There are good reasons these VIPS members are not backing down.
Not
only do they have all the information that's been brought to light over
the last 9 months by independent researchers, they also have direct
experience of working in intelligence agencies and Binney, alone, knows
all about the NSA's capabilities because he played a fundamental role in
developing the NSA's data-gathering operations.
The framing from most critics recentlyhas done little more than construct a straw-man to attack (typically
by making it appear as though confidence of those calling for
investigation is solely based on transfer speeds that were mentioned
in the 7th conclusion in Forensicator's analysis).
The new report covers more than any of the previous reports (going beyond what Forensicator and myself even have the means to assess). While
I do not have full details yet and won't until it is published, I do
know it should easily provide enough information to leave no doubt that
further investigation is needed.
The reputations of various intelligence agencies and the programs
they operate, in turn affecting budgets those agencies (and/or
departments within them) are allocated.
We have the USIC (United States Intelligence Community), mainstream
media and much of the political establishment across both partiesthat
are likely to oppose this aggressively.
We also face the prospect that Mueller will likely be resistant to
putting any real pressure on Shawn Henry and Dmitri Alperovitch
especially as the former had close ties with Mueller in the past.
I'm just asking everyone to familiarize themselves with the facts as
much as possible, to keep an eye out for the report in the week or so
ahead, look at how those who have received copies of the report (including any additional parties that are disclosed) react (or fail to).
There's a good chance they will start off by not even acknowledging
receipt of the reportin the hope all of this can be ignored. If we want
to see a different outcome to that, it's important that as many people
as possible know which decision-makers have received the report, the
scope of the report and that it's important these things are investigated(which they should be – at least, if the RussiaGate investigations are actually being conducted in good faith).
If you feel strongly enough about the outcome (or lack of an outcome)
and want all the evidence investigated so America has a chance of
finding out the truth about Guccifer 2.0, all I ask is that you speak
up about how you feel and share the upcoming news far and wide.
To all who are willing to get the word out and put pressure on
those that need encouragement to investigate things thoroughly - please
know, in advance, that I'm extremely grateful for your help and support.
If you have any questions or concerns, I'm only an email away (see: home page)."
This was foolish, because, if he had attacked the inaccuracies
surrounding the "locked file" statements and sought to make a
substantive argument against it, he'd have been on solid ground.
This is the only thing in Lawrence's article that I spotted that was significantly different to the circumstances I'm aware of (and
it's inconsequential to the evidence, analysis and conclusions made in
any of the research carried out that Lawrence references in his article).
(A composition/division logical fallacy in use, attempting to
create "guilt by association" to those Feldman's audience is likely to
have a dim view of)
"Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC
emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers
would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would
contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies,
and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and
neutrality."
"But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank,"
...and as a result of it not achieving a goal that Feldman has
inserted via the previous paragraph, he uses this to justify calling
Lawrence a "crank". To me this looks a lot like weak justification to
use the most basic of propaganda devices, name-calling.
Degrading Perceived Validity and Misrepresenting Arguments
Now we proceed to Feldman misrepresenting arguments and the basis of them...
Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the
belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and
correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at
speeds impossible via the internet.
We see "beliefs" and "claims" but this is misleading, it's not about
believing someone, the primary source data is available in a couple of
torrent files (in the public domain since September 2016 in files
that are accessed through a protocol that validates the integrity of the
data). The datasets that Forensicator produced from the archive
contents can be regenerated by others and every step of the process up
to the conclusions being reached has been checked over by several
independent third parties.
What's worse is the omission here. Feldman has omitted the fact that
in Lawrence's article it is explained that the transfer speeds, at that
time, would have been impossible to get when transferring the files over
long distances, even specifically mentioning "transoceanic" to clarify
the context.
These are important qualifiers and Feldman completely omits
these in the version he gives to his readers to give himself an argument
he can actually dismiss rather than those actually being presented in
Lawrence's article.
The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument —
rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was
transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and
Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an
internet connection.
No, they don't claim that it's impossible to get those speeds over
the Internet, that's a misrepresentation through omission of the
qualifiers that were provided in Lawrence's article and willfully
omitted by Feldman. It seems that Feldman doubles down immediately in an
effort to hammer his distortions into the minds of his readers (who are starting to look like victims of manipulation at this stage).
If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is
already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre
claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny.
I suspect Lawrence was trying to explain things in terms that don't
require a high degree of technical knowledge to understand and get the
gist of. Handily, Feldman gives me an example to demonstrate this to be
the case with:
As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers
penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and
analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that
supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about,
or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct
impression that Lawrence doesn’t either.
Another part of the "layer beneath" comes from looking at timestamp
resolutions, something not easily spotted unless you're looking for a
sequence of timestamps that are rounded up to the nearest two seconds
(or where you can see the microseconds of the timestamps to establish
their resolution) - this pattern is an indication of FAT filesystem
usage, something that is rarely seen except for where USB storage
devices are used. (FAT disk partitions are a possibility but they're a technology that was starting to become redundant 20 years ago!)
Forensicator also went further to analyse gaps in transfer operations
to determine the size of the original batch of files (of which the
NGP-VAN archive's contents appear to only be a sub-set a fraction of the
size).
These are effectively all the hidden "layers" (derivative data and
data that is typically concealed or unnoticed by people browsing through
the files) that I believe Lawrence was trying to give a less
jargon-filled explanation of.
"A few days ago, New York Magazine published an article attacking Patrick Lawrence‘s coverage of new information from an anonymous analyst known as the Forensicator. Patrick Lawrence is a foreign correspondent at The Nation, the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America. His [8/9/17] article mentioned Disobedient Media‘s report on analysis published by the Forensicator which
suggests that files published by Guccifer 2.0 had been copied locally,
not hacked ["it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak"] which has serious implications for the Russian Hacking
narrative and for the DNC.
The New York Magazine‘s coverage of the issue was disconcertingly inaccurate. They characterize the Forensicator as having claimed that DNC information must have been leaked by an insider. The New York Mag wrote: “Yesterday, The Nation published
an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate
that last summer’s pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job.”
The New York Magazine
dismissed these highly credentialed individuals, instead focusing on
some of the individuals who had tweeted The Nation’s article, in order
to somehow discredit the contents of the article by association. Such a
dishonest framing device does not address the contents of the analysis
in any way, and represents a small fraction of those who have reported
on this important analysis. This intellectual dishonesty continues when
Lawrence’s work is called “the extremely long-winded product of a
crank.”
Disobedient Mediapreviously reported the analysis of Adam Carter, which suggested that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona may have been perpetrated by Crowdstrike in
concert with the DNC to pre-emptively smear any DNC information
published by Wikileaks. Crowdstrike has notable connections to the Atlantic Council, a think tank sponsored in part by controversial financier George Soros.
Adam Carter also published a response
to the New York Mag article earlier today, which delves into the
line-by-line misrepresentations in the piece. Carter writes: “Feldman
misrepresents the goals of the article, VIPS’ interest and the goal of
the researchers/analysts that all of this relates to.”
Ray McGovern, a cofounder of VIPS, has appeared on RT to speak about the implications of the Forensicator’s analysis, in addition to appearances with LarouchePAC and others.
Consortium News
reported the memorandum published by VIPS, which corroborated some
important aspects of the Forensicator’s analysis, and cited their work.
Signatories on the document included William Binney, former NSA
Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military Analysis, Skip
Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology US, Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence
officer and CIA analyst, and others, which are shown in full below, via
the report by Consortium News." .............
"Last Friday [9/22], most major media outlets touted a major story about
Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on
claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. “Russians attempted
to hack elections systems in 21 statesin the run-up to last year’s
presidential election, officials said Friday,”began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.
This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably
triggered instant decrees – that of course went viral – declaring that
the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is
now in doubt.
Virginia’s Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21
targeted states, announced that this shows “Russia tried to hack their
election”....
MSNBC’s Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over,
Rachel Maddow, was indignant that this wasn’t told to us earlier and
that we still aren’t getting all the details. “What we have now figured
out,” Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she
made, is that “Homeland Security knew at least by June that 21 states
had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election....targeting
their election infrastructure.”
They were one small step away from demanding that the election
results be nullified, indulging the sentiment expressed by #Resistance
icon Carl [Rob?] Reiner the other day: “Is there anything more exciting that [sic] the possibility of Trump’s election being invalidated and Hillary rightfully installed as our President?”
So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday [9/27] when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin– one of the states included in the original report that,for
obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have
its election systems targeted by Russian hackers:
The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that
reversal, insisting that there was still evidence that some computer
networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had anything to
do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted:
“Wisconsin’s chief
elections administrator, Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland
Security assured the state it had not been targeted.”"...
(continuing): "Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of
State for another one of the named states, California, issued a scathing
statement repudiating the claimed report:
......... Sometimes stories end up debunked. There’s nothing particularly
shocking about that. If this were an isolated incident, one could chalk
it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.
But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has
happened over and over and over again.Inflammatory claims about Russia
get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing
more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to
collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking
in evidence.
The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia
are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. I wrote about this
phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time in June
when 3 CNN journalists “resigned” over a completely false story linking
Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian
investment fund which the network was forced to retract:
Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid,causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to
Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because
none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor’s note
after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the
internet and spreading of “Fake News” based on an anonymous group’s
McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and
various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?
Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract
its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted
that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin?
And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to
add to this trash heap. Each time the stories go viral; each time they
further shape the narrative; each time those who spread them say little
to nothing when it is debunked.
None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does
it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and
John Podesta’s email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still
no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government).Perhaps there
were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this
story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.
But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless,
anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth
without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding
every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains
otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex
world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility--so media
outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they
publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the
U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked.
A highly touted story yesterday
from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more
widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this
recklessness.
The story is based on the claims of a new group formed
just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national
security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as
Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland
Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. Ireported on the founding of this group,
calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was
unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week
by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former CIA chief
(James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a
video declaring that the U.S. is now “at war with Russia”).
The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter
accounts are “Russia bots,” meaning accounts that disseminate an
“anti-American message” and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone
which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they
identify their methodologyfor creating their lists or determining what
constitutes “anti-Americanism.”
They do it all in secret, and you’re just supposed to trust them:
Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff and their national security state friends.
And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand, as evidenced
by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a
group formed by the nation’s least trustworthy sources.
But no matter. It’s a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it’s
instantly vested with credibility and authority, published by leading
news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite circles.
From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times
article – that the Kremlin aggressively and effectively weaponized
Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during the
election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertionsof a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.
That’s how the Russia narrative is constantly “reported,” and it’s
the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed.
It’s because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse
of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational
faculties.
No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary
threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so
low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see evidencefor official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of
the evidence that is proffered, are accusations that impugn one’s
patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence for official
claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin
agent or at least adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in
2002, or questioning the evidence presented for claims about Saddam, was
viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).
Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can
possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major,
incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have
collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how
we are discussing and reporting on relations between thesetwo nuclear-armed powers?"
"Republican Donald Trump’s victory in Wisconsin has been reaffirmed
following a presidential recount that showed him defeating Democrat
Hillary Clinton by more than 22,000 votes.
Wisconsin certified results Monday of the recount requested and paid
for by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. In the end, Trump defeated
Democrat Hillary Clinton by 22,748 votes....
"HHS Secretary Tom Price resigned Friday in the face of multiple
federal inquiries and growing criticism of his use of private and
government planes for travel, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1
million since May.
The White House said the former seven-term Georgia congressman, 63, offered his resignation earlier in the day and that President Donald Trump had accepted it."...
“I'm told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he
doesn't want to use it anymore,” the former House Speaker and close
Trump adviser said of the “drain the swamp” message in an NPR interview
published Wednesday morning. “I've noticed on a couple of fronts, like
people chanting ‘Lock her up,’ that he's in a different role now and
maybe he feels that as president, as the next president of the United
States, that he should be marginally more dignified than talking about
alligators in swamps.”
While Trump made his “drain the swamp” pledge a major part of his
campaign message in the final weeks of the presidential race, his
transition team was, in its early days after the election, packed with
lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, chemical, fossil fuel and tobacco
industries. Under pressure, Trump’s team instituted a rigid lobbying ban
that prompted some to leave, but the group orchestrating the
president-elect’s transition still relies heavily on GOP insiders.
Trump’s Cabinet and other high-level appointments seem to have
deviated somewhat from his “drain the swamp” message. After attacking
Democrat Hillary Clinton regularly throughout the campaign for being too
close to Wall Street banks, Trump has put three former Goldman Sachs
executives in prominent White House positions, including Steven Mnuchin
as treasury secretary, Steve Bannon as chief White House strategist and
Gary Cohn as the director of the National Economic Council."...
If the past eight months have proved
anything, it is that all the 24/7 news coverage of
Donald Trump’s
antics, all the millions of words devoted to
Paul Ryan’s
and
Mitch McConnell’s
plans, have been a complete waste of space and time. In the end,
control of the entire policy agenda in Washington comes down to three
senators. Three senators whom most Americans have never had a chance to
vote for or against. Three senators who comprise 8% of their party
conference. Arizona’s
John McCain,
Maine’s
Susan Collins
and Kentucky’s
Rand Paul.
Forget Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. Meet the Never-Trump
Triumvirate.
At least the House Freedom Caucus scuttles GOP
legislation based on shared principles. Sens.
Ted Cruz
and
Mike Lee
have also led revolts against bills, again based on shared
criticisms. But what do the Arizona maverick, the Maine moderate and the
Kentucky libertarian have in common? Very little.
Well, very
little save motivations that go beyond policy. And that is the crucial
point that is missing from the endless analyses of the
McCain-Collins-Paul defections on health care. The media has treated the
trio’s excuses for killing their party’s top priority as legit, despite
the obvious holes in their objections over policy and process. What in
fact binds the three is their crafting of identities based primarily on
opposition to their party or Mr. Trump. This matters, because it bodes
very ill for tax reform in the Senate. Overcoming policy objections is
one thing. Overcoming egos is another.
Mr.
McCain, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has decided his final
legacy will be a return to the contrarian “straight talk” persona of
old, which wins him liberal media plaudits. The Arizonan has never
gotten over losing the presidency, and it clearly irks him that Mr.
Trump succeeded where he failed. His personal disdain for the president
is obvious, and his implausible excuses for opposing the Graham-Cassidy
health-care reform are proof that this is personal.
Ms. Collins
is reportedly days away from deciding whether she’ll ditch the Senate
gig and run for governor.That potential campaign has guided her every
move for at least a year now—perhaps her entire career—and was clearly
among her reasons last summer to abandon her party’s nominee and
publicly excoriate Mr. Trump. It is a basic precept in Washington that
Sen. Collins votes in whatever way best serves Sen. Collins. Right now
that means being Never Trump.
Mr. Paul worked hard during his
first Senate campaignto reassure Kentuckians that he was not his
father, and it turns out that’s very true. Because even
Ron Paul
was to be found with his party’s House majority on issues that
truly mattered,and largely saved his defections for the lost causes
that produced 434-1 votes. Sen. Paul’s standards for “conservative”
policy are as varying as the wind, and lately they blow toward whatever
position can earn him the title of purest man in Washington.
The
press was fixated this week on Mr. McConnell’s bad week, which is an
easy piece to write. But it ignores the obvious reality that the
Triumvirate seems to have never had any intention of letting its party
succeed. After all, a senator who intended to stand firm on “regular
order,” as Mr. McCain said, would have informed his colleagues of that
demand at the beginning, rather than allow his colleagues to set up for
another vote and then dramatically tank it (again) at the last minute.
A
senator who voted for “skinny” ObamaCare repeal in the summer on the
grounds that anything was “better than no repeal,” in the words of Mr.
Paul, would not suddenly engineer an unreachable set of demands for his
vote on an even better repeal.
The
Senate has no lack of lime-lighters. Nor is it low on Trump critics.
Think Nebraska’s
Ben Sasse
and Arizona’s
Jeff Flake.
The difference is that the clear majority of the critics aren’t
allowing ambition or disdain get in the way of votes for better policy.
But
this raises the question of whether the White House understands that
the Triumvirate is also the prize on tax reform. Mr. Trump took a shot
at Mr. McConnell this week, but the president needs to shift his focus
to those who hold the actual power. Those dinner invites to Chuck and
Nancy would be better reserved for Ms. Collins. Its internal
conversations need to focus on what forms of flattery or policy or
misery might appeal to the political motivations of Messrs. McCain and
Paul, and get them on side.
Because the Triumvirate made very
clear during the health-care debate how it operates. Pretending it won’t
do it again is to ignore reality."
Getting
the majority in the Senate apparently wasn't enough. We need a super
majority to overcome the McCain, Collins, Paul....and Murkowski hold
outs. These people are not Republicans anyway. They don't vote for
their constituents. They vote for their egos. McCain forgets that he
stated that anyone who votes for Trump is crazy before Trump said he
doesn't like anyone who was captured. Trump was wrong to say that
stupid thing, and McCain was wrong to denigrate millions of voters from
his own party.".... ............
I
recognize that these three are basically "Never Trumpers", but that's
Mitch's fault. On the other side of the aisleif Chuck (Schumer) had three that
were going to wreck a bill for their own purposes, he'd rip their soul
out, publicly. Mitch is invisible. You have to beat Chuck off a microphone with a stick, Mitch can't find one."
Right
now, under the filibuster rule, most legislation requires corralling at
least seven, and probably more, Democrats for legislation to advance. No
Democrat Senator is going to stick his neck out to support, say, a tax
bill, knowing that Senator McConnell has no chance of lining up another
six to eight Democrats to join him.
But if one
Democrat, or two, could offset the loss of a McCain, Paul, Collins, and
even Murkowski, legislation might well start to move again. If Senator
McConnell finally figures this out he might even retain his leadership
role. If he doesn't, he should be replaced with a Senator who gets it."
............................
"Leon Pesenson...
In the end we are being faced with the same problem that Tories now have
in the UK.Republicans will only be able to offer a better management
of the welfare state unlike Democrats who only seek more state welfare
as a solution to what ails the welfare state. We have an opportunity,
not often presented, to roll it back to a degree, partly because
Obamacare is failing rapidly and is not as entrenched in the national
psyche, and Republicans are squandering that opportunity, mostly at the
hands of people who are not really Republicans, but caucus with them."
It
is especially shameful that McCain puts his personal animosity ahead of
doing good for we, the people. We will not honor or celebrate his
legacy; it is tragic."
INTRODUCTION I'm a private citizen of the United Kingdom. I have no affinity with
any political party and no investment or stake in geopolitical outcomes
beyond that of being a British citizen who opposes needless conflict,
especially if it is instigated by deceit.
There has been a great deal of misreporting, under-reporting and
false assumptions made about Guccifer 2.0, and what makes this a serious
issue is that these earlier press errors have gone uncorrected.
Instead, most of the mainstream press has studiously ignored new
evidence that contradicts the false narrative it has promoted over the
past 15 months and instead continues to generate xenophobic hysteriaover alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election.
RESEARCH, DISCOVERIES and MAINSTREAM PRESS SILENCE In February 2017, a discovery was made that discredited the ‘Russian
hacker’ theory.This discovery of independently verifiable evidence was
made by carrying out a more thorough analysis of the metadata of digital
files published on Guccifer 2.0’s own Wordpress website than anyone
appears to have done in 2016.
The mainstream press stayed silent; it took around 200 days before
the first brief mention of this new evidence in the press.Since then,
the ‘Russian hacker’ theory has been further invalidated by other
‘digital forensics’ evidence from various independent researchers and
analysts. Again, instead of dealing with these new discoveries
legitimately, most in the mainstream press have chosen to ‘cherry-pick’ a
single aspect, distort that, and argue against it ‘strawman’-style, as a
means to disregard 90%-95% of the research.
THE THREAT TO GLOBAL STABILITY and HUMANITY
Since October 2016, the United States Intelligence Community (USIC),
with assistance from mainstream media propaganda channels, hasused
warmongering rhetoric, alleged Russian government interference in the US
election, and called that alleged interference an "act of war".
Anonymous officials in the USIC, cited by US mainstream press, have
also made claims that strong evidence exists and have even stated they
have intelligence showing that Russian President Vladimir Putin called
for hacking the DNC.
Nothing has ever been made public that supports such allegations.
Indeed, the closest any USIC agencies have come to this is making
assessments, none have produced hard evidence. Those assessments, at
least as they relate to the Guccifer 2.0 persona, have been discredited
by the newly discovered information. This, however, does not seem to
have stopped the push for sanctions or for escalating military tensions,
both of which continue within the US government.
Those entrusted to investigate the alleged Russian interference also
appear to be completely ignoring the new evidence – evidence that does a
lot to vindicate Russia. Ignoring evidence that suggests there may have
been a domestic political scheme to frame Russia should be a concern to
those who desire a peaceful and stable world for all.
This could easily
be an attempt to sustain a false pretext for war, a war between
nuclear-armed nations that risks expanding into global war.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCES Even more questionable, the assessments provided by various US
intelligence agencies have, in part, been based on the reporting of
private sector entities, one of which is CrowdStrike, the only entity
the Democratic Party allowed to have access to its computer servers –
effectively the ‘crime scene’ of the alleged cyber intrusion of which
DNC claims it is the victim.
CrowdStrike has multiple conflicts of interest here: its own contract
with the Democratic Party; its affiliation with the Atlantic Council
(which in turn has ties with NATO and anti-Russian individuals such as
Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk); and some of its executives have
made specious claims over the past year that now clearly need
investigating, especially with regards to the relative timing of
CrowdStrike’s public statements and the appearance of the Guccifer 2.0
persona.
WHY EVIDENCE MAY BE GETTING IGNORED The person investigating these matters is Robert Swan Mueller III, someone whose history includes attempts to frame WikiLeaksand who is friends with one of the CrowdStrike executives who made
specious claims about the DNC being hacked. I am concerned that he may
not investigate this matter thoroughly and may ignore evidence that has
recently been reported to him.
WHO HAS THIS BEEN REPORTED TO? A report outlining various pieces of evidence and raising concerns
over the assessments given by several US intelligence agencies was sent
to Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III as well as to the US House
and Senate Intelligence Committees, the US House and Senate Judiciary
Committees and the US Deputy Attorney General, Rod Jay Rosenstein.
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN INFORMED OF AND BY WHOM?
A copy of the report ("Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge") is available at: http://nef4rhc.wordpress.com. While the report does cite research that I have been involved with (and that I report on at: http://g-2.space),
it was actually produced and sent by Skip Folden, a US citizen, former
IBM Program Manager for Information Technology for the US, and someone
who worked at IBM for at least 25 years.
Folden also co-authored an earlier report on this same subject with
members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group
of highly experienced veteran intelligence officials and whistleblowers
that opposes conflict justified by flawed intelligence. VIPS is most
famous for its 2003 memorandum blowing the whistle on the false
assessment that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that led
America into an illegal invasion of Iraq.
SUMMARY I don't want to see global chaos and conflict caused by deception. I
want to make sure investigation of the “DNCLeaks” is not obstructed or
conducted in bad faith. I feel there is a serious and credible threat to
global stability that may arise if this matter is not investigated
properly.
If you wish to clarify any of the points made in this letter or the
report, technical or otherwise, I will be happy to do so to the best of
my ability.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Carter"
..........................
Added: See, Comey's "folks" told him that relying on DNC employee CrowdStrike was an "appropriate substitute" for failing to examine DNC servers themselves: "Mr. Comey provided his most detailed explanation of the DNC lockout in Marchwhen he appeared before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and was questioned by Rep. Will Hurd, Texas
Republican.
The U.S. President had little option but to sign the legislation, but
that does not mean that diplomacy is completely blocked. As expected,
he issued a Signing Statement (see here),
in which, while accepting the mandate of Congress, Trump took issue
with the new Congressional encroachments into his prerogatives (Article
Two of the Constitution) in terms of foreign policy, and he reserved the
right to decide on how the Congressional mandate might be implemented
(i.e. in respect to the quadrilateral negotiations over Ukraine)....
Added: Putin endorses Obama for President in 2012:
Putin praised Obama leading up to Nov. 2012 election, said Obama
would provide more favorable resolution to missile defense, that
Romney would widen rift. Putin gushes that Obama is "an honest person
who really wants to change much for the better"-Reuters, 9/6/2012
Comment: As explained in above two Alastair Crooke excerpts, the entire US political class, ie both US political
parties, is thrilled with the RussiaGate issue, has already used it to
nullify Trump's election and the votes of 63 million Americans, and to gin up WWIII with Russia. Both
House and Senate voted nearly unanimously in August on a bill stating
Putin/Russia interfered in the 2016 election and must be severely
punished. They also voted to remove Trump's authority to conduct foreign
policy with Russia, effectively removing a Constitutionally
provided
Executive branch duty and transferring it to Congress. They did this
without benefit of an amendment to the Constitution. In addition to
humiliating the US president, they wanted to let US voters know
that under no circumstances are us hicks allowed to decide who becomes
president. They proved this by nullifying the election. Trump had
campaigned on detente with Russia,
that among other things, with the global terrorism problem, we needed
more countries to work
with us. Trump voters agreed, won the election, then had it taken away
from them by the non-gridlocked political class. Shutting us up is the
#1 obsession of these people. They're
so frustrated with us now that World War III looks like an
improvement--it would put us on a back burner for awhile. Of course, we're forced to
pay all the bills for their wars. ............................
Here's a suggestion that would diminish the triumvirate's present influence: Do away with the filibuster.
Why would that reduce the power of McCain, Collins, and Paul to frustrate legislation? Simple. It would make it possible to entice one or two key Democrat Senators to cross the aisle on specific items of legislation that are important to their constituents.
Right now, under the filibuster rule, most legislation requires corralling at least seven, and probably more, Democrats for legislation to advance. No Democrat Senator is going to stick his neck out to support, say, a tax bill, knowing that Senator McConnell has no chance of lining up another six to eight Democrats to join him.
But if one Democrat, or two, could offset the loss of a McCain, Paul, Collins, and even Murkowski, legislation might well start to move again. If Senator McConnell finally figures this out he might even retain his leadership role. If he doesn't, he should be replaced with a Senator who gets it."
............................
"Leon Pesenson...
In the end we are being faced with the same problem that Tories now have in the UK. Republicans will only be able to offer a better management of the welfare state unlike Democrats who only seek more state welfare as a solution to what ails the welfare state. We have an opportunity, not often presented, to roll it back to a degree, partly because Obamacare is failing rapidly and is not as entrenched in the national psyche, and Republicans are squandering that opportunity, mostly at the hands of people who are not really Republicans, but caucus with them."
.........................
"Ken Jorgensen
It is especially shameful that McCain puts his personal animosity ahead of doing good for we, the people. We will not honor or celebrate his legacy; it is tragic."
............