NBC’s Broken Story about Mueller Charging the DNC Hackers

NBC has a BROKEN story reporting that Robert Mueller is contemplating charges against the people who carried out the hack of the DNC (and other targets) in 2016.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is assembling a case for criminal charges against Russians who carried out the hacking and leaking of private information designed to hurt Democrats in the 2016 election, multiple current and former government officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

Much like the indictment Mueller filed last month charging a different group of Russians in a social media trolling and illegal-ad-buying scheme, the possible new charges are expected to rely heavily on secret intelligence gathered by the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), several of the officials say.

Mueller’s consideration of charges accusing Russians in the hacking case has not been reported previously. Sources say he has long had sufficient evidence to make a case, but strategic issues could dictate the timing. Potential charges include violations of statutes on conspiracy, election law as well as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. One U.S. official briefed on the matter said the charges are not imminent, but other knowledgeable sources said they are expected in the next few weeks or months. It’s also possible Mueller opts not to move forward because of concerns about exposing intelligence or other reasons — or that he files the indictment under seal, so the public doesn’t see it initially.

As they have frequently of late, they misunderstand the story they’re telling. They misunderstand this sentence, entirely.

Mueller’s consideration of charges accusing Russians in the hacking case has not been reported previously.

It’s not news, at all, that DOJ was considering charges against those who carried out the hack. Nor is it news that DOJ had enough evidence to charge people in it.

Here’s what WSJ reported on those two topics in November, almost exactly four months ago.

The Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers and swiping sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election, according to people familiar with the investigation.

Prosecutors and agents have assembled evidence to charge the Russian officials and could bring a case next year, these people said. Discussions about the case are in the early stages, they said.

[snip]

The pinpointing of particular Russian military and intelligence hackers highlights the exhaustive nature of the government’s probe. It also suggests the eagerness of some federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to file charges against those responsible, even if the result is naming the alleged perpetrators publicly and making it difficult for them to travel, rather than incarcerating them. Arresting Russian operatives is highly unlikely, people familiar with the probe said.

So: not news that DOJ had pinpointed Russians responsible, not news they were planning on charges “next year” last year, which would mean, “this year” this year.

What is news is that this reporting from the WSJ report is no longer operative.

Federal prosecutors and federal agents working in Washington, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia have been collaborating on the DNC investigation. The inquiry is being conducted separately from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and any possible collusion by President Donald Trump’s associates.

[snip]

The Justice Department and FBI investigation into the DNC hack had been under way for nearly a year, by prosecutors and agents with cyber expertise, before Mr. Mueller was appointed in May. Rather than take over the relatively technical cyber investigation, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department agreed that it would be better for the original prosecutors and agents to retain that aspect of the case, the people familiar with the Justice Department-FBI probe said. [my emphasis]

Mind you, we’ve since learned that Ryan Dickey got added to Mueller’s team … oh, in November. And contrary to what NBC says about the heavy reliance, in the Internet Research Agency indictment, “on secret intelligence gathered by the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” it really wasn’t all that sophisticated from a cybersecurity standpoint. Especially not once you consider the interesting forensics on it (aside from IDing the IRA’s VPNs) would have come from Facebook and Twitter.

You don’t need Dickey’s talents for the IRA indictment. You need him for something that is technical.

I’ll leave it for you to consider what it means that Mueller subsumed this part of the investigation even as WSJ was reporting he wasn’t going to do that. I’ll leave you to consider, too, what it means that they brought in a prosecutor with the ability to try these things.

But understand that the news here is not that DOJ is contemplating indicting the people behind the DNC hack. WSJ already scooped that story. It’s that Mueller, not prosecutors in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia, are going to charge it.

image_print
74 replies
  1. SpaceLifeForm says:

    “multiple current and former government officials familiar with the matter tell NBC News.”

    Is this story a leak op?

    Maybe intentional?

    Or is NBCnews speculating?

  2. pseudonymous in nc says:

    I’ll leave it for you to consider what it means that Mueller subsumed this part of the investigation even as WSJ was reporting he wasn’t going to do that. 

    Goes without saying. What would be unexpectedly interesting is if there are any overlaps between the troll factory and the APTs, especially in terms of dissemination and amplification.

      • pseudonymous in nc says:

        Pivot points is probably a better analogy. There are insights into the APTs (both forensic and via the disclosed Dutch counterhack) and into the troll factory (given the hints in the indictment) but the way that hacks were transformed into leaks or provided the apparent foreknowledge of future leaks remains pretty murky. The “Guccifer 2.0” tag is entirely appropriate.

        So “unexpectedly” might be the wrong adverb. The troll-factory indictment is focused on Facebook activity and stunt-events and a kind of democracy trolling. By comparison, the weaponization of hacks — things like the DCCC material from Florida that you continue to mention in spite of it getting little attention — seems less trolly and suggests a more sophisticated engagement with partisan politics. That could be a wing of the troll factory, or a different dissemination network working with US-based partisans, or something else.

        tl;dr: the hacks and the leaks are separate activities and if there are charges for both, the leakers may be more interesting for the wider case.

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Hacks and Leaks separate?

          You may want to reconsider that thought.

          Read the link and spot the timeframe I have intentionally left out. Because it is that informative, and the context is important.

          The dates will surprise.

          https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vvk83b/moonlight-maze-turla-link

          “… US lawmakers learned about it in a classified hearing, and someone leaked it to reporters—tipping off the attackers and bringing the activity on his server to an abrupt halt.”

          “… The company’s name got exposed in a government document that was poorly redacted.”

          “… he never would have known the nature of what the hackers were doing, since the feds shared little information with him.”

          “… set up tasks to tell their malware what to do, which got populated out to all the infected machines on DoD and government networks that they controlled.”

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    OMG. Are you implying that the perpetrators of the hack of the DNC (and others) in 2016 are somehow related to Bob Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and their aiding the Trump campaign? If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer! :-)

  4. Avattoir says:

    PottyM#1 tweeting of “increasing” worry that We The Peeps get stuck with the deed to 666 5th Ave in some Jarviction forfeiture proceeding.

    OTOH, it’s a convenient address for the housing of government agency offices, and could be called the Midtown Kush.

  5. orionATL says:

    “… I’ll leave it for you to consider what it means that Mueller subsumed this part of the investigation even as WSJ was reporting he wasn’t going to do that. I’ll leave you to consider, too, what it means that they brought in a prosecutor with the ability to try these things…. ”

    well, o.k., i’ll speculate.

    mueller considers it very important politically, as a matter of survival, that the american media and citizenry see that he, i. e., the office of special prosecutor, is the one that prosecutes russians for the russian government’s interference in american national elections (senatorial and presidential). this is the big headline issue, the issue that ordinary citizens can make sense of. trump stays out of those headlines; “partisanship” claims are discredited. but there remains the issue running in the background of trump refusing to punish the russians and being viewed as unduly cozybl with czar vlad.

    if there was an agreement between mueller and doj in november that doj do the prosecuting, while at the same time (november) mueller added a prosecutor to his team with expertise in cyber criminality (ryan dickey), then the agreement was short-lived or it was just a smokescreen.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Occam might have a simpler suggestion.  Those who hacked the DNC in 2016 were part of a larger campaign, orchestrated by Russia, to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race to become President of the United States.

      Prosecution of those hackers now becomes part of and proof for the larger conspiracy to defraud the United States.

      Mueller consolidated their prosecution into his larger investigation – presumably with Rosenstein’s approval – to protect sources and methods, to protect witnesses and evidence, to control the release of information, to manage who, for what and when he indicts, and to control the strategy for and the prosecution of their trials and appeals.  His aim would be to ensnare the biggest fish he finds in a very dirty pond.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Not being a fan of coincidences, I suspect that Vlad had some of this in mind when he chatted up the world’s press about his new, big swinging nukes.  Those he intended to send a message to got it.  Good time to be gutting the ranks of experienced American diplomats.

        • orionATL says:

          personally, in suspect putin is largely bluffing in response to trumps threats. maybe incremental improvements. the russian gov has not put a lot of money into armaments of late. of coarse they could specialize in substantial improvements of nukes, but that has not been their general pattern with armaments. they broke, bro!

        • lefty665 says:

          “I suspect that Vlad had some of this in mind when he chatted up the world’s press about his new, big swinging nukes.”

          It’s also worth remembering that he’s in a re-election campaign. A little saber rattling by an incumbent rarely hurts the polling numbers. Might come under the heading of a twofer.

      • orionATL says:

        “… earlofhuntingdonsays:

        March 1, 2018 at 11:34 pm

        Occam might have a simpler suggestion.  Those who hacked the DNC in 2016 were part of a larger campaign, orchestrated by Russia, to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race to become President of the United States… ”

        i don’t see that occam applies to my comment or your; neither is more parsimonious than the other; they are just speculations with different foci.

        i don’t doubt for a minute that putin intended, from 2014 or 2015, to focus on defeating clinton. he recognized her as extremely competent and extremely tough with respect to american interests in matters of foreign affairs. that’s the last quality hexwanted in an ameri an president. he wanted a compromised marshmalllowxand he got one.

        i am suggesting a political motive for mueller’s decision re trying the russia gov’s operatives without any mention of trump for the specific tactical purpose of mitigating partisan criticism of the office of special council’s work. my suggestion is no less parsimonious; it just is a different guess at mueller’s motives.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I’m suggesting a simpler explanation is that Mueller needs to control the different strands of a complex investigation, to protect each and to protect the whole.

          As a related matter, if the NRA laundered money intended for or provided access for Russians to Trump’s campaign, that would be a doozy.  The NRA excoriates students who survived the shooting of 17 of their teachers and peers for advocating restrictions on the sale of the weaponry most commonly used in such murders.  Imagine the scorched earth reaction it would have if it became a target in Mueller’s investigation.

          • orionATL says:

            “… I’m suggesting a simpler explanation is that Mueller needs to control the different strands of a complex investigation, to protect each and to protect the whole…”

            occam’s razor doesn’t seem to apply.

            what i think might be mueller MOTIVE for focusing on indicting and trying the russian social media miscreants is one thing.

            what he NEEDS to control is a different matter. one idea floated here is that mueller’s overarching interest is in demonstrating various interested foreign parties defrauded the u. s. of a.

            as to motive, the politics of indictments close to trump is very dicey; indictment and trial of russian fbi and military intelligence is very remote from media and citizen interest. smart politics might suggest indictment and trial of some russian social media perpetrators first; media and citizenry have much more experience here.

            in any event it’s all just idle speculation on my part at this point.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Public interest aside, if one case is important to flip witnesses; or to document, establish or make public facts and circumstances essential to another bigger case, Mueller ought to handle it.  My point is that Mueller’s actions are as important for case management reasons as they are to managing his overall strategy.

              It’s unlikely anyone needs to remind Bob Mueller that most of these prosecutions are fraught with politics.  That was obvious before he took the job. His investigation has profoundly more implications than those involved in Watergate. To name a few, it implicates,

              The president, his campaign and administration.
              One of two major political parties, the one currently controlling the White House, both houses of Congress, and much of the judiciary.
              The American electoral system.
              Public access to and exchange of information essential to that system.
              Major institutions, including the barn-burning NRA.
              At least two large real estate empires and their families.
              America’s traditional, nuclear-armed foreign opponent, the Russians.

              • orionATL says:

                this is a parsimonious assertion of your theory? what happened to your razor?

                occam’s razor simply does not apply to a comparison of my speculation of mueller’s motive for indicting (and maybe trying, social media scammers) with your speculation of mueller’s needs, knowledge of law and politics.

                in the first place, as i have said, our theories are different. occam’s razor applies to two theories describing the same phenomena. it is applied properly when all other things are equal.

                in the second place, simplicity is not the only or the best criterion when explaning a phenomenon, e. g., speculation about mueller’s motive.

                i will add i see occam’s razor being increasingly used a lot in discussions like this. often it serves functionally as a putdown.

                in philosophy of science occam’s razor is looked at askance for being a flashy and contentious maxim, in science for ignoring the need for an adequate number of variables in a model, not the minimum number.

                  • orionATL says:

                    “…
                    earlofhuntingdonsays:

                    March 2, 2018 at 12:40 pm

                    I get the contentious part.  The rest of your argument, not so much…”

                    sarcasm is an inadequate response.

                    clearly, the word “contentious” in the context of modern logic aplies to those casually using the maxim.

                    in law, as in science, if you (earl) object to an argument that has been made, it is up to you to demonstrate why it is improper. you have not yet meet this burden of proof – mainly because, as i have said before, they are not competeing theories about the same thing.

                    • Rayne says:

                      Gentlemen. You’re arguing about arguing which is eating up valuable thread especially on tiny mobile displays. Maybe it’s time to disagree to disagree and move on.

  6. DMM says:

    “It’s that Mueller, not prosecutors in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia, are going to charge it.”

    Seems reasonable to me (not a lawyer, much less a federal prosecutor) that this was the plan all along, to fold it into Mueller’s investigation once those who had started it reached conclusions and collected evidence, rather than just snatching it right away and having to retrace/redo the effort as a younger special prosecutor looking to make a name for him/herself probably would have done.

    But that’s a layman’s take. I’m curious to see what additional context someone with Marcy’s expertise sees that lend it a deeper significance.

    • Rayne says:

      I’ve assumed since October 2016 that Comey would have to bust up and spread out some investigations because something problematic developed internally in FBI, in either DC or NYC. Investigations would be safer if not concentrated in one location, and especially not where leaks might have been happening. But like you, IANAL or prosecutor, this is just my SWAG.

      And then whenever the umbrella case — grand unified theory of ConFraudUS — was developed and successfully underway care of Team Mueller, the disparate investigative efforts could be brought back under the umbrella.

      Looking forward to seeing Firtash-related investigative efforts also roll up under the same umbrella — at least it’s my guess this will happen along the way.

      • emptywheel says:

        The Pittsburgh and SF both made sense at the start. The former is one of the best cyber teams, because of the US CERT at CMU. That’s where the Chinese PLA hackers were indicted, and I imagine they believed that’s what this would be at the start.

        SF, where the Guccifer 2.0 investigation reportedly started, often gets cases with US tech victims or platforms. So it might be a Twitter or WordPress venue thing (as well as a very good cyber team).

        I think the Philadelphia thing was really just the script kiddies who were trying to hack Guccifer 2.0 that I’ve mentioned before.

        • Rayne says:

          That each component fit so logically at each of the three locations made them less threatening as well as less likely to be compromised. Now that they are consolidated, somebody must be sweating even more though the news about Kushner’s reduced clearance level, investigation by NY-DFS, and increased scrutiny by Mueller (nice related assist by op-ed, btw) have muted the consolidated threat.

  7. John D. says:

    Curious to hear an informed take on why there seem to be exponentially more stories about what Mueller is investigating this week. Are these coming from Mueller (unlikely)? Lawyers of those interviewed? If so, is it them giving a heads-up to Trump et al of whats going on?

      • Anne says:

        Does all this press also scare off investors, foreign or domestic, in the devil’s kushy pad, 666 NY?  Wouldn’t the big-money people offer way-below market, at best, or buy it at the sheriff’s auction after kushner goes bankrupt?

        • Rugger9 says:

          I would think it does, and that means big trouble for Jared because 2019 is coming fast.  There are three things I saw in the news of interest here:

          https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/sec-dropped-probe-company-one-month-gave-kushner-family-180-million-loan/

          https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/1114239 about Ivanka’s business deal

          There is a report about Jared’s loan refusal turning into the coordinated action against Qatar last year (with the bonus link that the UAE is one of the governments interested in “leveraging” the Dauphin).  I don’t have the link at hand, sorry.

          Apparently Kelly is tasked with easing Javanka out, but I think the NYT has it wrong.  Ivanka might be tone deaf and excessively privileged (one wonders about the dynamic between Uday, Qusay and Ivanka growing up) but she is no dummy and realizes that the access is what she (and Jared) can sell, in addition to not wanting to see her hubby the Dauphin go bigly bankrupt.  She will probably thwart any Kelly ploy if she can talk to Daddy.

          https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-wants-ivanka-jared-gone

          • Trent says:

            The kaiser’s desired excommunication of Jarvanka is weird.  Not much he does makes any sense but I’d have thought he’d die trying to keep those two in the palace.

            • Avattoir says:

              Have you had the exciting, enervating experience of providing adult care to a willful aging parent?

              Massive resources get expended in extinguishing brush fires & clearing crude hazards put up evidently aimed at manipulating their own ‘kids’ (tho the immediate victims are often institutional workers).

              I don’t wish to push stories that, on further tracing, might turn out to emanate from the supposed ‘victims’ (We’re now to have a ‘sad’ for Jarhead?), but this line of stories just fits: those who seem to do the parent’s bidding without a lot of backtalk, patronizing rationalizations & ‘suddenly realized’ self-dealing often end up being rewarded – including in one or so of the flurry of late testamentary documents. Servants emerge as lovable & deserving as cabbies, kitties & cut-rate estate planners.

              • Rugger9 says:

                Been there, done that (my mother had dementia and I was her conservator / trustee), and it’s amazing what will get into someone’s head in that state and stay there.  I do have a small quibble, though: please do not refer to Jared as “jarhead” since that is one of a sailor’s favorite descriptions of a US Marine and he’s never served anyone but himself at any point in his life.

          • Anne says:

            Rugger9, thanks for sending the links.  And I had forgotten about that Qatar incident.  Talk about “hiding in plain site”, that sickens me, appalling.

            I wonder if trump would push his kids out thinking that the investigation would end (aka Comey), or because he has no compunction disassociating the now-a-liability-and-losers children…because he never gave up his ownership in his businesses.  I’ve always thought there is more to his not bequeathing his “empire”.

            Trumps businesses trump his children.

          • Anne says:

            Good.  It would be great if market forces did him in, along with Mueller, despite being a self-described brilliant businessmen.

            • Bruce Olsen says:

              Hubris will do Jar-Jar in, not market forces.

              He paid twice the going rate for 666 5th Ave at the peak of the RE market (when the lights had all begun flashing red).

              If he hadn’t been so hell-bent on becoming a big Manhattan player he’d have waited a little while and scooped it up at a more realistic price–though by then one of the genuine NYC RE players would likely have gotten the deal.

    • harpie says:

      Here’s Matthew Miller @matthewamiller on this particular NBC story, fwiw:

      Unlike previous indictments, you can see how this one would leak – it would rely heavily on intelligence info, and Mueller will have to go through the interagency process to get it declassified.

  8. Bay State Librul says:

    Kudos to Emptywheel for her NYT expose….

    Is Morning Joe next?

    Question: Do you know the WSJ writers and are they more constrained by their editors?

     

    • aubrey mcfate says:

      Damian Paletta at the Washington Post, for example, left the WSJ because of the editorial change.

  9. aubrey mcfate says:

    I’m trying to create a userid to comment; not sure if “Name” means my actual name, or preferred username.

  10. aubrey mcfate says:

    Moderator: Sorry, but I’m confused on how to offer a comment/question. On the one hand you have this “Post Comment” option that requires nothing but an e-mail address, on the other you a have a “Login” — yet no option for creating a user account if you’re not already a user. Which am I supposed to use?

  11. aubrey mcfate says:

    Hi, I was a very occasional commenter here under a different name a decade or so ago. I shared some scuttlebutt on Chris Christie on those memorable traffic ticket threads. I also had a diary on firedoglake about yelling at Donald Rumsfeld at a bus stop nine years ago last week. I just mention these because emptywheel seems to have an encyclopedic memory.

    I have a broad layman’s question about Jared Kushner. He seems to be the low-hanging fruit, politically speaking, but it seems like his indictment might trigger a pardon. What do you think the sequence of events (indictments) will be, and if he is pardoned, would Mueller be able to hold additional indictments in reserve?

     

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      “Name” is ordinarily a pen name, not your given or family name.  Many people use different e-mail addresses for public commentary or online transactions than they use for personal correspondence.

  12. aubrey mcfate says:

    Not to disparage the press, but I wanted to note that emptywheel was ahead of at least the reported stories in speculating that the Trump campaign was using code/signaling in its public statements to coordinate releases with the Russians. I forget the name of the NBC reporter last night or the night before, but she alluded to this very delicately; NBC reports were about what Trumps’ role was in wording these outbursts. She had a very serious look on her face. It seems like he’s going to bag all of them.

    Another question: can anyone speculate on Brad Parscale’s criminal exposure? He was just named 2020 campaign chairman. Is this an attempt to inoculate him politically or something?

    • Rugger9 says:

      If Mueller can link this mess to Parscale, his only hope IMHO is a pardon since the cyber attack is a pretty clear indication of election interference by a foreign power which is quite illegal.  The OSC has already indicted several Russians for this.

      • Bob In Portland says:

        Gee, what organization of what country has been interfering with elections all over the world since the late forties? If you were investigating interference with our elections wouldn’t you start there?

        There are some things that people don’t want to see. And other things that people are paid not to see.

  13. orionATL says:

    [email protected]:52pm

    yeah. i never understood what you meant about mobile displays until earlier this week when i was using my cellphone internet at an institutional hotspot. a good half of emptywheel was legible only as the first few letters of each sentence.

    despite having had and related that insight, i’m not sure technology should set the limit on our conversations. that seems a bit in-human to this codger – putting the machines in the drivers’ seats.

    • Rayne says:

      It’s a bit inhuman, but then inhumans designed this technology. We’ll have to be more efficient.

      Making a new comment to bust the ziggurat helps — just as you did — since we’re on something new off the topic.

      So does restricting arguments to arguing points with citation-supported facts versus lobbing ironic brick bats and sarcastic stones.

      As you were, dear codger.

      • orionATL says:

        “… It’s a bit inhuman, but then inhumans designed this technology. We’ll have to be more efficient…”

        yes we did design it – another composite blessing and curse, the product of our our remarkable intellect plus our need (scientists and engineers included) for gathering in social groups.

        recommendation:

        notify all cellphone readers they best put their phones on “desktop” and then find the magnifying glass w/light app and install it :)

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Once the threadlevel hits 8, no good.
      And that assumes landscape mode.

      Best everyone can do is start a new thread and make a note as to which post they are following up on. (who, timestamp, topic)

  14. rs says:

    But understand that the news here is not that DOJ is contemplating indicting the people behind the DNC hack. WSJ already scooped that story. It’s that Mueller, not prosecutors in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia, are going to charge it.

    That’s precisely what NBC said the news was — that Mueller would bring charges.

    Appreciate many of your thoughts on the Russia investigation, but you seem to go out of your way to try to make other people seem clueless or stupid when it’s not really warranted and doesn’t really add anything to your commentary.

  15. Bob In Portland says:

    I presume all of you were happy with Mueller’s work in getting to the bottom of 9/11 without seeing the House of Saud or the CIA. What outstanding work! And remember when he prosecuted Noriega. He never noticed how the CIA used Panama for drug smuggling and gun running during Iran-contra. And money laundering!

    Some of you here may have missed a pattern here of what he finds and doesn’t find when he investigates. If you were a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area in the eighties and nineties you may have heard about the “drug tug” case, full of CIA connections that Mueller missed. As a younger federal prosecutor he denied Patty Hearst’s parole. Guess what he missed there?

    How long has this been going on? Well, when he was an aide de camp in Vietnam for a general in charge of one of the sectors never discovered the CIA’s Phoenix Program there. So at least we know he’s consistent.

    In short, Mueller is put in charge of investigations for the express purpose of not finding the CIA’s fingerprints. And guess what he won’t find in this investigation?

    I’m guessing everyone here has never heard of the CIA either? Well, I’m sure you’ll all get your merit badges.

    By the way, is he still maintaining that the Russians hacked the DNC computers via the internet? Has anyone here ever heard of William Binney?

Comments are closed.