
CrowdStrike has silently retracted parts of a December report about the Russian hacking claims. The report claimed that the illegal United States imposed government in Ukraine had been the victim of a Russian hacker group named Fancy Bear. They alleged that Fancy Bear had managed to hack into an app that aided the aiming process of their howitzers and allowed the Russian government forces to destroy 80% of their artillery. The problem with this, however, was that it wasn’t true. The information was obtained from a blog run by a pro-Putin blogger.
In fact, the Ukrainian military posted a public statement disputing the claim that it was the victim of hackers and denying it outright. It wasn’t only the Ukrainian military that disputed this either, a British think tank also issued a public statement arguing against CrowdStrike’s report. Fancy Bear is the same group of Russian hackers that CrowdStrike claim is behind the phishing e-mails that targeted the DNC. CrowdStrike even went so far as to report that Fancy Bear used the same hacking tools to hack the artillery in Ukraine as they had used to hack the DNC.
To make matters worse, CrowdStrike had cited The International Institute for Strategic Studies as the source of its claim that 80% of the howitzers in Ukraine had been destroyed. However, IISS stated that they never claimed such a thing. Trying to avoid embarrassment and evading the fact that they outright lied, CrowdStrike quietly dropped the claim of an 80 percent loss of artillery. Instead, they placed a short statement above the initial post which said that the report had been “amended due to an update from the IISS about the howitzer numbers”, which conveniently ignores the fact that they were outright making things up because it suits their narrative.
It also did not address the fact that the Ukrainian military denied being hacked at all. As cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr has said, this is a pattern for CrowdStrike and calls into question their credibility. Carr stated “It shows a pattern, that CrowdStrike’s intelligence reports were clearly a problem. They just found what they wanted to find…they didn’t stop for a moment to question it, they didn’t contact the primary source.”