As all Americans know, Hillary Clinton was given a pass on multiple crimes related to her emails by the corrupt leadership of Obama’s FBI and DOJ. Americans would really like to see Hillary and the crooks in the DOJ and FBI that let her off receive justice some day soon. Will Santa bring this in 2020?

In July of 2018 corrupt FBI Agent Peter Strzok was in front of Congress and he claimed that he didn’t remember that someone in the Intel Community told him that China had hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails. This set Rep. Louie Gohmert off and he called Strzok out for being a serial liar after Strzok’s many lies under oath.

Gohmert used to be a prosecutor and then a judge before becoming a US Representative in the House. He knows a liar when he sees one. The next day Rep. Gohmert was on Lou Dobbs on FOXNews and he explained his actions:

TRENDING: BREAKING: Multiple Injuries After Car Plows Through Crowd of Trump Supporters in Yorba Linda, California (VIDEO)

A few months after Strzok appeared in front of Congress, former CIA Station Chief, Brad Johnson, was in an interview where he claimed that China had indeed obtained Hillary Clinton’s emails and that she and others, including John Brennan, should be in jail. There were reports that up to 30 individuals were executed by the Chinese as a result of obtaining Hillary’s emails.

Rather than prosecute Hillary and prevent further leaks of her emails to China, Obama’s Deep State FBI, DOJ, CIA and State Departments made up the Russia Collusion story and used this to attack candidate and President Trump and anyone near him.

Roger Stone was one person that was indicted because he was close to Trump. His indictment related to Russians hacking the DNC and stealing Hillary’s emails. In 2019 corrupt Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not allow Stone to argue for proof that Russians hacked the DNC server, as was reported in the Mueller report. Stone claimed that if the Russians didn’t hack the DNC, his case would be dismissed, but Judge Jackson wouldn’t let him bring this up.

We reported on May 11, 2019, that Roger Stone and his legal team requested the report from Crowdstrike, the firm connected with the Deep State who reportedly did inspect the DNC server after emails were released by WikiLeaks. This report was used by the FBI and the Mueller gang as support that the DNC was hacked by Russia. {This is the same firm that President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelinsky to look into on his famous phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian leader.)

Roger Stone is trying to get the Crowdstrike Report. https://t.co/zl7rmEz2NU — Semi-Casual Observer (@CasualSemi) May 10, 2019

Stone’s position was that if the Mueller team and the FBI did not inspect the DNC server, then how can they know that the server was hacked. This logical argument makes sense –

The chain of custody of evidence is kind of a big deal. If the FBI didn't have custody of the server, and if they never examined it, they cannot verify what happened to the data on it. https://t.co/0PmN50YAmy — Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) May 10, 2019

The Mueller team fought back against the Stone team and argued that it was not necessary to see the documents that support that Russia hacked the DNC –

If it is "so obvious" the Russian government orchestrated the email disclosures of the 2016 campaign, why are the #Mueller leftovers in the #RogerStone case asking the court to relieve them of that very obligation, saying they should "not be required to prove" that very fact? pic.twitter.com/WdfSzSsvF2 — Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) May 10, 2019

We reported for months that the entire Russia collusion delusion is a sham. To date there has been no information reported that ascertains that the DNC was hacked by the Russians. No reports to date show that the DNC server was inspected by the Mueller team and the FBI. Since this is the case, there is no way the Mueller team can claim the server was hacked.

Since there is no proof that the emails were hacked, the reports that Russians were involved in the collusion delusion evaporate. This would have destroyed the entire Russian sham make-believe case. Our reporting has been confirmed by others in the Intelligence community.

After speaking w/ my @FBI sources & a @nytimes reporter with direct knowledge of the handling of the @DNC server it's true – there was no direct examination or physically custody of the DNC server – an "image" (i.e. copy) of the server was examined only: https://t.co/yDJKCYmUQC — Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) May 12, 2019

Next we reported that NSA Whistle blower Bill Binney looked at the DNC data leaked by WikiLeaks and determined that it was definitively not hacked, it was copied to a disk or flash drive.

Former NSA employee and whistle blower, Bill Binney, reviewed the leaked emails provided online and they show that the data coming from the DNC was not hacked but rather copied to a disk or flash drive!

Binney said:

The problem with the Mueller report and the Rosenstein indictment is it’s all based on lies. I mean the fact they’re still lying about the, saying the DNC was hacked by the Russians and the Russians gave it to WikiLeaks. Well, we had some of our people and our group, the VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals, look at the data that WikiLeaks posted on the DNC data. They actually posted the DNC data… …that entire set of data was read to a thumb drive or a CD Rom then physically transported. Now this is what Kim Dotcom is saying. This is what Julian Assange basically was inferring. Others have been saying the same things.”

NSA Whistleblower and longtime intelligence analyst Bill Binney on continuation of #RussiaGate fever: "The problem with the Mueller Report & the Rosenstein indictment is it's based on lies." FULL INTERVIEW: https://t.co/qiTOpvNd2q pic.twitter.com/tDSSSg0j0H — Status Coup (@StatusCoup) June 3, 2019

It’s clear the DNC was not hacked and it’s more likely a disgruntled insider like Seth Rich copied the files to a disk drive than that the Russians hacked the DNC.

We next posted more arguments against Mueller’s assertion that the DNC was hacked by Russians. A cybersecurity expert by the name of Yaacov Apelbaum posted an incredible report earlier this year with information basically proving that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians.

Apelbaum’s first argument is this –

According to the WaPo (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack 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 is – … 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 working on both projects which is all but impossible. (Do we really know if they’re even Russians?) Apelbaum argues – 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 questions 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?

Finally, we know that WikiLeaks has stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange has stated that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.

But of course 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.

The only way a majority of Americans will ever have faith in the FBI or the DOJ is to bring the Hillary email crimes and coverup to a legitimate close. Otherwise we will continue to have a two tiered system of justice, something a majority of Americans will not allow to happen for much longer.