• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death

Kosovo and Seth Rich

Postby smix » Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:19 pm

Kosovo and Seth Rich
Times of Israel

URL: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/kosovo-and-seth-rich/
Category: Politics
Published: December 2, 2018

Description: As a Canadian, I have no dog in this race, being neither American nor Russian, but for the sake of historical accuracy, I am making the case that the blame for the lousy relations between the two superpowers falls primarily on America, not Russia, and this is a frightening fact should things somehow deteriorate into conflict. Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008 and stripped off two provinces and then went to war with the Ukraine in 2014, still not over but at a low level, and took the Crimea. On the surface it doesn’t look good for Russia. Dig deeper. The Russians didn’t make the rule that it was now permissible in Europe to strip off territory from one country and give it to another on the basis of demographics. The Americans made that rule, more specifically Bill Clinton. Who gave him the right? No one. The Russians are just playing by Clinton’s rule. Nor did the Russians set the precedent that you can commit egregious war crimes in international conflicts and pay no price for it. Clinton and his allies in NATO did that. The victims ran into the millions and many will continue to suffer for generations. The Russians may or may not have committed war crimes in their wars, but they are measly by comparison. Go back to Serbia. 1999. America launched one of the most diabolical and unjustified wars of aggression in history. Boris Yelstin was Russian leader then. He had done the impossible and ended the Soviet Union in 1991 and then liberated from foreign occupation more people than anyone else in history at a stroke of a pen. He was a far cry in character from everyone’s favorite villain, his successor Vladimir Putin. The problem for him was that while the old world had died, the new world had yet to be born, and Russia was experiencing very serious economic problems. While a large number of people were in a desperate straits, a handful of opportunists were stealing everything in sight and becoming instant billionaires. Yelstin needed peace and especially good relations with the Americans to try to get Russia back on its feet. The world needed those things too for a better future undreamed of in the dark days of the Cold War. On March 24, 1991, the Russian prime minister Yegneny Primakov was in the air flying to Washington for a meeting with Vice-President Al Gore to discuss an agreement worth $16 billion which would have cemented co-operation between the two former foes. When Primakov heard that the bombing of Serbia had started, he turned the flight around. The Americans could take the #*%!& $16 billion and shove it, he said, or words to that effect. The Russians would never trust the Americans again for a very long time. Serbia was defenceless. At best they had 20 modern warplanes worthy of the name, MiG 29s from the 1970s, but most birds could fly higher than the range of their air defence system. Yeltsin considered putting in an effective system but decided against it because he did not want war, and who is going to attack a defenceless nation? Clinton would, joined by an armada of 12 other NATO counties. Yelstin declared that this is a war of aggression and if they put boots on the ground, it’s World War 3. According to the UN, members before going to war except in self-defence must receive approval from the Security Council. None of the NATO nations asked for or received permission to bomb Serbia. The UN is a farce at the best of times, but under their rules of international law (q.v.) this was an illegal war. Rules at the UN are always for someone else, as Israel well knows. Clinton claimed he was acting on a behalf of any ally. Who was the ally? A branch of the Albanian mafia, led by one of the world’s notorious criminals, Hashim Thaci. In 11 weeks NATO planes flew 38,000 combat missions. They fired 2,300 missiles and dropped 14,000 bombs. The Serbians put the number of civilians killed at 2,000. The number of children may have ranged up to a third. The Serbians say 300 schools and libraries were destroyed, 40,000 homes, and 90 historic sites. NATO bombed a bridge while a passenger train was going over it, killing 15, injuring 44; others who may have been on the train were never accounted for. They hit another passenger train killing 55 and wounding 60. They hit a passenger bus killing 50 and wounding 13. Most of the victims were children and old people. They hit a prison repeatedly at different times. The final death count reached 100. They hit the national radio and television building in Belgrade, the capital, killing 16 and wounding 16. They dropped mercury into the Danube River and caused so many miscarriages, that doctors told all pregnant women they’d better abort. They dropped 2,000 cluster bombs which were comprised of 380,000 bomblets. Five per cent did not explode meaning 20,000 bomblets were left on the ground. They didn’t tell the Serbians where they were until 2007, if even then. Meanwhile up to that point six children had been killed and another 12 injured coming in contact with the unexploded bomblets. The Serbians were required to clear 11 million square miles of these bomblets. That was by no means the worst of it. The Americans dropped 9.5 tons of depleted uranium bombs on Serbia and Kosovo. Altogether 10 million people were exposed to radiation and the cancer rate in Serbia and Kosovo today is 2.5 times higher than in the rest of the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The UN head of mission, Bakary Kante of Senegal, who was in Serbia during the war, filed a report over the horrific consequences stretching over generations affecting both people and the environment of these weapons. Do you know what the UN brass did? They hid the report. It hasn’t been seen to this day. An American reporter named Robert Parsons, based in Switzerland, got his hands on part of the report and published it, or we may not even have heard of it. The UN was determined to hush it up and so were the Americans. Kante’s report was categorical in the assessment that future generations living on the bombarded soil will suffer from cancers such as leukemia, and the number of miscarriages and deformities of newborns would increase. Kante’s report further said that this kind of bombing, had contaminated nature in the former Yugoslavia with toxic substances among which the most dangerous is polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), highly cancerogenous and responsible for immunological diseases. The report said that one litre of PCB is enough to contaminate one billion gallons of water. Dr. Nebojsha Srbljak said in 2001 the results of these bombs have had devastating effects on health. “There is no other place in the modern world where so many people and so many young people — aged between 30 and 40 — die from cancer. Blood and lung cancer are most widespread.” The New York Times reported in 2001 that soldiers from nations which sent them to the war had begun to fall sick and die in large numbers. Marlise Simons: “Alarm bells rang first in Belgium, where nine Balkan veterans have fallen ill with cancer, five having since died. Two veterans have died of leukemia in the Netherlands, and one in Spain. France said it was treating four veterans for leukemia. In Italy, 30 veterans contracted serious illnesses, 12 of whom developed cancer. Six of the cancer patients have already died of leukemia.” A British biologist, Dr. Roger Coghill, said at a London conference that “one single particle of depleted uranium lodged in a lymph node can devastate the entire immune system.” A pertinent report released in 2014 revealed a notable increase in the number of patients with malignant tumors, according to Slobodan Cekaric, the head of the Serbian Cancer Society. Lymph node cancer incidences between 1999 and 2012 rose 80 percent, with terminal cases showing an 11 percent rise. Malignant diseases in Serbia have grown at a higher rate than in Western Europe, increasing year to year. According to expert estimates, in 2013 and 2014 alone, cancer incidences in Kosovo, rose a hefty 57 percent, he said. Slobodan Cekaric: “If this trend is maintained, Serbia will have 5,500 registered cancer patients per million residents compared to just 2,000 per million elsewhere in the world.” “Ten million Serbians were exposed to radiation during the NATO bombings and still remain so today.” Last year group of Serbians launched a suit against NATO in an attempt to obtain compensation. Srdjan Aleksic, a Serbian lawyer who leads the legal team, formed by the Serbian Royal Academy of Scientists and Artists, said: “In Serbia, 33,000 people fall sick because of this every year (many of them children.)” That’s a glance at the physical damage. More grievous, for the long run, is that Clinton sabotaged any chance of friendly relationships between the US and Russia for generations just when there was an opportunity to give peace a chance, as they used to say. Kosovo had been a Serbian province for 700 years. Clinton stripped it off and gave it to the Albanian mafia on the basis of demographics. From that point in time, the Russians took the attitude that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Their two provinces in Georgia have a majority Russian population and Crimea was part of Russia long before it got stripped into the Ukraine.in the 1950s by Nikita Khrushchev, who was from the Ukraine. Crimea includes of the port of Sevastopol with access to the Black Sea, with military and economic importance. The Americans are paying lip service to Russia returning the Crimea to the Ukraine but that will happen the day after the Likud gives east Jerusalem to the Arabs or the sun dies, whichever comes first. The Americans could return Kosovo to Serbia, correct a grievous injustice, and that would go a long way to repairing relations with Russia. It gets even worse. Once NATO’s ally, the Albanian mafia, took over Kosovo a mob fell upon the 100,000 Gypsies living there, burning their homes or driving them out, murdering some, raping women, dispossessing them of all of their property, including their cars. The British set up a camp for them on a toxic dump, left them there without access to fresh water, and walked away. They all got sick from lead poisoning. No one for four years provided medical care. If it weren’t for volunteers coming in from elsewhere in Europe to try to help them, the UN, which took over for NATO, would have just let them all suffer or die miserable deaths without offering them even an aspirin to ease their pain. Paul Polansky, head of mission for the Society for Threatened Peoples International in Switzerland, said the UN abandoning Gypsies on toxic wasteland, which damaged the health of all and caused any number of deaths, was an act of genocide. At one point Albanian hoodlums beat up Gypsies, severely injuring some children. The UN would not take these children to the hospital. Not NATO nor anyone else made any attempt to obtain for these people compensation for the property stolen from them, damage to their health, deaths, or personal losses. It gets even worse. The mafia rounded up minorities, put them in concentration camps, fed the healthiest to fatten them up, and then killed them to sell their body parts. The government had been the source of all rampant crime in Kosovo. The UN, whose agency was called UNMIK, was supposed to be providing the policing. It never arrested any member of the mafia for anything. Kosovo, now independent, floods Europe with heroin and is involved in every crime in the book. Or as Milos Zemos, president of the Czech Republic, summed it up, “Kosovo is ruled by a mafia regime financed by the trafficking in narcotics.” Clinton created a failed state and for what purpose? Unemployment runs beyond 30 per cent and street crime is rampant. This is a never-ending story. While those who run Kosovo were committing crimes against their own people during the Obama regime, who was encouraging them all the time? Obama’s ambassador. Vedat Xhymshiti: “Some citizens of the country, outraged by US ambassador Greg Delawie, whose office permanently supported politicians who are officially accused of crime involvement, had initiated an online petition to address their concern at … Obama’s office in Washington. This democratic act received an imminent threat by the country’s prime minister Isa Mustafa, describing it as an act of terrorism.” Let’s go back to the Ukraine. When the Soviet Union fell, the Ukraine possessed 1,700 nuclear warheads, third largest number in the world, They didn’t want them, but their leaders said, with an eye on Russia, maybe we should hang on to 30 or 40. Clinton told them in 1994, “You don’t have to worry. America will always have your back.” After Russia invaded Georgia, they again expressed their concerns in 2009. Obama told them, “You don’t have to worry. America will always have your back.” What happened? Paul Johnson, UK historian best known here for his history of the Jews, said Putin knew a weakling when he saw one and took full advantage. He wrote this just after Trump came on the scene. “No one could be a bigger contrast to the spineless, pusillanimous, and underdeserving Barack Obama, who has never done a thing for himself and is entirely the creation of reverse discrimination.” “Under Obama the U.S. — by far the richest and most productive nation on earth — has been outsmarted, outmaneuvered and made to appear a second-class power by Vladimir Putin’s Russia. America has presented itself as a victim of political and economic Alzheimer’s disease, a case of national debility and geopolitical collapse.” The required response to aid the Ukraine was very simple. Putin telegraphed his moves and there was plenty of time for Obama to send in an aircraft carrier and some support ships into Sevastopol. Only two things could have happened, Putin would have blinked, most likely, or everyone would have headed for what remained of the fallout shelters. But there is no other way to stand up to a threat of aggression except head on. Obama did absolutely nothing. Even after Russia acted Obama refused to supply the Ukraine with weapons they requested despite the fact that fighting had spilled over into their home territory. Trump sent them anti-tank weapons immediately. The same slide to war was happening in the Far East, but a few paces behind. China was turning the South China Sea into a Chinese lake affecting ownership of natural resources. In the crosshairs were the Philippines and Vietnam. In the summer of 2016 China told India, you have to choose up sides in the coming conflict over the South China Sea. The Philippines, despite having a formal defence treaty with the US, went to talk to China directly after its leader Rodrigo Duterte called Obama “a son of a whore” for hanging them out to dry. The Vietnamese are still the same old Vietnamese and prepared to fight. When Trump got in he sent an aircraft carrier into Hanoi and things calmed down. No sooner had Trump won the 2016 election than the entire Democratic zoo began chanting in unison, “Russia, Russia, Russia” — everyone from Pocahontas to Spartacus to Da Nang Dick to Adam O. Sscchhiitt. Putin had enabled Trump to win the election was the hysterical scream throughout the US mass media, the MSM, which is little more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic zoo. The warmongering hit its peak when Trump met Putin at Helsinki where Trump was blasted for not kicking Putin in the shins for his interference. There was just one minor detail. There had been no outside interference that affected the outcome of the US election by Russians or anyone else. This hysteria led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special prosecutor by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to investigate a crime that never happened, Trump colluding with the Russians. Anyone else with an honest bone in his body would have come back in two months and said there is nothing here. Not Mueller. He has a long record of persecuting the innocent and turning a blind eye to the guilty. He was in his element. Mueller first made his miserable name in Massachusetts. Evidence surfaced that four men convicted of murder were innocent. Instead of getting them sprung, he let them rot in prison, while shooting the messengers, figuratively. After he was gone the four received $100 million in compensation, two posthumously. Then in 2001 after being appointed FBI director he headed an investigation into an anthrax attack. He started by ignoring the likely suspects, al Queda, and dragged it out for 10 years persecuting two innocent Americans one after the other. The first won $6 million in compensation; the second committed suicide. At the end he wrote a self-serving phoney report. The hoax of Russian election interference centres around two main events, the hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in June 2016 with the e-mails posted on WikiLeaks in July and the theft in March of the e-mails of John Podesta, campaign chairman, which appeared on WikiLeaks in October. The Democrats blamed the Russians for the DNC hack and they were off to the races. Later Robby Mook, Hillary’s campaign manager, would add, on the basis of his dreams, that the Russians did it at the behest of Trump. But the Russians, specifically the GRU military intelligence agency, which was blamed, had nothing to do with either theft of e-mails. Let’s take them one at a time. The DNC brought in CrowdStrike, a company headed by two known hoaxers, George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch, to determine who hacked their server. The Russians, they announced; and we figured it out in two hours. Immediately a character by the name of Guccifer 2.0 responded that the Russians didn’t do it. I did. I was on the scene. The first to publicly challenge the conclusions of CrowdStrike was the Mossad that summer. Debkafile, an Israeli website specializing in intelligence matters, asked contacts in the Mossad, is it even possible to identify a hacker in two hours? The reply was, if pigs can fly, it is. Their full answer was that in identifying hackers, you first try to establish motive. The Mossad would have immediately ruled out the GRU as a likely suspect. “They concentrate resources on securing strategic and economic data and have no possible interest in information relating to Bernie Sanders’s religious orthodoxy.” To the main point, the Mossad said that no one could determine the source of the hack in two hours. They explained “getting to the bottom of an APT (advanced persistent threat) calls for extra-powerful computers, working in conjunction with the Internet service provider (ISP), and consuming weeks, if not months of analysis.” As time went on, other tech experts came forward and said the theft could not have been done remotely unless you can suspend the laws of physics. The package taken was too large. It could only have been done locally. Who was lying, CrowdStrike or Guccifer 2.0, could have been resolved easily if the FBI had done what any village police force in the world would have done and examined the server. When they requested to do that, the DNC told them to get lost and they just walked away. On the basis of his absurd DNC Russian hacking claim and previous work he did for a private client in 2013 Kurtz comes off as nothing more than a scam artist. He identified the hacker of a private client as Hurricane Panda out of China. He then collected his exorbitant fee and ran. What’s wrong with this is there ain’t no such animal as Hurricane Panda. Josh Weider: “George Kurtz has quite the resume. Perhaps you remember the time he spent at McAfee, a company founded by a drug-addled heavily-armed lunatic and maybe murderer whose recent contributions to infosec include being one of the handful of companies to use BSAFE encryption library in their products, the library famously back-doored by government security contractors/prostitutes RSA for a National Security Agency cheque in the amount of $10 million. “Or perhaps you are more familiar with his time as chief financial officer of General Motors, whose flagship ‘IT’ product, OnStar, is best known to actual security researchers as the government tracking device that allows police to disable your car remotely and quite likely kill you in the process. Did I say police? Because I meant basically anybody who has a computer and can read. And did I say disable? Because I also meant unlock the car and start the engine. “George Kurtz is to the information technology community what Bull Connor was to the civil rights community. Which is to say: not helpful.” Weider supplies the technical details of the Hurricane Panda scam. Kurtz’s partner Alperovitch, who has close ties to anti-Russian Ukrainians, got into the act in the fall of 2016. Kurtz had declared that Fancy Bear of Russian intelligence did the DNC hack. Alperovitch solemnly announced that Fancy Bear had hacked Ukrainian artillery and knocked 80 per cent out of commission. Donna Brazile, the interim DNC chairman, was quick to tweet, “Cybersecurity firm finds a link between DNC hack and Ukrainian artillery.” The tweet engendered publicity through the length and breadth of the MSM, without anyone as usual bothering to check anything. Despite the intense competition, this news item could have won the Fake News Pulitzer Prize, the one award that all MSM hacks and flacks aspire to someday winning. The Ukrainian defence minister quickly announced that nothing of this sort ever happened. It wasn’t difficult to track Alperovitch’s source. He scalped it out of a Russian blog entitled, “Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda.” Guccifer 2.0 did his best to protect his identity because he doesn’t want to go to prison, but he did have a long cyber romance with former actress-model Robbin Young, still a dish and a half. At one point he asked her if she knew a good private eye because his courier to WikiLeaks had been murdered in Washington and he was afraid that the DC Police would cover it up and not do a proper investigation. He named the courier, Seth Rich. And, indeed, the police falsely described the murder as a “robbery gone wrong,” which is preposterous. Rich worked at the DNC and like all Sanders’s supporters was incensed at the way the DNC had sabotaged his campaign. But Guccifer 2.0 was non-political. He hacks for the same reason mountain climbers do what they do. He explained himself in a dissertation he sent in the fall of 2016 to a cybersecurity conference in London. His identity was confirmed by Thomas Fox Brewster of Forbes Magazine. He’s a foreigner, probably Romanian, but has been in the US a long time. He knows how to use the word “ain’t” correctly. You can’t learn that in any language course. He told Robbin Young that he had worked for a very long time on the DNC theft with a full-time assistant. At the conference he referred to Josh Uretsky, the data director for Sanders who had been recommended by Rich and then fired by the DNC in Dec. 2015. The firing was a sore point among Sanders’s supporters. If Guccifer 2.0 had not been present at that early time, he would not have known about the firing. The bottom line, he said, was that the NGP VAN company had sold the DNC a program full of holes and he just walked through the holes. Guccifer 2.0: “Who made it possible, that I hacked into the DNC? … You already know the answer. This is the NGP VAN company that operates the DNC network. And this is its CEO Stu Trevelyan who is really responsible for the breach. “Their software is full of holes. And you knew about it even before I came on stage.” Guccifer 2.0 swiped the e-mails on May 20, 2016, handed them to Seth Rich, who relayed them to Gavin MacFayden, an American who was director for the Centre of Investigative Journalism in London and a close associate of Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks. MacFayden would die of natural causes that October. I was not being facetious when I wrote that last sentence. Let’s go to the murder. We can guess the motive of those who beat up Rich prior to his being shot. We can also guess the likely suspects. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the DNC chairman, had the most to lose from the e-mails being published on WikiLeaks, which would happen July 22. The e-mails showed DNC officials conspiring to stop Sanders, running against Hillary Clinton, from becoming the presidential candidate. Wasserman-Schultz resigned in disgrace when the e-mails appeared. I am not suggesting that Wasserman-Schultz told someone directly to have a talk with Rich in hopes of persuading him to block the publication. We are now at July 10. The idea could have come from someone else close to the boss-lady. The consequences of the e-mails being published was no secret. Wasserman-Schultz had surrounded herself for years by a gang of Pakistani hoodlums, who acted as her high-tech experts. They were led by Imran Awan. He was well-known to the police because his various concubines kept calling them to complain that Awan had beat them and to ask for help. The gang was reported having ties to the Hezbollah terrorist organization and bragged of knowing people who did kidnapping on demand in Pakistan in order to frighten people during shakedowns. After his 12-hour shift at the DNC, Rich as usual went to a bar he frequented. This night he seemed to be depressed over a girl, asked the bartender to stop playing a sad country song, and drank heavily. He left at 1:15 a.m. His home was 1.7 miles away, a normal half-hour leisurely walk. Since he was wobbly it might have taken him longer than normal but he didn’t arrive near to this home until three hours later. It seems obvious he had been detained along the way and beat up. When he appeared near his home Rich had bruises on his face, hands, and knees. The only people who would know his movements in the middle of the night from the bar to his home were people who knew him or knew someone who knew him. The only people informed enough to know what questions to ask in between slugging him were high-tech experts. The only people who had a motive to beat him up, after possibly luring him to a location by someone who knew him, were associates of Wasserman-Schultz, who wanted him to block the publication of the e-mails. There was no attempt at robbery. He left his place of detention still wearing his watch, a $2,000 necklace, and with his cellphone and wallet. As he approached his home he was talking on his phone to a girlfriend or former girlfriend and accusing her of setting him up. Two men appeared behind him. They called out to him. Said one, “Stop! Turn around! It doesn’t have to be this way. Think of your family.” The man spoke with a New England, possibly Connecticut, accent. Rich’s last words on the phone apparently were: “They are going to off me! You knew this! How could you do this?” There was a punch. Rich kept walking. The men then fired two bullets in his back. The shooters made no attempt to rob him. Why should they take a chance of leaving fingerprints when they had already made their payday? Rich was still alive a few hours after he was taken to the hospital. The family said he was in a state of confusion and feeling no pain before he died. That would not have been from the alcohol, the effects of which would have worn off long before this. To this day the chief medical officer has refused to release the autopsy report. The public has not been told the cause of death. Someone who would know why the cause of death has not been released is Steven Wasserman, an assistant attorney in DC, brother of her nibs. The DC Police asking no questions of no one, just wrote off the murder as a “robbery gone wrong.” Democrats call all the shots in DC. The mysteries are only just begun. We have two investigative journalists working independently who talked to FBI agents in the cyber squad who said the FBI took possession of Rich’s computer within days after his death. What happened to the computer? That should not be a rhetorical question. What’s on the computer proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rich supplied the e-mails to WikiLeaks and not the Russians, which is still the Mueller claim, as he goes round and round chasing after his shadow exactly as he did in the anthrax case. One of the journalists is Seymour Hersh, the legendary Seymour Hersh. He posted an audio of what the FBI told him. He spoke mostly of process. Rich sent samples of e-mails to WikiLeaks. Hersh said, and asked for money. Seymour Hersh: “Then later WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a Dropbox — a protected Dropbox — which isn’t hard to do. I mean you don’t have to be an IT wizard. He was certainly, was not a dumb kid.” The other journalist is Malia Zimmerman, as reliable as Hersh. The FBI provided her with copious details. Malia Zimmerman: “A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time. “He said: ‘I have seen and read the e-mails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,’ …. He said the e-mails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.” “The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 e-mails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from Jan. 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.” She wrote this in 2017 with the FBI agent under the impression that the FBI still had the computer. But James Comey, then the FBI chief, announced an investigation into a Russian connection to the DNC hack late in July 2016 and was still testifying about Russians, Russians, Russians before Congress until he was fired the next year. Something doesn’t add up in the FBI because if anyone looks at the computer, they can write off a major plank in the Russian hoax. But no one outside the cyber squad seems to have looked at it. And what police force in the world on purpose makes material evidence in a murder case vanish without a trace? The FBI under Comey did. Under Obama the FBI was politicized to its gizzards and the Democrats do not want this murder investigated under any circumstances. But surely now that the decapitated Jeff Sessions is out as chief at the justice department and there’s a new FBI director, it should be possible to track down Rich’s computer. I wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats in the FBI destroyed the records and even the computer itself or its contents but both Hersh and Zimmerman talked to actual agents. They can’t make the agents vanish. There is one other indication that Seth Rich delivered the e-mails to WikiLeaks and not Russians. Assange offered a $20,000 reward for any information leading to solving the murder. He would not pull the name out of a hat of an American murder victim he did not know and had not sacrificed his life in order to bring truth to light at WikiLeaks. We come to the Podesta e-mails, which is a much simpler case. Mueller is going nuts trying to make a big deal of Jerome Corsi being aware of the existence of the e-mails in August and that this could lead to the Russians. The e-mails were swiped in March by Sanders supporters but they didn’t seem to know what to do with them. They must have talked to a fair number of people and finally were led in the direction of WikiLeaks. So why wouldn’t word get back to Corsi about the e-mails’ existence? You could take any retarded guy, lobotomize him, and he would do a better job as a cop than Mueller. The Mail Online in the UK published the whole story of how WikiLeaks got the e-mails in Dec. 2016 and all the lobotomized retarded guy would have to do is read that. No Russians were involved. Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close Assange associate, said in his blog early in Sept. 2016 that he would be coming to a whistleblowers’ conference in Washington Sept. 25 if he could get an entry visa. He was denied the visa at first so it was touch and go. But he did show up at American University and there a Sanders supporter put the e-mails in his hand. Three weeks later they were published. Murray has a well-read blog and then he did the interview with the Mail Online. No one from the FBI, supposedly investigating the Podesta e-mails, went to talk to him. In fact Comey as if he were deaf, dumb, and blind was still pushing the Russian line when testifying before Congress in March 2017. Adam O. Sscchhiitt asked Comey this question about the Podesta e-mails. “Do you know whether the Russian intelligence service has dealt directly with WikiLeaks or whether they too used an intermediary?” Comey answered, “We assessed they used some kind of cutout. They didn’t deal directly with WikiLeaks.” Comey lives in the same insane parallel universe as Mueller does. And he doesn’t even know how to use the word “cutout” properly as applied in the intelligence community. A “cutout” is a contact who doesn’t know who is calling when an agent in trouble calls him. There is no such thing as “some kind of cutout.” It’s a precise term. We will never know what kind of dirty games the FBI was playing beyond the fanatical anti-Trump Peter Strozk in trying to nail Trump, unless a special prosecutor with integrity is appointed, but in Oct. 2016 a relatively minor Russian hacker named Yevgeny Nikulin was arrested in Prague. A few days later he said someone representing himself as FBI offered him a bribe. Admit to hacking the Democrats’ server on behalf of Russia for Trump — he wasn’t clear which server because this was all new to him — and they would drop all charges, give him American citizenship, an apartment, and money. The offer was made again in Feb. 2017. He told the story to the Russian press and his Moscow lawyer Vladimir Makeyev wrote to Trump to ask, what in hell is going on? In any other country in the world with a free press Nikulin would have been swamped with journalists seeking an interview. Real journalists run towards a story; the fake journalists in the US run away from a story. The fact is that if the FBI had done a normal investigation, followed up on the material on Seth Rich’s computer, examined the DNC server, and talked to Murray in London about the Podesta e-mails, they would not have had someone in Feb. 2017 trying to bribe a minor hacker in Prague in order to link Trump to Russians. If it wasn’t the FBI in his cell it was some official American representative; no one gets into a Czech prison without standing. Meanwhile this story is still out there. Nikulin is now in jail in San Francisco, won’t talk to his current lawyers, who are claiming the Russians may try to assassinate him. That would be one way of getting the fake news media in the US to cover a real story. From almost the time CrowdStrike launched the hoax that the Russians hacked the DNC server, the Democrats pushed the assertion that they did it for Trump. But this did not take hold in the Obama government itself until one guy ran with it and dragged everyone else along. The conclusion, arrived separately by both Murray and Hersh, was that the culprit is John Brennan, the ex-Commie who somehow slithered up to be head of the CIA. There is no evidence that he ever stopped being a Commie. Murray was upset at the way the US government was ignoring the facts on the Podesta e-mail theft and he blamed that on Brennan. Craig Murray: “I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story — blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of e-mails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. “A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they ‘know the individuals’ involved.’ Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilize a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of ‘We know who it was, it was the Russians’ are beneath contempt.” Seymour Hersh: “Brennan’s an asshole. I’ve known all these people for years.” “It’s a Brennan operation. It was an American disinformation operation f-cking the f-cking president. … I mean it’s all bullshit.” In late Oct. 2016 Hillary built this up in an interview in Vanity Fair to “all 17 intelligence agencies agree” the Russians interfered in the election. The fake news media immediately turned that into gospel. No one asked, for example, who were the agents who informed the Coast Guard, mermaids? It was Brennan and Brennan alone pushing the Democratic talking points and the others, knowing nothing, just dumbly nodded in agreement. Rosenstein ambushed Trump with a list of 12 GRU Russian spies just before he met with Putin in Helinski, who Rosenstein said had interfered in the US election. He added that they didn’t change any votes and they had nothing to do with Trump. The logical question from that is how many Russian spies does it take to change a light bulb if they were consummately ineffective and why even mention them at that moment, except to ruin the atmosphere of the Trump-Putin summit? Rosenstein didn’t reveal which of the “17 intelligence agencies” provided his information but he did name Guccifer 2.0 as one of the GRU agents, describing him as a persona. That claim had originated with CrowdStrike, the Democrats’ hoax machine, long before, early in the game. If anyone had investigated the Seth Rich murder they would have got to Guccifer 2.0, not a persona, because those two had worked together for a considerable time. Guccifer 2.0’s motive for being at the DNC was the same reason paparazzi stalk celebrities. He assessed that Hillary was where the action would be. He was following the example of his hero, fellow Romanian Marcel Lazar, the original Guccifer, now in prison. When Hillary was secretary of state, he managed to get his hands on all the e-mails of her fixer, Sidney Blumenthal, and posted them on WikiLeaks. Blumenthal all the time was trying to stampede her into going to war in Libya so he could make a killing on field hospitals and such. Anyone can read his e-mails now. Guccifer 2.0 also told Robbin Young during their correspondence that he would not go near Assange because he suspected that he was too close to the Russians. Guccifer 2.0 is no persona and he has no connection to Russians. If the first button on the shirt is not in the right hole, none of the rest will be. Why should we believe the remainder of what Rosenstein says without actual evidence and sources? The false information on Guccifer 2.0 was invented by CrowdStrike, so all the rest of what Rosenstein is saying is suspect. All CrowdStrike ever does is make things up and lie in the Democrat cause. At one point two voting rolls in Arizona and Illinois were hacked. ThreatStrike, a subsidiary of CrowdStrike, identified Vladmir Fomenko as the “mastermind” in the hacks. Forbes Magazine sent a reporter to talk to him in Siberia. He’s a 26-year-old guy with a small server business and two of his clients, probably from western Europe, did it. They still owe him $290. And he said he can’t be held responsible for what clients do. Russian hackers are active all the time in a major way, both criminal and government. Circa March 2016 thieves stole account details from 272-million e-mail accounts from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Mail.ru e-mail users. The Mail Online reported that the account details were being sold in Russia. They could have taken Podesta’s Gmails at the same time but there was no money in it. Government hackers for years have tried to penetrate a vast array of infrastructure sectors, including energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and manufacturing. None of this is connected to Trump or the US election. If the Russians had really wanted to screw up the US election, they could have done some serious damage. A group linked to the Kremlin made total fools out of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the summer of 2016. They stole their prized cyberweapons. Sonam Sheth: “The theft caused panic throughout the US intelligence apparatus because the custom-made cyberweapons — including zero-day exploits that targeted antivirus software and Microsoft products — could wreak havoc when used by the wrong entity.” Next a Russian claiming he could, offered to give them back. The NSA gave him $100,000; he sent them Russian reports of Trump in Moscow and vanished. Meanwhile Yahoo Finance reported that the Mossad had watched the theft in real time. Maybe the NSA should have given the $100,000 to the Mossad and gotten something for their money. What these guys demonstrate is that Kremlin operatives are not consummately ineffective as Rosenstein would have us believe. The NSA with all its resources in a matter of high national priority to this day cannot identify who’s got their cyberweapons, even though they are known to be connected to the Kremlin. Yet Rosenstein is facilely able to trot out 11 names of GRU agents supposedly engaged in trivial activities that no one ever heard of and are irrelevant to his task at hand, determining whether Trump colluded with the Russians in the election. Here’s the difference. The NSA lives in the real world. Mueller works with CrowdStrike, the only group in history able to solve major hacks not in the normal weeks or months but in two hours. Producing 11 names, any names, shouldn’t have taken them no more than a half-hour. That was always the way witch-hunts worked. Everyone the witch-hunters named was always guilty whether or not a crime had ever been committed. The Mossad, having monitored the GRU for years, said their interests are well-known and don’t include politics. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a change in their behavior in 2016 but let Rosenstein prove it. The original assertion of GRU involvement at the DNC hack came from CrowdStrike and they were lying. The Mossad proved correct in ruling out GRU involvement in the DNC hack without knowing the existence of the actual theft tandem, Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich. I’d like to see what they have to say about the Rosenstein’s list before I’d even consider it as being factual. Russia was a country involved in two shooting wars, one with considerable daily bloodshed in Syria, and we are supposed to believe that the GRU assigned at that moment 11 military specialists to piddle around in a US election, an area they are not trained in to engage in actions that were both meaningless and a total waste of time. As with everything else CrowdStrike is involved in, Rosenstein’s list, on which they have their fingerprints because of the Guccifer 2.0 persona canard, appears to be a total scam. The US has not been without double-agents in Russia, of course, who could be sources of reliable information. In Dec. 2016 Russia arrested four high-ranking intelligence officials, who they said were spying for America. They are not GRU. One was Sergei Mikhailov. The Russians discovered to their astonishment that he was a man with no personal history, who seemed to have materialized out of thin air. To this day as far as I know they don’t know who he is or where he came from. He apparently was on the CIA payroll and somehow, as a civil servant, amassed a fortune worth $12 million. Another, Dmitri Dokuchaev, ended up on the FBI’s Most Wanted list in March 2017. Even if he was also working for the CIA, the FBI wanted him for being part of a group that stole 500 million Yahoo e-mail accounts from Jan. 2014 to Dec. 2016.

The Russian Collusion Delusion In A Nutshell
Times of Israel

URL: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rus ... -nutshell/
Category: Politics
Published: August 1, 2018

Description: The list of Russian military intelligence (GRU) spies that Robert Mueller, US witch-hunter-in-chief, sprung on Trump before his summit with Putin is as phoney as a three-dollar bill. I am not a partisan of Russians but I am a partisan of truth. If anyone believes Mueller’s claim that the GRU meddled in the US election, get in touch with me. I got a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. I’ll give you easy payments. Here is the Russian collusion delusion in a nutshell. George Kurtz, head of CrowdStrike, has a record of hoaxing. Someone hacked the DNC server. In June 2016 CrowdStrike said the Russians did it. The theft of the e-mails was done locally, not remotely. Those who actually did it was the hacker Guccifer 2.0, who gave the e-mails to Seth Rich, the courier, who gave them to Gavin MacFayden, the representative of WikiLeaks, since deceased. On July 12. Seth Rich was murdered on his way home from a bar. He was detained and they beat him up. It looks like they were trying to get him to block publication on WikiLeaks. He refused so they shot him. The e-mails told the story of how the DNC shafted Bernie Sanders in his primary run against the winner Hillary Clinton. They would be very embarrassing for Deborah Wasserman Schultz. the DNC chairman, who would have to resign in disgrace when the e-mails were published. She happened to always surround herself with a gang of Pakistani thugs who were also IT experts. If anyone were doing an investigation into the murder, those would be the first suspects you would question. The FBI cyber squad took Seth Rich’s computer. Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist of long standing, saw the FBI report. Another journalist Malia Zimmerman also had a source in the FBI, who confirmed that Rich gave the e-mails to Gavin MacFayden. This was never made public. What this means is that a cover-up of this murder is not just being done by DC Police but also by the FBI. This is not surprising since the FBI was totally corrupt with the top six FBI officials now either having being been fired or resigned. The FBI had mobilized to nail Trump led by Peter Strozk. When asked by his paramour Lisa Page, a FBI lawyer, “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” he replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” Guccifer 2.0 had a long cyber romance with former actress-model Robbin Young. At one point he asked her if she knew a good investigative journalist because he was afraid the DNC Police would not investigate the murder of his courier, Seth Rich. He also told her he keeps his distance from Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks, because he wasn’t sure that maybe Assange was working for the Russians. Of course no one knows Guccifer 2.0’s actual name because as he told a cybersecurity conference in London, where he sent in a speech, he doesn’t want to go to prison. CrowdStrike said that they had identified the Russian hackers in two hours. Debkafile, an Israeli military intelligence website, asked a source in the Mossad if that were possible. Firstly the Mossad said that they would have immediately ruled out the GRU, as a likely suspect. “They concentrate resources on securing strategic and economic data and have no possible interest in information relating to Bernie Sanders’s religious orthodoxy.” But to the point, the Mossad said no one could ascertain the source of a hack of this nature in two hours. “Getting to the bottom of an APT (advanced persistent threat) calls for extra-powerful computers, working in conjunction with the Internet service provider (ISP), and consuming weeks, if not months of analysis.” WikiLeaks published July 22. Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, then told CNN the Russians did that for Trump. The Russian collusion delusion was born and based entirely on this offhand comment. But Hillary had been up to something for some time hiring a smear-on-demand company Fusion GPS to recruit UK spymaster Christopher Steele so that they could feed him a dirty dossier smearing Trump concocted by her notorious fixers, Sydney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer. FBI chief James Comey could have exploded the hoax of a Russian hack of the DNC server at a stroke if he had examined the server. The DNC would not let him near it. Then he announced an investigation into Russian meddling, pointing at Trump. On what basis has never been explained. There was only Robby Mook connecting Trump to Russians at that point. But they were off to the races. Susan Rice, national security adviser, at that very moment told the White House cybersecurity co-ordinator Michael Daniel to stand down. This meant that CrowdStrike would be calling all the shots as the “investigation” went along. Jump to March 2018. The Daily Beast reported that Mueller’s probe had determined that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian intelligence officer. Source: ThreatConnect, subsidiary of CrowdStrike. That same month Ken Dilanian, a CIA asset who masquerades as a journalist, reported at NBC that indictments were coming down linking Russian intelligence to the DNC hack and also the theft of John Podesta’s Gmail e-mails. Guccifer 2.0 was described in that article as a persona. Source: CrowdStrike. Sanders’ supporters stole Podesta’s Gmails in revenge for the abysmal treatment their candidate had received from the DNC and delivered them into the hands of Craig Murray, former UK ambassador, in Washington Sept. 25 who took them to WikiLeaks. No Russians were involved in that theft either. Murray told the whole story to the Mail Online. Besides inventing the hoax that the Russians hacked the DNC server, CrowdStrike was involved in two other major hoaxes that we know of. This is a regular hoax machine. In 2013 Kurtz identified the perpetrator of a major hack as Hurricane Panda from China The problem was that Hurricane Panda did not exist. They had attributed the DNC hack to Fancy Bear. In the fall of 2016 Kurtz’s partner Dmitri Alperovitch announced that Fancy Bear had knocked out 80 per cent of the Ukrainian artillery. This flashed round the world. Rather quickly the Ukrainian defence minister said no such thing ever happened. In this case we know Alperovitch’s source. He scalped that report from a Russian blog called “Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda.” Rod Rosenstein, deputy a-g, who created the witch-hunt in the first place for reasons never explained to this day, announced on the eve of the Trump-Putin summit the names of 12 GRU agents who had been involved in meddling in the US election. But over the list he named Guccifer 2.0 as a persona. The old saying is that the first button in a shirt is not in the right hole none of the rest will be too. CrowdStrike started with the hoax that Russians hacked the DNC server. Guccifer 2.0 immediately responded they are lying, he did it. He also explained in some detail how he did it to that London cybersecurity conference and he told Robbin Young that he employed a full-time assistant to do it. The evidence is overwhelming that Guccifer is a real guy and the only people who are claiming that he is a persona is CrowdStrike, so the credibility of the whole list depends on whether that is true. If not the shirt needs to be rebuttoned. They’ve got back-to-back hoaxes here. The GRU hacked the DNC server and here are the names of their agents led by a persona. But the Russians had nothing to do with the hack of the DNC server so what were these agents doing, buying ads on Facebook that no one will ever read? And why would Putin, engaged in two shooting wars with threats of major terrorist attacks all the time, assign blue-chip GRU military intelligence agents to buy Facebook ads when there are college students looking for part-time work? The truth is out there. Kit Dotcom, a character in New Zealand, had a lengthy on-going relationship with Seth Rich and he knows the entire true story of the DNC hack. He asked twice to testify at the Mueller witch-hunt and they did not respond, not wishing to be confused with the facts. Those who support the witch-hunt, the same people who want Trump’s head on a platter, shout “intelligence” says so, so it must be true. What did intelligence say about the probability of a major terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11? And where are the WMDs intelligence assured everyone would be found in Iraq? If this was baseball and you are blaming Mueller’s report on intelligence, this would be called strike three. You don’t have to go that far, you can blame it on the hoax machine, CrowdStrike. Here is what needs to be done. Obtain the FBI report on Seth Rich’s murder, where the FBI confirms that he and not the Russians supplied the DNC e-mails to WikiLeaks, and that should put an end to the Russian collusion delusion. And where is the Rich computer? Can the FBI just toss out evidence in a murder case without telling anyone? Both Seymour Hersh and Malia Zimmerman were given copious details from their FBI sources including the numbers of e-mails and attachments that were sent to WikiLeaks and also the date they were taken, May 21, 2016. If you are interested I’ve got all this in a book available on Amazon entitled, “Trump, Israel, And The Ayatollah Fruit Loops.”

The WikiLeaks E-Mails. The Russians Didn’t Do It.
Times of Israel

URL: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-wik ... dnt-do-it/
Category: Politics
Published: May 24, 2017

Description: I come from a port city in New Brunswick, Canada, founded by penniless refugees who landed there following the American Revolutionary War. They were the Loyalists, who decided to sacrifice all to remain true to the British crown. Many residents today are descendants of the original settlers. There was only one famous man among them, the esteemed patriot Benedict Arnold, who arrived later from the UK. Things did not go well for Arnold. He welshed on his debts, his esteem evaporated, and the residents ran the deadbeat out of the town. The city remembers its founders with a holiday each year but beyond that the descendants of the Loyalists as the rule are no more than faces in the crowd. There are exceptions: my Grade 8 teacher for example. She was no face in any crowd. This was mid-1950s. Every now and then she would get wound up, and just as if she had been transported back in time and at that very moment had come on land from the ship, would begin to tee off on the Americans. These tirades were worth coming to school for. Her main points were two. American culture is flawed and inferior. And the Americans will never learn how to run a country properly. We kids never understood what she was talking about when it came to “culture.” All the movies, music, and sports, except for hockey, came out of America. You eliminate American “culture,” and what you were left with was what Quebec singer Gilles Vigneault sang about a few years later. “Mon pays, ce n’est pas un pays, c’est l’hiver.” (My country is not a country, it’s the winter.) Of course in Quebec, American culture loses a lot in translation, but every Canadian, at that time at least, knew what he meant. Occasionally as time went on my teacher would began to appear like an oracle. Everyone would have to agree with her. In the late 60s Americans began burning down their cities one after the other and meanwhile scores of young men, draft-dodgers, were swarming over the border to get away from there. Today is another such period. They elect a new president Donald Trump and instead of moving on, the rival Democratic party comes up with a cock ‘n’ bull story that he colluded with the Russians, who tipped the election. They stampeded Congress into two committee investigations and now they have graduated to a special prosecutor or counsel. The odds that the Russians meddled in the election are probably are about the same that unicorns meddled in the election. But then again don’t bet against unicorns simply because no one knows much about them. I’ve done a book on this subject. Here I’ll focus on one aspect — who supplied e-mails in two cases to WikiLeaks, the whistleblower group run by Julian Assange? Those were from the Democratic National Committee and then from John Podesta, campaign manager of Hillary Clinton, the losing candidate. The DNC put out the hoax that Russians did it in their case and that was later applied to Podesta too, automatically. Let’s start with the Podesta Gmail e-mails. The Keystone Kops could have solved this case in a half a day. It would have taken them a week to crack the DNC case because this was a hack and the hacker used an alias and meanwhile his whistleblower, the guy who delivered the goods to WikiLeaks, was murdered. As for the originators of the hoax of Kremlin involvement, that would have required the Keystone Kops to do a background check of the principals who invented it and that would meant end of hoax. By contrast if James Comey had remained head of the FBI, the investigation would have dragged on for four years when they would have ended at a dead end after going around in circles all that time. The Podesta breach — it wasn’t a hack — involved stealing personal data, that is, user name and password. The Podesta people said this occurred in March 2016. The e-mails, did not begin to appear on WikiLeaks until Oct. 7. That sort of breach did not happen in a vacuum. During that spring, account details from 272-million e-mail accounts from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Mail.ru e-mail users were stolen. The MailOnline reported that the account details were being sold in Russia. These were lawless private groups and individuals trying to make a fast ruble, not the Kremlin. But this demonstrates that doing this stuff was as easy as picking apples off trees if no one was guarding the trees. Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and former rector of the University of Dundee, close associate of Assange, informed the MailOnline that he scooped up the Podesta e-mails in September in a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University in Washington from disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters. This article was published Dec. 16. All you needed to do was verify that Murray was at American University that month. Murray was chairman for the annual awards ceremony of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity Intelligence, a group dedicated to honoring whistleblowers, to put this in broad strokes. Members include many former intelligence agents. This event was held at American University Sept. 25. Murray was seen there by hundreds of people, many of whom are former intelligence agents. WikiLeaks possessed these e-mails from Sept. 25 or whenever Murray got back to the UK until they published them Oct. 7. All Comey had to do when the MailOnline article appeared Dec. 16 was send someone to interview Murray — Scotland Yard could have done it — and this was case closed. Yet on March 20 Comey was testifying under oath to the House intelligence committee that the Podesta e-mails were stolen by Russian intelligence and supplied by “cutouts” — a word employed in espionage circles referring to intermediaries. This goes beyond even stupidity and incompetence; it’s criminal negligence. Here’s what Murray said in his blog. He’s blaming the CIA for perpetuating the myth of Russian involvement, but the FBI is the investigator in the e-mail cases, as of July 25, and the CIA is just an echo chamber. Craig Murray: “I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story — blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of e-mails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. “A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they ‘know the individuals’ involved.’ Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilize a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of ‘We know who it was, it was the Russians’ are beneath contempt. “As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks — there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton Foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened. “The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of ‘Russia.” while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.” Let’s go to the originators of the hoax of Kremlin meddling in the election. Officials discovered that DNC servers had been hacked. They hired a company named CrowdStrike to investigate the hack. Based on their findings, the DNC announced definitively June 14 that Russian intelligence did it without giving technical details, through the auspices of two groups known as Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. “Bear” in this business refers to Russians and “panda” refers to Chinese. These e-mails would start to appear in WikiLeaks July 22. No one spelled it out that the Kremlin did the hack on behalf of Trump, but the mass media (MSM), hostile to Trump from start to finish, jumped to that conclusion and ran with it. Until Hillary lost the election, these hacks were not looked upon as a big deal because she was regarded as a shoo-in by all the pundits with her chances of winning ranging to 71 to 98 per cent with Trump having no pathway to reach the magic 270 electoral votes. Comey asked Obama in July if he wanted him to go public with the suspected Kremlin meddling and Obama, who was responsible for the integrity of the election, told him it was not necessary. That was the time to expel 35 diplomats to nip this in the bud and strip Trump of his purported advantage. The Democrats didn’t go crazy with “Russian meddling” until Trump won as if he could not done it fair and square. The two founders of Crowd Strike are George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch. Kurtz has a history of hoaxing. In 2013 he attributed a major hack to a Chinese group called Hurricane Panda. There is no such group. Alperovitch is a crony of Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, a major funder of the agenda of anti-Russian Ukrainians. Pinchuk plays all sides against the middle and when Trump won the election he invited Newt Gringrich to be the speaker at the annual meeting of his foundation. On the other hand he is reputed to rate as the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation. The hoax of the Kremlin hack would be what you would expect from Alperovitch, killing two birds with one stone, besmirching Putin, the enemy of the Ukraine, at the same time as helping Hillary, the enemy of Trump. At one point CrowdStrike overplayed their hand. They claimed that Russian intelligence using the same methods as they had employed in the DNC hack had knocked out 80 per cent of the Ukraine’s howitzers. Donna Brazile, the interim DNC chairman, was quick to tweet, “Cybersecurity firm finds a link between DNC hack and Ukrainian artillery.” The source of this revelation turned out to be a Russian blogger who calls himself the “Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda.” This hoax was swiftly exposed; the Ukrainian defence ministry declaring that nothing of this sort ever happened. The FBI, if it had done a background check on these two birds, would have seen very quickly that their Kremlin hacking assertions was a scam. They would found this out as well had they been permitted to examine the DNC servers. When the FBI requested this, CrowdStrike told them to get lost. Legally the FBI could not force the DNC to comply due to privacy considerations. Comey then just swallowed whatever guff CrowdStrike was handing him, including whatever the Bullhorn of Totalitarian Propaganda was contributing, and added his imprimatur. Meanwhile someone in the FBI began to fidget. They apparently decided that they needed in order to give the FBI some credibility to produce a live Russian body admitting that in the service of the Kremlin he had grabbed the Democratic e-mails for WikiLeaks. (The source is Newsweek and like so many sources they use the word “hack” also as applying to the Podesta breach. That was a simple swipe of account data whereas “hacking” is intruding into software. Because of the confusion in terminology and in the dates it is not clear if they mean to be talking about the Podesta breach or the DNC hack or both.) A Russian Yevgeniy Nikulin, 29 was arrested in the Czech Republic at the request of the US on suspicion of hacking the servers of major sites LinkedIn, Dropbox, and Formspring between 2012 and 2013. He denies everything, claiming he is just a used car salesman who knows nothing about computers. According to Newsweek the FBI approached him on Oct.5 with a deal. He would admit that he “hacked” Podesta on behalf of the Kremlin and in return he would be given US citizenship, cash, an apartment in the US, and a clean state. Nikulin says they told him that he had to say that he did it for Trump. He turned them down but they came back with the same offer at least twice more, the last time in February. Meanwhile because of the publicity Nikulin’s presence in Prague became known to authorities in Moscow and they put in their extradition request. He is wanted there for stealing $3,450 from an on-line money transfer system. At is looks now he is not going anywhere soon. Let’s get to real life. Who did the actual DNC hack and who was his whistleblower, that is, the courier who delivered the e-mails to WikiLeaks? And what was their motive? The hacker goes by the name of Guccifer 2.0. He is not to be confused with another Guccifer, a Russian or a Romanian, now in prison. This guy does everything he can to cover his tracks and remain in the dark so he won’t go to prison. By the lilt of his language and his knowledge of US politics, he appears to be an American. He did it for Bernie. The last access to the DNC servers was May 21. His courier was Seth Rich who delivered the e-mails to WikiLeaks via Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American documentary filmmaker and director of WikiLeaks, who was living in London at the time. Rich also did it for Bernie. Rich was murdered July 10 in Washington. Guccifer 2.0 said when the Russian hoax surfaced in June and CrowdStrike made it appear that it was oh so very complex to hack the DNC requiring the skills of the most expert technicians in Russian intelligence, he replied in a blog, “I’m very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly. But it was easy, very easy.” He sent a speech to a cybersecurity conference in London Sept. 13 delivered through a representative. Forbes Magazine examined tweets from him and was satisfied that this was from the authentic Guccifer 2.0. Here’s part of it. Guccifer 2.0: “How I hacked the DNC???” “Now you know this is a wrong question. Who made it possible, that I hacked into the DNC? This is the question. And I suppose, you already know the answer. This is NGP VAN Company that operates the DNC network. And this is its CEO Stu Trevelyan who is really responsible for the breach. “Their software is full of holes. And you knew about it even before I came on stage. “You may remember Josh Uretsky, the national data director for Sander’s presidential campaign. He was fired in December, 2015 after improperly accessing proprietary data in the DNC system. As it was agreed, he was intentionally searching for voter information belonging to other campaigns. “However, he is not to blame. The real reason voter in-formation became available for non-authorized users was NGP VAN’s raw software which had holes and errors in the code. And this is the same reason I managed to get access to the DNC network. Vulnerabilities in the NGP VAN software installed on its server which they have plenty of. Shit! Yeah? “This scheme shows how NGP VAN is incorporated in the DNC infrastructure. It’s for detailed examination, if you are interested. And here are a couple of NGP VAN’s documents from their network. If you are interested in their internal documents, you can have them via the link on the screen. The password is usual. It’s also on the screen. You may also ask the conference producers for them later.” “We need to shake the situation, to make our voices sound. Yeah, I know if they find me I’m doomed to live like Assange, Snowden, Manning, or Lazar. In exile or in prison. “But it’s worth it for they are the heroes, heroes of new era.” Marcel Lazar is the original Guccifer. After Rich was murdered, Assange posted a $20,000 reward. He did not name him as his source because he would not violate his principle of revealing sources, but the reward speaks for itself. Guccifer 2.0 messaged actress Robbin Young “Seth (Rich) was my whistleblower.” The FBI, which ignored Murray as well as MacFadyen when he was alive, who could have established the source of both batches of WikiLeaks e-mails exploding the Russian hoax, did summon Robbin Young for questioning, as if she knew something. Seth Rich by all accounts was a quiet, loyal Democratic staffer plainly driven by an active social conscience, and was about to be hired by the Hillary campaign before his murder. But if he were a subversive, his only chance of succeeding was to adhere to the innocuous image that everyone saw, not draw attention to himself. His record wasn’t without flaws. He was the guy that recommended the hiring of Uretsky, the Bernie activist who would be fired after a few months on the job. His father Joel Rich said this upon his death. Joel Rich: “He liked pandas and his mother had sent him a little stuffed panda that got named Bamboo.” “‘At the DNC, they would hide the panda – it would be in someone’s office, and in a filing cabinet.” It is reasonable to conclude, although not confirmed, that Seth Rich’s blog was called Pandas4Bernie. If so it would show Rich’s subversive dimension, someone who would be ready, willing, and able to conspire to deliver the DNC e-mails to WikiLeaks to strike a blow for Bernie against the party establishment. His last entry is entitled “Won’t Back Down” illustrated by a dove and a clenched fist. Here are excerpts. Pandas4Bernie: I didn’t vote for Bernie because he’s a cute old man. I voted for a set of demands. For public health care, free college tuition, a social safety net. An end to war and empire, police murder and mass incarceration, For jobs and worker protections, For dignity for immigrants, For clean water for our communities, For someone who can use the government To mobilize our people to respond to the existential threat of climate change. I voted for Bernie to build a movement for political and economic justice. … We can stop Trump without swearing our fealty to the one who betrayed us. We’re taking this to the convention. We are not backing down. Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand whistleblower, has now added his voice to the evidence that Rich supplied the DNC e-mails to Wikeleaks. Kim Dotcom: “I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak. “I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich. Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful. “I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics. “He wanted to change that from the inside.” Malia Zimmerman, an investigative reporter for Fox News, is the source of the name of Rich’s contact, MacFadyen, in Assange’s organization. She got it from an FBI agent. They knew McFadyen name’s within three days, that’s July 13. Comey opened the official FBI investigation into the hacks July 25. He immediately began chasing after mythical Russians or unicorns. What happened to Rich’s laptop that Zimmerman’s source said the FBI had in their possession immediately after the murder? The FBI disavows any suggestion that they ever had it. Rich was gunned down a 4:19 a.m. in Washington outside his home, two minutes after he clicked off talking to his girlfriend on the phone, by two gunman who shot him in the back. For reasons I discuss in my book, there is no question but that this was a political assassination done by pros. The book is called “Did Russians Hijack The Trump Train? Do Pigs Fly?” I’ve now added a chapter on the Seth Rich murder and will update it as there are developments in the investigation, assuming that someone somewhere someday somehow actually decides to open an investigation.
User avatar
Posts: 1803219
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

After Arrest of Julian Assange, the Russian Mysteries Remain

Postby smix » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:00 am

After Arrest of Julian Assange, the Russian Mysteries Remain
The New York Times

URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/us/p ... trump.html
Category: Pollitics
Published: April 11, 2019

Description: WASHINGTON — In June 2016, five months before the American presidential election, Julian Assange made a bold prediction during a little-noticed interview with a British television show. “WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead,” he said, just seconds after announcing that the website he founded would soon be publishing a cache of emails related to Hillary Clinton. He was right. But an indictment unsealed on Thursday charging Mr. Assange with conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer in 2010 makes no mention of the central role that WikiLeaks played in the Russian campaign to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s presidential chances and help elect President Trump. It remains unclear whether the arrest of Mr. Assange will be a key to unlocking any of the lingering mysteries surrounding the Russians, the Trump campaign and the plot to hack an election. The Justice Department spent years examining whether Mr. Assange was working directly with the Russian government, but legal experts point out that what is known about his activities in 2016 — including publishing stolen emails — is not criminal, and therefore it would be difficult to bring charges against him related to the Russian interference campaign. Numerous significant questions are left unanswered, including what, if anything, Mr. Assange knew about the identity of Guccifer 2.0, a mysterious hacker who American intelligence and law enforcement officials have identified as a front for Russian military intelligence operatives. Court documents have revealed that it was Russian intelligence — using the Guccifer persona — that provided Mr. Assange thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the personal account of John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign. Another question is whether Mr. Assange was a conduit between the Russian hackers and the Trump campaign. Mr. Assange exchanged emails with Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Trump’s eldest son, during the campaign, and a Trump campaign official dispatched Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser to the president, to get information about the hacked Democratic emails, according to a January indictment by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. Mr. Mueller concluded his investigation without an indictment that directly connected WikiLeaks, the Russians and the Trump campaign, suggesting that prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence that Mr. Assange knowingly engaged in a conspiracy with Russia to help the Trump campaign. But the report drafted by Mr. Mueller’s team, and expected to be released next week, could have additional details about the ties between the Trump campaign and Mr. Assange. Those details could be redacted by the Justice Department, however, if officials believe the material includes classified intelligence, said Carrie Cordero, a former official with the Justice Department’s National Security Division and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “What was the actual interaction between Russian intelligence surrogates, WikiLeaks and Trump campaign surrogates?” she said. “That is a question that has not yet been answered.” On Thursday, congressional Democrats sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr again demanding that they be provided the full, unredacted report, along with underlying evidence. The special counsel also handed off his work to other prosecutors, including those who have long been examining Mr. Assange’s dealings with Guccifer, the Russian intelligence front. Many Democrats and Republicans remain convinced that Mr. Assange knowingly worked with Russian intelligence. On Thursday, Senator Richard M. Burr, the North Carolina Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks “have effectively acted as an arm of the Russian intelligence services for years.” The committee’s Democratic vice chairman, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, said Mr. Assange had become “a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the West.” Mr. Assange has long been a polarizing figure — hailed at the beginning of his career as champion for government transparency but also viewed by American national security officials as a disruptive force who conspired with Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst, to publish hundreds of thousands of classified documents. But it was WikiLeaks’ publication of material stolen by Russian intelligence in 2016 that hardened the view of national security officials, even those at the highest reaches of the Trump administration. A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know. In April 2017, in one of his first major speeches, Mike Pompeo — who was C.I.A. director at the time but months earlier, as a Republican congressman, had praised WikiLeaks for its releases that damaged the Clinton campaign — signaled that the government would take a hard line on WikiLeaks. Mr. Pompeo compared WikiLeaks to “a hostile intelligence service,” and said it sought support from anti-democratic countries as it targeted the United States with its disclosures. Mr. Pompeo’s public remarks coincided with a private push against Mr. Assange by the Trump administration. The C.I.A. intensified espionage efforts against WikiLeaks, seeking to learn more about his interactions with the Russian intelligence operatives. The timing of Mr. Assange’s actions fueled suspicions. His June 2016 interview announcing the impending release of Democratic emails came three days after a meeting at Trump Tower in New York between Russians and senior Trump campaign officials — a meeting set up on the promise that the Russians would have damaging information about Mrs. Clinton.


Throughout the 2016 campaign, Mr. Assange played down accusations of Russian interference, and misled the public on his source for the damaging documents WikiLeaks released. He offered a $20,000 reward for information about the killing in Washington of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staff member shot to death in an apparent bungled street robbery. Some supporters of Mr. Trump suggested that it was Mr. Rich who had leaked the committee’s emails and that he had been killed in retaliation. During an August 2016 discussion with Dutch television about the sources of WikiLeaks’ information, Mr. Assange suddenly brought up Mr. Rich’s killing. “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the interviewer said. “What are you suggesting?” “I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Mr. Assange said. He then declined to say if Mr. Rich was a source.
User avatar
Posts: 1803219
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Jerome Corsi: Julian Assange Has Information That Could "Destroy The Russian Hoax"

Postby smix » Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:16 pm

Jerome Corsi: Julian Assange Has Information That Could "Destroy The Russian Hoax"

URL: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _hoax.html
Category: Politics
Published: April 12, 2019

Description: Author Jerome Corsi, who was questioned by the Mueller probe about his relationship with Wikileaks, reacts to the arrest of Julian Assange on FBN's "Trish Regan Primetime," saying the Wikileaks founder is being unjustly prosecuted. "This is another attack on journalism," Corsi said about Assange's arrest. "in 2013 the Obama Justice Department decided not to indict Julian Assange over these Chelsea Manning issues because they said it would be tantamount to indicting the New York Times of the Washington Post. As a journalist, Julian Assange has a right to publish even stolen materials." "The New York Times and Washington Post, in 1971, worked hand in glove with Daniel Ellsberg to get the Pentagon Papers in print. That is not a collaboration that is criminal, that is journalism, and Julian Assange is being unjustly prosecuted." "I would recommend to Julian Assange that he fight back just like I did," Corsi said. "Julian Assange can come back and prove the second shoe dropping, the double whammy. Robert Mueller says there was no Russian collusion. Julian Assange can come back and prove that Russia was not involved in stealing the Democrats' emails. Julian Assange can come back and open up the Seth Rich case, where he has suggested time and again that there was this DNC employee who was murdered in Washington during the 2016 campaign who supplied him the emails."

"Julian Assange should do what I've done and write a book," he also said. "If Julian Assange wants to write a book and get it published we'll get it published for him. If he wants a co-author or a ghostwriter call on me. Fight back! Because Assange has information that can absolutely destroy the Russian collusion hoax. He said it from the beginning. I never talked to him, all I had to do was listen to his press conferences. He said the Russians were not involved in stealing the emails."
User avatar
Posts: 1803219
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings

Postby smix » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:05 am

VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings
Consortium News

URL: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/v ... -findings/
Category: Politics
Published: March 13. 2019

Description: The final Mueller report should be graded “incomplete,” says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
March 13, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. If Mueller gives you his “completed” report anytime soon, it should be graded “incomplete.” Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We stand ready to help. We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story, we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. There is an overabundance of “assessments” but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of “evidence,” particularly if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions. We know only too well — and did our best to expose — how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the “trail” that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago. This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below — as a kind of aide-memoire— a discussion of some of the key factors related to what has become known as “Russia-gate.” And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data associated with WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC emails. We do not claim our conclusions are “irrefutable and undeniable,” a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments, however, are based on the scientific method — not “assessments.” We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring that you hear that directly from us. If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work — or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham. In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to ensure a full and thorough investigation,” when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again, we are at your disposal.
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin “interference” in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light, rump report misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).” Prepared by “handpicked analysts” from only three of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed “high confidence” in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their “assessment.” The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type caveats included in the assessment itself — such as:
“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as ‘we assess’ or ‘we judge,’ they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. …Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. … Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary … High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”

To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on “cyber incident attribution.“ They noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” [Emphasis added.]
The imperative is to get on that “trail” — and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to “sources and methods” is normally not a problem. Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement — the more so when an intrusion is termed “an act of war” and blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access. In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had “access to the actual hardware that was hacked.” Comey answered, “In the case of the DNC … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. …” Sen. Burr followed up: “But no content? Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?” Comey: “It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks … is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.” The “private party/high-class entity” to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016. Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension between Russia and the U.S. — it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic “trail” to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them. FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers. Why is that important? The evidence lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the DNC files on WikiLeaks’ site ends in an even number. We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web. This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks — not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so. We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA’s dragnet, collect-it-all approach — including “cast-iron” coverage of WikiLeaks — to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to “assessments”) as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean. Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show the routes that trace the packets.) The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI’s curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a “high-class entity.” Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the “Intelligence Community Assessment,” which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive … as to how ‘the DNC emails that were leaked’ got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS’ two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics. There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: “We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.” On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement, claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.” Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a “hack” of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS reportedin a wrap-up Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence),” forensic examination of the July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish from the DNC, by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention. As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S. This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate. Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK — was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb drive. The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5, 2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS’ July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo’s office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: “You are here because the President told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you.” Binney warned Pompeo — to stares of incredulity — that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump’s attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA. Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi,do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo — and still less to the former intelligence chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during the Q&A about Russian “hacking” and NSA, Clapper said: “Well, I have talked with NSA a lot … And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever.” [Emphasis added] Clapper added: “… as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn’t have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election.” (A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found hereand a commentary on Clapper’s performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is here.) Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: “James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance. To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand.” The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12, 2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Presson May 28, 2017 that Russia’s history shows that Russians are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.” Clapper ought to be asked about the “forensics” he said were “overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” And that, too, before Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael, Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington’s justifications for launching a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.

VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal to Interview Assange
Consortium News

URL: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/16/v ... w-assange/
Category: Politics
Published: April 16. 2019

Description: The bug in Mueller’s report released on Thursday is that he accepts that the Russian government interfered in the election. Trump should challenge that, says VIPS.
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment
April 16, 2019
Mr. President:
The song has ended but the melody lingers on. The release Thursday of the redacted text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election” nudged the American people a tad closer to the truth on so-called “Russiagate.” But the Mueller report left unscathed the central-but-unproven allegation that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you win the election. The thrust will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for becoming president. And that melody will linger on for the rest of your presidency, unless you seize the moment. Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth, apparently in the lack of any disinterested, independent forensic work. Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied for forensics on a discredited, DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with “pee-tape dossier” compiler Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was hired and paid by the DNC (through a cutout). We brought the lack of independent forensics to the attention of Attorney General William Barr on March 13 in a Memorandum entitled “Mueller’s Forensic-Free Findings”, but received no reply or acknowledgement. In that Memorandum we described the results of our own independent, agenda-free forensic investigation led by two former Technical Directors of the NSA, who avoid squishy “assessments,” preferring to base their findings on fundamental principles of science and the scientific method. Our findings remain unchallenged; they reveal gaping holes in CrowdStrike’s conclusions. We do not know if Barr shared our March 13 Memorandum with you. As for taking a public position on the forensics issue, we suspect he is being circumspect in choosing his battles carefully, perhaps deferring until later a rigorous examination of the dubious technical work upon which Mueller seems to have relied.
Barr’s Notification to Congress
As you know, the big attention-getter came on March 24 when Attorney General William Barr included in his four-page summary a quote from Mueller’s report: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Understandably, that grabbed headlines — the more so, since most Americans had been convinced earlier by the media that the opposite was true. There remains, however, a huge fly in the ointment. The Mueller report makes it clear that Mueller accepts as a given — an evidence-impoverished given — that the Russian government interfered in the election on two tracks:
Track 1 involves what Barr, echoing Mueller, claims “a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA)” did in using social media “to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.” A careful look at this allegation shows it to be without merit, despite Herculean efforts by The New York Times, for example, to put lipstick on this particular pig. After some rudimentary research, award winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter promptly put that pig out of its misery and brought home the bacon. We do not believe “Track 1” merits further commentary.
Track 2 does need informed commentary, since it is more technical and — to most Americans — arcane. In Barr’s words: “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.”
We are eager to see if Mueller’s report contains more persuasive forensic evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked. In Barr’s summary, the only mention of forensics refers to “forensic accountants” — a far cry from the kind of forensic investigators needed to provide convincing proof of “hacking” by the Russian government.
But They Were Indicted!
Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S. populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many Americans had mistakenly assumed that Mueller’s indictment of Russians — whether they be posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence officers — was proof of guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, “one can easily indict a ham sandwich” — easier still these days, if it comes with Russian dressing. Chances have now increased that the gullible folks who had been assured that Mueller would find collusion between you and Putin may now be a bit more circumspect — skeptical even — regarding the rest of the story-line of the “Russian hack,” and that will be even more likely among those with some technical background. Such specialists will have a field day, IF — and it is a capital “IF” — by some miracle, word of VIPS’ forensic findings gets into the media this time around. The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The authors noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other technical properties. VIPS has done that.
A “High-Class Entity?”
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be. It simply does not suffice for Mueller’s former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a “high-class entity.” It is nothing of the sort and, in addition to its documented incompetence, it is riddled with conflicts of interest. Comey needs to explain why he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they were said to have been “hacked.” And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his claim last November that “the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at VIPS, in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else — and that “Guccifer 2.0” is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from forensics too.
But the Talking Heads Say …
Again, if Mueller’s incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe that — whether you colluded the Russians or not — Putin came through for you big time. In short, absent President Putin’s help, you would not be president. Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the mainstream-media fodder — half-cooked by intelligence leaks — that they have been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playing the central role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank) complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia. We in VIPS have repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election are built on a house of cards. But, despite our record of accuracy on this issue — not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the fraudulent intelligence served up by our former colleagues — we have gotten no play in mainstream media. Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many have extensive academic and government experience focusing on Russia. We consider the issue of “Russian interference” of overriding significance not only because the allegation is mischievously bogus and easily disproven. More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind of dangerous fever pitch not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the Russian provocation was real — authentic, not synthetic. Sober minds resolved that crisis more than a half-century ago, and we all got to live another day. These days sober minds seem few and far between and a great deal is at stake. On the intelligence/forensics side, we have proved that the evidence adduced to “prove” that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails and gave them to WikiLeaks is spurious. For example, we have examined metadata from one key document attributed to Russian hacking and shown that it was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
Who Left the Bread Crumbs?
So, if it wasn’t the Russians, who left the “Russian” bread-crumb “fingerprints?” We do not know for sure; on this question we cannot draw a conclusion based on the principles of science — at least not yet. We suspect, however, that cyber warriors closer to home were responsible for inserting the “tell-tale signs” necessary to attribute “hacks” to Russia. We tacked on our more speculative views regarding this intriguing issue onto the end of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to you entitled “Intelligence Veterans Challenge Russia Hack Evidence.” We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum’s key findings because you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum. On October 24, 2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters: “You are here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you.” On the chance Pompeo has given you no report on his meeting with Binney, we can tell you that Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. Pompeo reacted with disbelief, but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We have no sign, though, that he followed through. And there is good reason to believe that Pompeo himself may have been reluctant to follow up with his subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate.
A leak from within the CIA, published on March 31, 2017 by WikiLeaks as part of the so-called “Vault 7” disclosures, exposed a cyber tool called “Marble,” which was used during 2016 for “obfuscation” (CIA’s word). This tool can be used to conduct a forensic attribution double game (aka a false-flag operation); it included test samples in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Korean, and Russian. Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima, to her credit, immediately penned an informative article on the Marble cyber-tool, under the catching (and accurate) headline “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.” That was apparently before Nakashima “got the memo.” Mainstream media have otherwise avoided like the plague any mention of Marble. Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Directorate of Digital Innovation have been with the White House — or with former Director Pompeo — on this touchy issue. Since it is still quite relevant, we will repeat below a paragraph included in our July 2017 Memorandum to you under the sub-heading “Putin and the Technology:”
“We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”

As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller’s findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
Political Enemies & Mainstream Media (Forgive the Redundancy)
You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leak of the DNC emails and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, (D-VA) vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt “stand down” and an end to the discussions with Assange. Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” [read Russia]? We won’t insult you with the obvious answer. Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many — including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must now “answer for what he has done.” But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange’s offer? Might he or his associates be still willing to provide “technical evidence” showing, at least, who was not the culprit? You, Mr. President, could cause that to happen. You would have to buck strong resistance at every turn, and there all manner of ways that those with vested interests and a lot of practice in sabotage can try to thwart you — with the full cooperation of most media pundits. By now, you know all too well how that works. But you are the president. And there may be no better time than now to face them down, show the spurious nature of the concocted “evidence” attempting to put you in “Putin’s pocket,” and — not least — lift the cloud that has prevented you from pursuing a more decent relationship with Russia.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

The ‘Guccifer 2.0’ Gaps in Mueller’s Full Report
Consortium News

URL: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/18/t ... ll-report/
Category: Politics
Published: April 18. 2019

Description: Like Team Mueller’s indictment last July of Russian agents, the full report reveals questions about Wikileaks’ role that much of the media has been ignoring, writes Daniel Lazare.
As official Washington pores over the Gospel According to Saint Robert, an all-important fact about the Mueller report has gotten lost in the shuffle. Just as the Christian gospels were filled with holes, the latest version is too – particularly with regard to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. The five pages that the special prosecutor’s report devotes to WikiLeaks are essentially lifted from Mueller’s indictment last July of 12 members of the Russian military intelligence agency known as the GRU. It charges that after hacking the Democratic National Committee, the GRU used a specially-created online persona known as Guccifer 2.0 to transfer a gigabyte’s worth of stolen emails to WikiLeaks just as the 2016 Democratic National Convention was approaching. Four days after opening the encrypted file, the indictment says, “Organization 1 [i.e. WikiLeaks] released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators [i.e. the GRU].” Mueller’s report says the same thing, but with the added twist that Assange then tried to cover up the GRU’s role by suggesting that murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich may have been the source and by telling a congressman that the DNC email heist was an “inside job” and that he had “physical proof” that the material was not from Russian. All of which is manna from heaven for corporate news outlets eager to pile on Assange, now behind bars in London. An April 11, 2019, New York Times news analysis, for instance, declared that “[c]ourt documents have revealed that it was Russian intelligence – using the Guccifer persona – that provided Mr. Assange thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee,” while another Times article published shortly after his arrest accuses the WikiLeaks founder of “promoting a false cover story about the source of the leaks.” But there’s a problem: it ain’t necessarily so. The official story that the GRU is the source doesn’t hold water, as a timeline from mid-2016 shows. Here are the key events based on the GRU indictment and the Mueller report:
* June 12: Assange tells Britain’s ITV that another round of Democratic Party disclosures is on the way: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great. WikiLeaks is having a very big year.”
* June 14: The Democratic National Committee accuses Russia of hacking its computers.
* June 15: Guccifer 2.0 claims credit for the hack. “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks ,” he brags. “They will publish them soon.”
* June 22: WikiLeaks tells Guccifer via email: “Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”
* July 6: WikiLeaks sends Guccifer another email: “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.”Replies Guccifer: “ok . . . i ”
* July 14: Guccifer sends WikiLeaks an encrypted file titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”
* July 18: WikiLeaks confirms it has opened “the 1Gb or so archive” and will release documents “this week.”
* July 22: WikiLeaks releases more than 20,000 DNC emails and 8,000 other attachments.
According to Mueller and obsequious news outlets like the Times, the sequence is clear: Guccifer sends archive, WikiLeaks receives archive, WikiLeaks accesses archive, WikiLeaks publishes archive. Donald Trump may not have colluded with Russia, but Julian Assange plainly did. [Attorney General Will Barr, significantly calling WikiLeaks a publisher, said at his Thursday press conference: “Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.”]
Avoiding Questions
The narrative raises questions that the press studiously avoids. Why, for instance, would Assange announce on June 12 that a big disclosure is on the way before hearing from the supposed source? Was there a prior communication that Mueller has not disclosed? What about the reference to “new material” on June 22 – does that mean Assange already had other material in hand? After opening the Guccifer file on July 18, why would he publish it just four days later? Would that give WikiLeaks enough time to review some 28,000 documents to insure they’re genuine? “If a single one of those emails had been shown to be maliciously altered,” blogger Mark F. McCarty observes, “Wikileaks’ reputation would have been in tatters.” There’s also the question that an investigator known as Adam Carter poses in Disobedient Media: why would Guccifer brag about giving WikiLeaks“thousands of files” that he wouldn’t send for another month? The narrative doesn’t make sense – a fact that is crucially important now that Assange is fighting for his freedom in the U.K. New Yorker staff writer Raffi Khatchadourian sounded a rare note of caution last summer when he warned that little about Guccifer 2.0 adds up. While claiming to be the source for some of WikiLeaks’ most explosive emails, the material he released on his own had proved mostly worthless – 20 documents that he “said were from the DNC but which were almost surely not,” as Khatchadourian puts it, a purported Hillary Clinton dossier that “was nothing of the sort,” screenshots of emails so blurry as to be “unreadable,” and so forth. While insisting that “our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party, Assange told Khatchadourian that the source was not Guccifer either. “We received quite a lot of submissions of material that was already published in the rest of the press, and people seemingly submitted the Guccifer archives,” he said somewhat cryptically. “We didn’t publish them. They were already published.” When Khatchadourian asked why he didn’t put the material out regardless, he replied that “the material from Guccifer 2.0 – or on WordPress – we didn’t have the resources to independently verify.”
No Time for Vetting
So four days was indeed too short a time to subject the Guccifer file to proper vetting. Of course, Mueller no doubt regards this as more “dissembling,” as his report describes it. Yet WikiLeaks has never been caught in a lie for the simple reason that honesty and credibility are all-important for a group that promises to protect anonymous leakers who supply it with official secrets. (See “Inside WikiLeaks: Working with the Publisher that Changed the World,” Consortium News, July 19, 2018.) Mueller, by contrast, has a rich history of mendacity going back to his days as FBI director when he sought to cover up the Saudi role in 9/11 and assured Congress on the eve of the 2003 invasion that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction pose “a clear threat to our national security.” So if the Mueller narrative doesn’t hold up, the charge of dissembling doesn’t either. Indeed, as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy observes in The National Review, the fact that the feds have charged Assange with unauthorized access to a government computer rather than conspiring with the Kremlin could be a sign that Team Mueller is less than confident it can prove collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. As he puts it, the GRU indictment “was more like a press release than a charging instrument” because the special prosecutor knew that the chances were zero that Russian intelligence agents would surrender to a U.S. court. Indeed, when Mueller charged 13 employees and three companies owned by Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin with interfering in the 2016 election, he clearly didn’t expect them to surrender either. Thus, his team seemed taken aback when one of the alleged “troll farms” showed up in Washington asking to be heard. The prosecution’s initial response, as McCarthy put it, was to seek a delay “on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served – notwithstanding that the defendant has shown up in court and asked to be arraigned.” When that didn’t work, prosecutors tried to limit Concord’s access to some 3.2 million pieces of evidence on the grounds that the documents are too “sensitive” for Russian eyes to see. If they are again unsuccessful, they may have no choice but to drop the charges entirely, resulting in yet another “public relations disaster” for the Russia-gate investigation. None of which bodes well for Mueller or the news organizations that worship at his shrine. After blowing the Russia-gate story all these years, why does the Times continue to slander the one news organization that tells the truth?
User avatar
Posts: 1803219
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Assange Expected to confirm Wikileaks source of DNC Emails was Seth Rich not Russians

Postby smix » Fri May 03, 2019 8:39 am

Assange Expected to confirm Wikileaks source of DNC Emails was Seth Rich not Russians

URL: https://www.exopolitics.org/assange-exp ... -russians/
Category: Politics
Published: April 25, 2019

Description: The April 11 arrest of Julian Assange has resurrected the narrative that emails stored on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were not hacked by Russia, but leaked by a disenchanted employee, Seth Rich, who wanted to expose how Bernie Sanders was systematically undermined during the 2016 primaries by the DNC. According to this narrative, Rich communicated with Assange and handed over the DNC emails through Wikileaks’ secure online drop box. Assange first stated in a June 12, 2016, interview that Wikileaks had more of the missing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server during her time as Secretary of State: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct.” Two days later, the computer security company “Crowdstrike” published a report that the DNC email servers had been hacked by Russia. The mainstream media quickly embraced the Russia hacking narrative to explain why Clinton and DNC emails were in the hands of Wikileaks. Here’s what the Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima had to say on June 14, 2016:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

However, multiple sources pointed out major problems with Crowdstrike as a competent and impartial investigator into the alleged Russian hacking:
The Nakamura [Nakashima] piece marked the first salvo in the Russian hacking meme. But the claim was not backed up by independently verified forensic evidence—it rested solely on the conclusions of a computer security company—Crowdstrike. The pro-Ukrainian politics of Crowdstrike’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, and his strident opposition to Russia cast a pall of bias over the findings of Crowdstrike. No U.S. Federal Law Enforcement official or agency was given access to the DNC servers. Neither the FBI nor Homeland Security were permitted to examine the servers and the alleged evidence of a hack.

In his 2019 best-selling book, Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service officer, detailed the multiple flaws in the Crowdstrike investigation and the puzzling decision to deny the FBI access to the allegedly hacked DNC email server. Almost a month after Assange’s interview that Wikileaks had more Clinton emails and was vetting them for eventual release, Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, in very strange circumstances. Nearly two weeks later, on July 22, Wikileaks dumped 20,000 DNC emails on its website. A July 25, 2016, story published in Vox by Timothy Lee covered the Wikileaks DNC dump and found that many showed the DNC favored the Clinton campaign over Bernie Sanders. In November 2017, Donna Brazile, the former chair of the DNC, confirmed that the DNC had systematically supported Clinton over Sanders. Brazile’s admission provides a solid foundation for understanding what motivated Rich to leak to DNC emails to Wikileaks in the first place. In an August 2016 Dutch television interview, Assange firmly hinted that Rich’s murder was related to his leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks:
Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often significant risks. There was a 27-year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back… murdered.. for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.
Host: That was just a robbery wasn’t it?
Assange: No. There’s no finding.
Host: What are you suggesting?
Assange: I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.

Wikileaks then offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of those responsible, fueling the rumors that Rich was Wikileaks source.


Those who claimed that Rich was responsible for the release of the DNC emails were vilified and forced to backtrack on their claims. Here’s how Wikipedia summarized the situation:
Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[5][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[4] The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news. [10][11][12]

Influential figures such as Fox News and Sean Hannity were forced through litigation to abandon their investigations into Rich’s murder due to his parents leading the charge condemning “conspiracy theories”.
Rich’s parents condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that these individuals were exploiting their son’s death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists “disgusting sociopaths”.

A story published by two Fox News reporters, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, in May 2017 was subsequently pulled from the news site and Hannity also stopped covering the story. Even Bongino’s book, Spygate, failed to mention the Rich connection and what this meant to the whole Russia hacking narrative, which he uncritically endorsed as valid. After Fox News reporters and Hannity suspended their investigations into Rich leaking the DNC emails, only alternative news sources were willing to investigate the available evidence. Most prominent among them was National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, William Binney, who was among the first to conclude that Rich was responsible for the leaking and that Russia was being framed by the Deep State. Binney, a former Technical Director at the NSA, together with Ray McGovern, a 27 year CIA analyst, wrote on September 20, 2017:
We stand by our main conclusion that the data from the intrusion of July 5, 2016, into the Democratic National Committee’s computers, an intrusion blamed on “Russian hacking,” was not a hack but rather a download/copy onto an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC.

After Q Anon publicly emerged in late October 2017, Seth Rich was soon mentioned in several posts alluding to his role as the true source for the Wikileaks DNC email leaks, and that he was murdered as a result by hitmen tied to the MS-13 criminal gang and the Clintons. The alternative news investigation into Rich’s role in leaking the DNC emails subsequently languished but gained renewed life a year later on October 4, 2018, when the NSA responded to a Freedom of Information request that showed Rich had indeed been communicating with Assange. In their response to a FOIA request filed by attorney Ty Clevenger about information concerning Seth Rich and Julian Assange, the NSA wrote:
Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.

Since the FOIA request and the NSA response were not released, the NSA’s startling admission received no attention by the mainstream media, and only a few alternative media sources picked up the story. One of these was an April 19, 2019, article by Mark McCarty who cited a blog post published six months earlier (October 23, 2018) that first discussed the NSA FOIA response. McCarty raised important questions over the precise language used in Clevenger’s FOIA request and what this meant in terms of documents being withheld. In his April 19, 2019, article he pointed out that many of these questions were resolved by Binney in an April 17 interview:
“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them. That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.”

Binney’s interpretation of what the NSA had admitted through FOIA is astounding in its implications. The single issue that has come to dominate analyses of the 2016 election is that Russia hacked the DNC and interfered with the integrity of the US Presidential election by passing this on to Wikileaks. This spawned the nearly two-year Mueller investigation into Trump’s collusion with Russia, which generated reams of anti-Trump and anti-Russia stories in the mainstream media. Both Trump and Russia were vilified by a hostile media that was anxious to promote the Russia hacking narrative, and ridiculing anyone suggesting that Rich was the true source of the DNC info being released to Wikileaks, not Russia. The NSA’s admission is the first concrete sign that the Deep State and the mainstream media are about to be exposed for willfully lying and misrepresenting the truth. Assange is all but certain to be extradited to the USA, and will reveal what he knows about Rich and his connection to the DNC email dumps. While the questioning and extradition of Assange are likely to take an extended period of time, it’s worth emphasizing that the truth is already known to the NSA, which is keeping this classified for the moment. It is not known when and how this information will be released, and whether it will be done through Assange, the NSA or some other process. Despite knowledge of the Rich and Assange connection, the NSA and its two directors since the DNC hacking – Admiral Mike Rogers (2014-2018) and General Paul Nakasone (2018-) – have done very little to publicly alter the mainstream news narrative that Russia had hacked the DNC servers; and that Rich’s murder was unrelated to the DNC documents that Wikileaks released less than two weeks after his murder. Why did the NSA stand by and allow the accusations of Russian hacking to grow to the extent that relations with Russia have been severely damaged, economic sanctions imposed, and a two-year long investigation was established into potential collusion between the Trump Presidential Campaign and the Russians? One answer worth exploring is that the Deep State had much to fear about a potential collaboration between Trump and Putin in revealing many advanced technology secrets possessed by their respective intelligence services; secrets which President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev unsuccessfully attempted to unlock 56 years ago, with tragic consequences for both.

[Update 4/25/2019 – A May 16, 2017 article published by the Free Thought Project discussed reports about alleged email communications between Julian Assange and Seth Rich provided by a former homicide detective, Rod Wheeler, from confidential FBI sources. A week later, Wheeler’s comments were retracted. It’s important to note that the 2018 NSA FOIA release confirms that the email correspondence did take place and was being tracked by the NSA]
User avatar
Posts: 1803219
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to Private Investigators, Detectives, Covert Surveillance

Mobile Device
  • 1
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement