And, as discussed in the previous article, that company, CrowdStrike, was to do the investigation pursuant to its contract with Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. So, instead of using a search warrant or some other legal process to perform a direct, hands on forensic examination of the DNC server, the FBI agreed to base its investigation on the findings of a private cybersecurity company. Q: Was there one request or multiple requests?Ī: Multiple requests at different levels and ultimately what was agreed to is that the private company would share with us what they saw. Q: Do you know why you were denied access to those servers?Ī: I don’t know for sure.
Prosecutors also said they had probable cause Stone may have committed other crimes: accessory after the fact, misprision of a felony, conspiracy, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and foreign contribution bans.Q: But is that typically the way the FBI would prefer to do the forensics or would your forensic unit rather see the servers and do the forensics themselves?Ī: We always prefer to have access hands on ourselves, if that’s possible. "Many of these affidavits contain additional evidence alleging probable cause to believe evidence will be found of violations of additional crimes." "Each affidavit submits that, based on those communications, there was probable cause to believe that evidence related to the DNC hack would be found in the specified location," they wrote. And they also indicated that WikiLeaks disseminated the hacked emails, and that Stone communicated with WikiLeaks.
Of those, 12 were signed off on by Washington’s federal district court chief judge Beryl Howell, three others were approved by other D.C.-based judges, and three more were backed by judges in New York and Florida.įourteen of the search warrants requests indicate that Stone was in touch with hackers - known by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 - and that Guccifer 2.0 ultimately claimed responsibility for the DNC hacks. Prosecutors indicated they obtained their first search warrant against Stone in August 2017, more than a year before his indictment and they obtained another 17 through February 2019. "eferences to Russia’s role played little if any role in the various probable cause determinations, which were primarily based on Stone’s communications with individuals and entities that took credit for the hacks or were disseminating the stolen materials," prosecutors wrote.
Ultimately, they argue, Stone presented no evidence "that suggests that Russia was not involved in the hack."Īnd prosecutors also emphasized that their search warrants for Stone would be valid even if his claims about the origin of the hacks were true. "Similarly, the time zone analysis is wholly consistent with the fact that the victims were in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone, rather than providing any information regarding the location of the perpetrators." "For example, allegations concerning the time stamps and the time signatures would be equally consistent with Russia intelligence officers using a thumb drive to transfer hacked materials among themselves after the hack took place," prosecutors wrote.