Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Russiagate -- the attempt to entrap Trump with Russia ties by CIA, FBI, MI6 and Clinton mafia

(also sometimes called Purple revolution; should probably be called American Maydan: two teams of oligarchs struggle for power using dirty methods against their opponents; one team is represented by neocons and Clinton neoliberals and  it was in power since Ronald Reagan; the composition of the other team in unclear, but  it is clear that Pentagon plays important role in supporting Trump after election in the face of neocon/neolib/intelligence agencies coup d'état  )

The effect of Russiagate lies is similar to Iraq WDM story; two third of the US population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war; too big money and too many defense  contactors are involved to allow Trump détente with Russia

Hat tip to cdn-05.anonfile.com

 
News Is national security state in the USA gone rogue Recommended Links Special Prosecutor Mueller and his fishing expedition Final report of Special prosecutor Mueller is a failed hatchet job: disingenuous and dishonest MSM as attack dogs of color revolution "Trump is insane" meme Strzokgate Anti Trump Hysteria in major neoliberal MSM
Barr testimony and counter investigation Ukrainian Security Services role in Spygate (aka Russiagate) Alexandra Chalupa role in fueling Russiagate Steele dossier Adam Schiff Witch Hunt Andrew McCabe -- the brain behind the color Revolution against Trump Brennan elections machinations Wolff revelations and slander of Trump administration DNC and Podesta emails leak: blaming Vladimir Putin
Coordinated set of leaks as a color revolution tool Carter Page Stephan Halper and attempts to entrap members of Trump team Papadopoulos entrapment Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections Nunes FISA Memo scandal Joseph Misfud and MI6 connection to Russiagate FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and very suspicious DNC leak saga FBI contractor Fusion GPS
Obama administration directed the intelligence services putsch against Trump The Deep State Post-Russiagate remorse -- Russiagate as the second Iraq WDM fiasco Does Great Britain attempt to rig the US elections? "Seventeen agencies" memo about Russian influence on elections Was Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr. a trap Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit Hillary Clinton email scandal Clapper role in putsch
Mueller invokes ghosts of GRU operatives to help his and Brennan case Russian Internet research agency scandal Mistressgate: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal affairs Do the US intelligence agencies attempt to influence the US Presidential elections ? Samantha Power Media as a weapon of mass deception Rosenstein role in the "Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit" Hypocrisy of British ruling elite Woodward insinuations
MSM as fake news industry Luke Harding: a pathetic author of book that rehash Steele Dossier FBI Mayberry Machiavellians and CIA connected democrats Michael Flynn removal Manafort and his Ukrainian connections Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few The Real War on Reality Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Trump vs. Deep State
Obama: a yet another Neocon US and British media are servants of security apparatus National Security State US Presidential Elections of 2020 NeoMcCartyism campaign as a smoke screen to hide the crisis of neoliberalism Susan Rice unmasking campaign as an attempt to derail Trump by Obama administration Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite
The Iron Law of Oligarchy Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Media-Military-Industrial Complex  Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" New American Militarism The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies Skeptic Quotations Politically Incorrect Humor Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy
Color revolutions Do the foreign state influence the US Presidential elections ? History of American False Flag Operations Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Cambridge Analytica data mining scandal Control of the MSM during color revolution is like air superiority in the war   Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Due to the size the introductory article Russiagate color revolution against Trump as the second incarnation of Iraq WMD lies was moves to a separate page.

=== Sample ===

 
Russiagate has three purposes.

One is to prevent President Trump from endangering the vast budget and power of the military/security complex by normalizing relations with Russia.

Another, in the words of James Howard Kunstler, is “to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign,” by focusing all public and political attention on a hoax distraction.

The third is to obstruct Trump’s campaign and distract him from his agenda when he won the election.

The Three Purposes of Russiagate - American Herald Tribune

Russiagate is the most fraudulent political scandal in modern American history closely connected with the desire of MIC and intelligence agencies to increase its level of funding, as well as patch cracks in the US neoliberalism facade by uniting the nation against the common scapegoat.  It rests on two core allegations:

  1. That Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an “attack on American democracy” during the 2016 presidential campaign in order to put Donald Trump in the White House
  2. Trump and his associates willfully colluded, or conspired with Kremlin in this “attack.”

The tragedy here is not that investigation about those baseless charges was opened and surveillance established (actually high level of electronic surveillance is given just due to existence of NSA), but that they were concocted. Multiple documented efforts were made by FBI, CIA and MI6 to entrap Trump in this scandal -- there were several attempts to link him and his associates with politically connected Russians initiated by FBI and/or CIA, and/or MI6 informants. This was an attempt to create condition  in which the target commits crime -- entrapment in legal speak (Entrapment legal definition of entrapment ):

The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it. If the crime was promoted by a private person who has no connection to the government, it is not entrapment. A person induced by a friend to sell drugs has no legal excuse when police are informed that the person has agreed to make the sale.

The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.

The whole Mueller witch hunt was an attempt to implicate Trump in "obstruction of justice" concocted via firing of Comey (using Rosenstein as a Trojan horse) and subsequent events. In other words this is just another attempt to entrap Trump.

That's why key figures of Obama administration should face trial and if convicted should be jailed for a very long time.  The list might include Obama himself and definitely includes Brennan, Clapper, Comey and McCabe along with two dozens of "lesser" government bureaucrats in Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and State department.   Several UK government officials and MI6 current and former officers are also under strong suspicion and probably should be tried as well even if "in absentia". 

On the other hand Russiagate looks a classic palace intrigue—the fracas between the White House, the two houses of Congress and a ghoulish grand inquisitor named Mueller. But in reality this is the first color revolution that take place in the USA.  I think before Russiagate there was a tremendous gap between perception of the USA political landscape by the majority of the population (constitutional republic, elected representatives) and the reality (empire, "one dollar one vote", "deep state" with the core of all powerful and out of control intelligence agencies, etc). Much like in Matrix.

This gap is now shrinking, at least for those who follow this color revolution from the very beginning. And we can thank Trump for that. He singhadidnly did enormous damage to the image of neoliberal MSM which now are called "fake news" probably by the majority of  Americans. Calling WaPo "Bezos blog" was  a stoke of brilliance on his part.

Now most people clearly realize that it was FBI (FBI Mayberry Machiavellians) and CIA (Brennan) were the actual kingmakers in the last Presidential election. Like any true aristocracy they despise the ordinary US voters. They are directly responsible for the election of Trump by pushing Sanders under the bus. Indirectly via exonerating Hillary, but still they obviously pushed Sanders under the bus. And after Hillary lost to Trump they launched a color revolution against him in November 2016 to correct this blowback of their meddling in the USA election process.  And to ensure that the US foreign policy remain the same because huge expenses on maintaining global neoliberal empire fatten pockets of imperial servants. and the US intelligence agencies are such imperial servants. Who actually are ready to remove the Presidential like Praetorian Guard in Rome to preserve they share. 

So one rational behind Russiagate is to secure continuation of neocon policy of "Full Spectrum Dominance" at the expense of ordinary Americans standard of living.  Which including maintaining the "defence" spending on unprecedented level of over one trillion a year (if counted from all sources). Intelligence agencies are two headed centaur: a part of MIC and a part of Wall Street so they acted accordingly fueling anti-Russian hysteria to justify this racket. 

The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is now views as yet another corrupt oligarchic party, it was since Clinton sold it to Wall street. The Republican Party is no better.

And the neoliberal MSM has exposed itself as attack dogs of intelligence  agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt and cruel neoliberal system which  was put in place instead of the New Deal capitalism since 1980th. The reality of the neoliberal system now is  exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens under which FBI, CIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, MSM does not look too good, to say the least.  That's probably the only good thing about it

The events after Trump elections really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this was clearly  covert coup to preserve neocon foreign policy. . Now we know that there were attempts to entrap Trump associated with Russian links (Sater who initiated Moscow tower project was FBI informant; Was Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr.  was organized by MI6;  Papadopoulos entrapment was a joint effort of CIA, FBI and MI6). And there are strong suspicions  that Skripal was involved in  writing Steele dossier.

As James Jatras noted on Jun 9, 2018 (When, Where, and How Will the Empire Strike Back ), allegations of Trump’s and his team’s collusion with the Kremlin exposed the cover for color revolution against Trump within the structures of the US Deep State (CIA, NSA, FBI, Department of Justice, etc.) with full support and enthusiastic participation of British sister agencies (MI6, GCHQ). First they derailed Sanders, then they tried to deny Trump the presidency. While they quickly succeeded in neutering him, but they still want to remove him from office, and above all to block any chance of a detente with Russia  to protect MIC budget.

While Robert Mueller and his merry band of connected to Democratic Party witch hunters have not given up, their prospects are fading and the Russiagate is beginning to turn into a Spygate, exposing the level of corruption and malice within Obama administration.  A political liability for the DNC in the November Congressional elections

Let’s remember that in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, those who voted for Trump wanted not so much for Trump as against the neoliberal establishment. They voted for him because they wanted a wrecking ball for this corrupt and cruel system, a human hand grenade, a big “F*CK YOU” to the system. Maybe that’s what we got. In this sense Russiagate only helped because the political establishment  was rendered completely dysfunctional during the Russiagate.

Despite his inspiring election rhetoric's (against neoliberal globalization, foreign wars, unchecked immigration, for creation of jobs that pay decent wages and reverse of offshoring of the US manufacturing) Trump proved to be another stage of the same process of degradation of neoliberalism that was in full speed under Obama. With his "bait and switch" maneuver (mainly to save his own scalp, he is not  willing to die for his principles as a noble man). He was emasculated just after three months of his presidency. After May 2017 Trump became just a continuation of Obama "change we can believe in" scam.  With very few exception, which actually confirm the rule.

In all empires the real political power were eventually transferred to generals. and intelligence agencies are actually a branch of military-industrial complex not that different from Pentagon.

In this sense  the trend was visible as retired military brass is well represented in Trump administration.  While it is interesting and sometimes amusing to observe  the level of  animosity between Pentagon and CIA (they sometimes even fight each other in Syria via proxies), that does not change  the direction in which the USA administrations evolve. 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Jun 22, 2019] That's why we are safe :-)

Aug 01, 2014 | discussion.theguardian.com

The1eyedman , 1 Aug 2014 10:11

...The CIA and security services have every right to know who is who on all and every politician and their staff. That's why we are safe. :-)
freeandfair -> Woodby69 , 1 Aug 2014 10:04

...They are so brave, they are pathologically afraid of everyone. And want to be "protected".

[Jun 20, 2019] Trump Says DOJ Investigating Whether Obama Tapped His Phone

Jun 20, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Why won't Obama live in Chicago?

JD Rock , 2 hours ago link

too much diversity...

[Jun 20, 2019] FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike Unredacted or Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking Because None was Produced – Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible, blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be president. ..."
"... "In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very little. The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents) ..."
"... Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0 has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis – and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to – and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian – than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives. ..."
"... You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign. ..."
"... Adam's linguistic analyses – endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian speaker communicating in English. ..."
Jun 20, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 16:04

I don't think this all that hard to understand.

1) The available metadata on the email files showing Hillary/Democrat election corruption that Wikileaks received indicates an in-office leak (maybe copying to a USB thumb drive drive), not an internet hack. That's what Binney is talking about, and he points out that as such, there is no EVIDENCE of Russian intelligence passing the email files showing Hillary/Demo party election corruption to Wikileaks.
Therefore, there is no EVIDENCE of Russia and evil Putin doing this "act of war on the US", as numerous media and politicized fools have claimed.
In normal human dealings, EVIDENCE, not just an accusation, is required before making judgments of guilt and invoking punishments.

2) If that metadata on the subject email files was faked to make it look like an in-office leak (by the Russians), then the FBI could request that NSA make available its data on hacked internet trace routes of packets of data from DNC servers to Russia, then show internet trace routes of packets of data from Russia to Wikileaks.
But apparently, Comey's FBI "investigation" didn't want to do that.

3) The subject DNC computer(s) were never turned over to the FBI. The first thing done in most investigations nowadays by local police, Federal authorities etc., is to seize relevant computers or any other comm. devices for forensic analysis.
No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of the election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by an entity (the Clinton machine, Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation, as was done in this "investigation".

4) The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview in criminal investigations – they have had enormous leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came into Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows a lot of what went on in the matter.

5) Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, the FBI, the CIA had roles in paying British intelligence agent Steele (and others?), generate a fake dossier about Trump having Russian prostitues urinate on a bed the Obamas had used during a visit Russia, and depravely rolling around in it.
Top level FBI people used that fake dossier to get a FISA court judge to issue surrveilance warrants on Trump campaign/administration personnel in order to spy on them in hope of getting incriminating evidence. Among other things, that's a felony – that is, unless we live in a degenerated police state. That dossier was also leaked to the information media, which then widely gave it wide airing.

6) The attempted destruction of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, by assorted intelligence operatives and the FBI, brings things down to an individual level.
Papadopoulos has been doing some interesting interviews. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggNWpNZJjNg

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 20:21

Thank you for this:

We have Comey, close to the Crowdstrike chief forensics man (ex-FBI), we have Brennan pushing the Steele Dossier as THE evidence. And we have Mueller using these as main sources while being highly selective with witnesses. And we have FBI agents with Russian origin/double agents working people like Papadoupolis. Given Mueller must have known it was all going nowhere two years ago why the delay? Well, for one thing that delay certainly assisted brainwashing the American public into this hoax.

Bill , June 19, 2019 at 02:59

It looks like Mueller used the Crowdstrike report and just assumed it to be true.

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:57

The crowdstrike report was reviewer and verified by many IT security firms, and their conclusions were collaborated by the CIA, NSA, and every other national security agency in the country. What reason would he have had to doubt it?

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 08:30

You're still trying to sell the "17 agencies" lie too? Unbelievable.

CitizenOne , June 19, 2019 at 01:11

Yup. In the game of disinformation what single characteristic of electronic documents would purveyors of disinformation make sure they did? Would it be to make sure they spell checked the document? Perhaps but more importantly they would be concerned about the ability to test the document by exploring the metadata. In fact since metadata is seldom questioned and is used as evidence for a documents origin it would naturally be a chief concern of the purveyors of disinformation. To not care about it would be the same possible misstep of a person that used a gun in some capacity which required forensic analysis of the weapon to determine who fired it.

Since everybody and their grandma knows that law enforcement looks for fingerprints on the recovered weapon there is generally not anybody who commits an illegal act with a gun who also does not scrupulously wipe down the weapon so it is sure to be free of any fingerprints. The actual occurrence of finding fingerprints on a weapon used in a crime is extremely low approaching zero.

The reason is everybody knows they have to wipe off the gun after firing it to remove their fingerprints. It is the same with metadata which are the electronic fingerprints on a document. Before publishing a document to be attributed to another party everybody knows that the metadata must be dealt with to pull off the con job. To leave this step out is the same thing as leaving ones fingerprints all over the document. Thus it would be a priority in any protocol to deal with this problem and I am sure there are folks in the government intelligence agencies that are skilled at manipulating the metadata on a bit by bit level to wipe off the real origin and to place fake electronic "fingerprints" on the document in order to attribute it to some other author or source.

Any investigation that concludes that a document comes from one source versus another based on metadata overlooks the similar capacity of a man with a gun that shoots another man killing him and then wipes off his fingerprints from the weapon, places the gun in the hands of the victim and claims after a "careful investigation" that the death was a suicide based on the fingerprints found on the gun.

Knowing this is possible the conclusions based on the metadata either assume that the author was an ignorant idiot lacking even the most basic understanding of criminal investigations not even knowing that the electronic fingerprints would get them in trouble or vastly more likely would have known such basic information about how electronic documents are tagged and would do their best to hide the truth by messing with the little ones and zeroes in the document to hide their involvement. They would even likely try to frame the victim as the perpetrator.

We call these situations kangaroo trials or witch hunts. They ignore the plausible reasons for the observed facts and just railroad the process with blind assumptions that the evidence presented is factual like believing a child that accuses the defendant "the bad witch" who cast a spell on her instead of looking at the possible ability and motives of the child to lie and then place appropriate weight on what are essentially unprovable accusations for what they are; impossible to prove.

Maxwell Quest , June 19, 2019 at 13:28

Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible, blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be president.

Just like the evening news, this requires the expertise of keeping any facts which do not support your goals safely locked away, while others are manipulated or created out of thin air.

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:38

I am no fan of Mr Stone, but I wonder if his attorneys have the authority as a defense, to bring in Crowdstrike personnel and talk about their funding (I can hear the judge say 'inadmissible) and their full unredacted report. To whom did they give their research? Are the FBI that stupid or are they part of the plan?

While they are at it, bring in William Binney as a witness to talk about hacking in general, and the DNC servers in specific. Bring in Guccifer 2.0 himself as a witness, what the heck. Have a witness clarify on the record the very people Mueller never interviewed and make some very valid points as to why he didn't.

If Mr Stone wanted to spend some of his ill-gotten gains by blowing this ruse wide open I'm for it. He would probably recoup a lot of his money on a GoFundMe account if he did it correctly.

Of course he is against a corrupt judge who probably will not let it get that far, but why not try?

hetro , June 18, 2019 at 15:36

Many thanks to Ray's persistence; plus to Norumbega and Mark McCarty in comments below.

Particularly important (updated June 9, 2019), thanks for this link Mark McCarty!

http://g-2.space/

As to the puzzle of Guccifer 2.0 as false GRU hacker revealing damaging info on Clinton (a seeming inconsistency) I found the following (from the link just sited) helpful:

"In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very little.
The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents)

"The DCCC documents didn't reveal anything particularly damaging. It did include a list of fundraisers/bundlers but that wasn't likely to cause controversy (the fundraising totals, etc. are likely to end up on sites like OpenSecrets, etc within a year anyway). – It did however trigger 4chan to investigate and a correlation was found between the DNC's best performing bundlers and ambassadorships. – This revelation though, is to be credited to 4chan. – The leaked financial data wasn't, in itself, damaging – and some of the key data will be disclosed publicly in future anyway.

"All of his 'leaks' have been over-hyped non-controversies or were already in the public domain – the only exception being the apparent leaking of personal contact numbers and email addresses of 200 Democrats – and really that was more damaging to the reputation of Wikileaks than causing any real problems for Democrats. – Ultimately, it only really served to give the mainstream press the opportunity to announce that 'leaked emails include personal details of 200 Democrats', again, seemingly an effort to undermine other leaks being released at the same time by legitimate leak publishers."

Mark McCarty , June 18, 2019 at 18:32

Thanks for drawing further attention to Adam Carter's work and wonderful website – he has done a really heroic job of cataloging multiple lines of evidence pointing to Guccifer 2.0 being the furthest thing from a GRU hacker.

Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0 has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis – and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to – and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian – than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives.

You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign.

Adam's linguistic analyses – endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian speaker communicating in English.

Adams' website also includes the Forensicator's discoveries showing that G2.0 intentionally placed "Russian fingerprints" in the meta-data of some of his postings. Beyond all this, if a GRU hacker were responsible for the Wikileaks releases, why on earth would he emerge publicly to brag about his exploit while intentionally leaving clues of his Russian origin? Would the GRU employ total nutcases?! Whereas G2.0's behavior makes perfect sense if his intention was to falsely incriminate Russia as the source of the Wikileaks releases.

I have to confess that I have little expertise in computer science, and hence would be susceptible to being bamboozled in this regard by propagandists. It's therefore important to note that I have gained the impression that both Adam Carter and Forensicator are functioning as honest scientific analysts, ready and indeed eager to disavow any of their previous conclusions when they realize they have erred. Intellectual integrity is a very valuable commodity, and my sad observation over the last several years is that it is far, far rarer than intelligence. So I commend Adam's website to those who seek an in-depth understanding on these matters, and are willing to cope with a measure of technical complexity.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:42

Adam Carter and Foresnicator are frauds.
– "Forensicator" and Adam carter are both fake ID's created by created by a right-wing activist named Tim Leonard with a long history of working on disinformation campaigns.
– The "analysis" he did was gobbledygook to any seasoned IT engineer: Presumption of use of methods, tools and techniques nobody actually uses; essential variables glossed over, etc.
– The data file he "analyzed" was fabricated after the fact
– its creator also posted instructions on how to use it to "prove it wasn't a hack".
– The website where Leonard got the file from was managed by the GRU.

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:32

I would be very interested in following you information on this matter, so no need to hesitate longer on presenting whatever it is you have with the details we need to evaluate what you're saying, including links to authoritative sources. And–just a suggestion–leaving off the name-calling and overall emotional presentation you're offering would be a tad more persuasive. At this point, sorry to say, your arguments are thin and unconvincing.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:04

You're citing debunked bullshit invented by Duncan Campbell.

1. I'm left-libertarian, not right-wing.
2. Foreniscator is an American, I am a Brit. Although I write for a US audience, British spellings do sometimes slip into my articles. This doesn't happen in Foreniscator's work. An objective analysis of corpuses of both our work will make clear we're separate people.
3. Campbell is yet to actually debunk Forensicator's work as where Forensicator has debunked Campbell's "Forensicator Fraud" conspiracy theory and just recently dismantled Campbell's "Timestamp Tampering" technical theory too.
4. The NGP-VAN archive has long been available as a torrent (since the time the files were announced/released at a security conference in London), you're reference to "fabricated" here can only relate to Guccifer 2.0's releasing that evidence (though Campbell does try to engage in wordplay to mislead readers into thinking Forensicator or I may have fabricated something and even distorts Binney's testimony to try to make it look like Binney was accusing me of that – it's not true and, thankfully, Binney has cleared this up in an interview for anyone interested in reality.)
5. I got my copy of the NGP-VAN archive from a torrent posted to PirateBay, I don't think the GRU operate TPB.

For full details on how Campbell's nonsense has fallen to pieces, see: http://d3f.uk/duncan-campbell.html

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 15:39

Yes, it is saddening to see the intellectual integrity you speak of disappearing. In this respect I would like to acknowledge one more commenter below, deep in this thread–Eric32.

Seems to me Eric's statement here pierces the façade we've been discussing very well:

"No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation."

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:36

hetro – I just got to this material. Does any of it mention what happened to the man who was originally arrested as Guccifer 1.0?

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:33

It's my understanding that the original "Guccifer"–at just that, Guccifer, there is no 1.0 on it–, a Romanian, has been in jail for several years and is about to be released, or perhaps has been released. Someone may know.

As an aside (for some amusement only) I can't help noticing in studying this site indications the impersonator G2 was behaving a lot like David Atlee Philips, for those of you who have been looking into the JFK murder, and realize the significance of that name. Philips was fond of theatrics, as was G2 here according to the info on the site. This might suggest CIA creativity in play for this persona.

Again the site is:

http://g-2.space/

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:15

hetro – Yes, I know there is no 1.0 on the original Guccifer's name. I only put it that way to make clear the individual I was timelining (look, I also just made up a new word).

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:19

And ahh, yes. David Atlee Philips. A name that I recall quite well. I started my research into the JFK assassination in 1966.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 15:15

The many excellent, informed and very educational, comments on this thread are much appreciated.

Reasoned, comprehensive, and thorough comments, fashioned by articulate, considerate commenters are stellar hallmarks of this site.

My deepest respect to all who contribute to maintaining such standards.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:15

Especially, I thank, Adam Carter, Mark McCarty, and Norumbega for the education and insights you have provided on this thread and through other links.

Ray McGovern , June 18, 2019 at 21:06

Thanks, DW Bartoo.

And I add my thanks to what you have just expressed for the excellent, data-filled comments appearing under my article. I find the comments rich and instructive and, not for the first time, have learned a lot from them. Even most of the technical info comes through loud and clear to what Bill Binney calls, with sympathy, a "history major."

Dare I express -- again -- my frustration that we cannot get this story into any media that most folks access for their "news" about what's going on. Clearly, there are a lot of smart, knowledgeable people commenting here. Are none of us smart enough to figure out a way to get this story up and out?

I mean, DOJ, in an official Court filing, has just soaked James Comey in deep kimchi; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC. And we can't get that info out? Forgive me, but I fear the fault may not be so much in the stars, as in ourselves.

Let's address this key challenge like right here.

Ray

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 08:03

Ray, I read your response to my comment rather late last evening, well after eleven, and decided that although I quite agree with you, that the fault may very well be in ourselves and not our stars, that I ought sleep on it.

Odd as this may seem, for well over a decade, I have been chastising myself for having failed in the task I set for myself some sixty years ago.

I have long held it my responsibility to encourage people to think, not what to think or even how, but why, as human beings, living a finite life, on a planet that, for our purposes is paradise, we must engage in thought and consideration, not occasionally, not simply while in school or at work, but as our fundamental expression of consciousness.

Many of us, of a certain age have witnessed the harm our species may inflict upon the air, the water, the very soil around us.

Yet many are unable or unwilling to consider the the inner terrain may be as readily savaged, as callously ignored, as superficially dismissed as extraneous, as some internal "externality", if the thrust of society is dominance, unfettered acquisition, and narcissistic egoism.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, the current "narrative" that Russian hordes, genetically warped and mindlessly indifferent to all that is good, noble, and exceptional, have wrest "control" away from our natural betters, have infiltrated the empty minds of the deplorable, susceptible many, and hijacked the throne away from the anointed one, has led to a plethora of outrageous consequences.

Clearly, to some of us, this is obviously absurdity, but to those whose paychecks depend upon maintaining the tottering status quo, of Full Spectrum Dominance, over all aspects of life and especially over the thought processes of the many, this canard is as necessary as breathing if they are to go on with the comforts and perks of life they have come to depend upon, not merely for bodily well-being, but as proof that they are special, that they deserve to rule and lord it over the many.

So pervasive is this "sensibility", so deliberately inculcated is this sense of righteousness, this "right" to dominate and control,that it is nothing less than pathological.

That means that the larger narratives are shaped by a media owned by a handful of corporations, not just in the U$, but over much of the world, even as corporations, again a small and shrinking number, "own" and control governments, including the legal systems of those governments, readily control institutions of higher learning and so on.

Corporations control the voting systems of our pretend democracy making mock of the very notion of democracy itself, permitting a rising chorus to sing that the very idea of democracy is foolish.

In other words, our culture, our very language is being used to circumscribe thought, to delimit imagination and the formation of new, different, or alternative narratives of how to construct and maintain a sane, humane, and sustainable human future.

Frankly, in the U$, we have no longer even the pretense of an intellectual heritage, of any true openness to new thoughts or perspectives, and those who would dare expose the larger, more pervasive corruption that permits and sustains false narratives such as "Russia did it!", such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and others, not least the members of VIPS and the commenters here are, at worst, hounded, threatened, imprisioned, at best ignored, maligned, and dismissed as "too negative", or "conspiracy theorists".

Nonetheless.

I see few give up or knuckle under.

I have known more than a few who have died, while still trying.

Yet we still are, overall, a few.

So, what shall we do?

Realizing that our task is neither financially nor socially rewarding, how shall we become more effective at getting some necessary messages across or through walls of fear, indifference and, frankly, induced ignorance?

What, specifically, is our goal?

Is it "simply" to find some way past Mark Twain's observation that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled, about some specific narrative?

Or does it require some broader examination of the means by which such narratives are induced, promulgated, and enforced?

Is it both these things and more?

If the inner terrain of consciousness is exploited, savaged, and ravaged, then how shall there be healing sufficient to combat the "learned helplessness" which is the overall intent of those who seek to control, generally not with outward brutality, but with subtle psychological coercion, the many?

It would seem, it would appear, that what we face, the manipulation of consciousness, the internalization of submission, dressed up to appear like patriotism or "common sense" that cannot, rationally, be argued with, an inculcated mesmerization of compliance and diminished curiosity, these things require far more than simply pointing out fallacious narratives to a society convinced that it is so special that it is beyond question of any sort, no matter what might be done in the name of the many.

What do we do?

Perhaps we should try to actually get together, meet each other, sit down and talk to one another.

For are we not vulnerable if we use an electronic, digital media subject to the control of those who may "ban" us, "de-platform" us, determine that we are unworthy of even having a voice, especially as larger "authority" moves to undercut the rule of law to such a degree as to render "law" into an empty form with which it may bludgeon any or all of us into silence whenever it feels like doing so?

Further, if we debunk narratives that need such debunking, what narratives of a better future have we prepared, have we honed, that might inspire a willingness to explore the possibilities of meaningful and vitally necessary change?

Who has coherent ideas about creating a more healthy and rewarding society based on something more like common empathy and mutual support?

Who is articulating visions that might encourage the young to feel that this world that we bequeath them is not royally fucked for the dubious benefit of a mere handful of individuals who care about nothing but themselves.

Certainly it must be appallingly obvious that those who seek dominance and wealth at the expense of others are not the best and brightest, that they are among the least able and least compassionate, in fact, the very ones whose pathology is detrimental to the continued existence of the human species, and that of many other species, as well.

How do we undo the madness, disarm the learned hostility and violence?

Do we simply TALK LOUDER?

Do we simply TOOT OUR OWN HORNS or BEAT OUR OWN DRUMS more obnoxiously?

Or, do we dare continue on, seeking ever more effective connection, ever more opportunities of one to one conversations, where we not only talk, but also, listen?

I agree, let us not curse our stars.

Let us not blame fickle fate, as so often do those who lead the many into war or privation, into precarity, or famine.

Let us not claim that the deteriorating environment is caused by Sun Spots or desperate peoples driven to the brink by exploitation and avarice.

However, let us not imagine that the many who still are comfortable, who still believe the nonsense, may not yet succumb to the siren calls for war, for punishment, however brutal, of those who would expose the secrets of power while exposing the comfortable to their own complicity – which might well be what the still-comfortable might consider to be the greater "crime".

Do I have answers?

No. However I do have questions that might suggest some ideas.

I am very certain that the same is true for most every one of us.

Let us share these ideas, even as we seek to debunk the deceits, as we provide the elite with opportunities to expose and reveal their lies and corruption.

No single one of us will solve much of anything. No one has all the answers.

Those who await saviors, wait in vain.

Our future is very iffy.

If someone has a theory or a plan, beyond keeping on, then please share it.

Do not prattle on about "hope".

Do not say, "Well, we have always muddled through before, and shall do so again."

For we are in territory, outwardly, because of our "abilities" to destroy ourselves unlike anything our species has confronted heretofore.

Yes, "Russiagate" must be debunked before it leads to war.

Yes, humanity is fast approaching a place where it can take no more ..,
for granted and without thought, from a finite world.

Neither can our species long endure further empires of brute power or subtle manipulation.

Do not say, "Well, that is just human nature", for it is learned attitude and prejudice to claim so.

To continue such excuse, for that is what it is, ensures extinction, even for the idiots who "get off" the First Strike.

Now, my intent is not to depress, nor to impress, merely to suggest that such future as we might have is up to us.

So, it might be of worth to not spend too much time cursing ourselves for failing to make much headway.

It might take calamity to shake the complacent from their happy stupor, it may well require catastrophe.

Perhaps, just perhaps, patient reason might prepare the way for changing minds.

It is the internal terrain that must be pondered, quite as much as the outer manifestations of behavioral absurdity.

Why do so many believe absolute nonsense?

Perhaps they simply cannot access enough imagination to consider anything else, especially if the external mythologies bolster their internal emptiness?

What do you think?

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:01

You write well. A rarity.

Mark McCarty , June 19, 2019 at 17:20

The challenge we face, Ray, is that most MSM simply will refuse to report FACTS that contradict the official Russophobic Deep State-driven narrative. Note, for example, that the recent revelation that the OPCW censored its own technical experts in preparing its politically-biased conclusions on the Douma "gassing" incident, simply isn't being reported in MSM. Our MSM are now practicing a type of criminality that one would have expected from the "journalists" in Nazi Germany.

There may be one small ray of hope. Tucker Carlson at Fox has been notably contrarian on some issues, and has featured such luminaries as Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, and Tulsi Gabbard. Tucker is definitely skeptical about arguments driving us into needless wars and conflicts – he got Iraq wrong, and, unlike most of the journalists who did, he is sincerely penitent – and just a couple of nights ago he actually dared to question whether there is real evidence supporting the "Russian meddling" claim, reporting the essence of THIS ESSAY of YOURS! It is not inconceivable to me that you or Bill Binney might be able to get onto his show. And this might become more likely if prosecutor John Durham begins to look seriously at the "evidence" which Brennan, Clapper, and Comey used to justify their fraudulent ICA.

Tucker's show has the highest ratings on Fox, and he is very skeptical of the rampant Russophobia of our day – he views China as a truer rival. I have no idea how you might get through to him, but perhaps Mate, Greenwald, or Tracey – all major Russiagate skeptics – might have some insights.

And let me take his opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks for your wonderful essays and your political activism over the years. I've been following your work diligently ever since VIPS emerged in the run up to the Iraq catastrophe.

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:54

The corruption is well documented on the internet- Comey is immoral.

Carolyn , June 18, 2019 at 09:24

Guccifer 2.0 was another trick of the Dems, created to provide substantiation of Russian hacking of DNC computers. It was the Democrats who produced Guccifer 2.0.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:51

By that logic, it was the Democrats who sabotaged Hillary Clinton's Convention by releasing supposedly anti-Clinton documents on Wikileaks a day before. That makes no sense.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:41

It makes complete sense, and is the origin of "RussiaGate". They knew Wikileaks was going to release the data they got from a LEAK, so they made up G2 to shift the story and blame it on Russia. With their MSM lackeys playing along it worked like a charm. No MSM ever mentions the damning CONTENTS of the DNC and Podesta emails, just RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA! Only I think it was Brennan's baby, with DNC complicity.

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:50

Guccifer 2.0 may well have been Brennan's baby, Skip Scott, although I am more inclined to consider 'twas Crowdstrike which hatched the wee tyke, though Brennan could well have been Godfather.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:22

Does anyone here have any evidence that Crowdstrike or Brennan created G2?

Stygg , June 19, 2019 at 15:15

Does anyone have any evidence that they didn't? If he's real, surely his existence rests on solid ground.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:20

CrowdStrike claimed Russians hacked in and grabbed opposition research from DNC. Next day Guccifer 2.0 turns up with the opposition research (with files apparently tainted by Russian metadata).

However we learned that the research (and the other document it was mangled with) really came from Podesta's attachments rather than the DNC and we know the Cyrillic metadata/stylesheet entries/etc were introduced through a process that was deliberate and not the result of simply mishandling the files.

So we know Guccifer 2.0 was fabricating evidence and doing so in accordance with the claims CrowdStrike had made the previous day.

Not hard proof but certainly a strange symbiosis. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:56

Two words: Seth Rich.

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 11:08

You're right Carolyn, and Bill Binney can prove it. See video in previous post

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:40

Clearly, Carolyn, Guccifer 2.0 was a confection. If not of the DNC, then, most likely, of CrowdStrike.

Just as clearly, Guccifer 2.0's announcement of being the "hacker" would be mightily useful for those claiming Russia did it, especially if incriminating little identity clues pointing toward unprofessional clumsiness, "Oh my Gawd! The Russians are hacking!", could be strewn about.

Determining such things, seizing upon contrived "sloppiness" and such things, is well beyond my knowledge base. However, imagining the means, the subterfuge that would be used to psychologically manipulate the many, especially considering both "manufactured consent" and "learned helplessness" are both part of the "methodology", we have all long observed, comes far more readily to mind.

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 08:34

This article is also available at information clearinghouse and accompanied by a valuable video presentation and exchange that further clarifies what has happened. It also includes yet more insight by William Binney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51776.htm

Bob Van Noy , June 18, 2019 at 08:48

Bill Binney, in that video, makes two very important points 1) That it's important to realize that when this began the opposition research assembled by the Hillary team was being assembled against all possible opposition including the Democrats own Bernie Sanders. And 2) Bill Binney extends the ultimate blame way back to President Ford pardoning Richard Nixon for his Crimes, thus creating the concept of pardoning all previous administrations of guilt. Keep in mind that Cheney and Rumsfeld were on that staff

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 13:24

Thank you for the link to that Bill Binney – Larry Johnson interview, Bob Van Noy.

It is absolutely a must-view history of what occurred around the Russiagate idiocy that was intentionally contrived to mislead, not only US citizens, but also British subjects and Europeans generally, with the deliberate intention of rekindling the Cold War and building a lock-step willingness among the people to engage in official hostile behavior by the governments involved toward Russia, specifically, but China as well, from the imposition of sanctions and tariffs, to the claims of the "necessity" of First Strike "options", all the way to nuclear warfare.

Beyond that, there are substantive questions that raise issues of criminal behavior, on the part of US intelligence officers, and others, ranging from the sedition of an attempted coup to outright treason.

Yes, it is that serious.

The CIA, the FBI, Brit intelligence, and possibly other "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, "very likely", conspired to undermine the US election process of 2016 to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton, which many of the actors obviously considered would be a "slam dunk". Meaning simply that their illegal and unConstitutional activities would never be discovered or held to account.

My continuing appreciation to the members of VIPS, to Consortium News, and to other sites that have consistently dared examine, consider, and seek to hold to account those, including members of the political class, who have sought to undermine truth, justice, democracy, and trust for political power and financial gain. The degree of corruption, which must be exposed, held to account, AND punished, is of such a level and destructiveness that, were our society to fail to do these things, we would guarantee the likelihood of our future being nasty, brutish, and short.

OlyaPola , June 18, 2019 at 01:24

" the unintended consequence of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to minimize the impact of Washington's sanctions."

Unintended consequences are functions of both formulation and implementation both of which do not necessarily restrict the unintended consequences to the " the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice", a component part of formulation being predicated on notions that " the U.S. dollar (was/is) as the world's currency of choice (rather than a function of coercion in myriad forms).

"Unintended consequences" are consequently functions of intended consequences – an example of the mantra that "The United States sometimes does bad things, but always with good intentions".

John Drake , June 17, 2019 at 21:03

Good follow up on your previous revelations Ray.
"I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president."(Comey) Certainly demonstrates the FBI director's lack of integrity and objectivity. A ladder climber not a real cop, only interested in his career trajectory; willing to fix the intelligence to get along.
So much for serving his country; but it speaks also to the incredible negative influence the Clintons have had on our nation.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:51

Has anyone ever asked Comey whether he sought, or why he didn't seek, a court order to seize the DNC server and other relevant hardware? Even the members of Congress who seem inclined to interrogate him a little on this subject are content to let him act like some helpless guy who would've liked to have gotten the computers, but aw shucks, he just couldn't swing it.

(I'm not sure a court order would even have been necessary: cops and the FBI take custody of evidence at crime scenes all the time on their own authority.)

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:46

the fbi also claims, to this day, that it never looked at seth rich's phone or computer.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:16

You mean, "Why didn't the FBI try to cripple the DNC, but not the RNC, several weeks before a Presidential election, by seizing all the computer systems the national party uses to coordinate political activity and communicate with state party workers?"

Or do you mean seize them after the election, when the systems were already cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt, all viable evidence long gone?

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:06

I mean what I asked: why has no one ever put the question directly to Comey?

I'm not sure if your answers to the question I would like to see put to Comey make sense, but they're not an explanation of why he has been spared the effort of supplying such rationales (or possibly better ones) on his own.

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:42

While you evaded the question I actually asked, your answers might be something like what Comey would say if he were ever confronted on the subject. Of course the only way to find out for sure

In any case, while they're not ridiculous answers, especially compared to what Russia-gate has accustomed us, I'm not ready to buy them either.

The Clinton campaign in its final weeks wasn't being run out of the DNC HQ in DC. It was being run from – brace yourself – the Clinton campaign HQ in Brooklyn (albeit dysfunctionally). The DNC fulfilled its key role months earlier when they rigged the race against Sanders. If you think some disruption at the DNC in the final weeks of the race would have unfairly crippled Hillary's campaign, you should explain exactly how.

For your second point, part of what one might ask Comey is why he didn't get a court order forbidding the DNC from having their systems "cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt" before the FBI could get a look at them. I don't suppose any operation wants to keep malware (assuming such actually was present) on the premises, but law enforcement isn't known for being super solicitous about such inconveniences when conducting investigations, and the DNC are big boys and girls with more resources than most would have had to draw on to keep the lights on in a pinch – especially if it was for the *patriotic* cause of gathering evidence of the dastardly attack on Democracy Itself by the nefarious, onion-domed, Muscovite menace bearing down on every apple pie and baseball game in the land!

John , June 18, 2019 at 23:46

I didn't evade squat. I answered your implied comment, because your explicit "why didn't Comey" question had no explicit answer.
– No third-party can realistically know "why" anyone does anything, unless that person tells you. Comey didn't. And you asked the question at US, not him.
– Since the explicit question was unanswerable, that meant your question only had implicit answers.

When you asked why didn't Comey try to get a court order to seize the DNC computers, you implied he SHOULD HAVE attempted to seize them, (with a lesser implication that only some guilt or nefarious purpose was behind Comey's decision not to.)
– I simply provided some of the very realistic reasons why the FBI should NOT have atttempted the acts you implied Comey should have done.

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:00

And let me remind you – the DNC was not just assisting with the Clinton campaign.
– They were supporting Congressional, State and even local elections up-and-down the ticket.
– They were coordinating canvasing groups, running polls and supplying resources to all sorts of down-ticket efforts.

So your FBI seizing the DNC computers would have hamstrung EVERY Democratic candidate, not just Clinton.

And all your "big boys and girls" comments disregards the big problem – the DNC would have be DOWN. For a while.

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 11:40

Interesting assertion, John, that Hillary and the DNC were supporting local and state committees and candidates.

Likely you have neither seen nor heard of FEC (Federal Election Commission) records which paint a rather different picture?

The "Hillary Victory Fund" claimed that Clinton raised big "bundled" checks of $350,000.00, and more, some $84 million in total, of which the states got to keep 1% (such an elite number), according to the FEC, which regarded this money as "laundered" through "legal loopholes", using the state committees to pass the cash on to the Clinton Campaign.

Further, the FEC, revealed that the DNC has paid Clinton $1.65 million to rent access to her email list, voter data, and software produced by "Hillary For America" during her 2016 presidential campaign.

Now, you can argue an number of things.

You can just say, "It ain't so!", offering nothing to support your contentions, thus implying that the Legacy Political Parties AND the status quo are simply above question or reproach. That such parties are not only above the law, but owe no allegiance, in any way, to the many, that these two parties are Private Clubs, not public institutions, and can do, or not do, anything that they wish.

Or, you could say that the DNC owes Hillary because she financed the DNC, in 2016, and that the "Victory" funds and the "rental fee" are merely her due.

Of course, were you to claim the latter, then you would have to make clear that such financing involved neither control nor guid pro quo, that it was simple generosity in theone instance and merely "business", in the other.

Following on with quo, do you imagine, "looking forward", that Biden will win in 2020?

Should the Dems seriously fight for medical care (not insurance) for all?

Should the Dems call for an end to endless war, or go all in for drone, AI, and robots to further "humanitarian interevention" (of course, we have to kill some folks, how else to ensure peace)?

Should the Dems have interest in preserving the environment (you know, for the kids)?

Should the Dems be for an actual, functioning rule of law (not lip service; think Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, are the receiving justice)?

Or, should the Dems just run on, "We ain't him!"

I realize that you would likely not wish to presume what the Dems should or should not do, that being speculative and not "normal"
procedure.

Having said all that, John, and realizing that your perspective differs greatly from the perspectives of many, here, I appreciate the civility of your comments. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

John , June 19, 2019 at 12:49

Nice cherry picking and misrepresentation, DW Bartoo.

The DNC did a whole bunch of other fundrasing besides the "Hillary Victory Fund".
– The "Hillary Victory Fund" was setup to take money excplicitly just for Clinton, and raise ~$85 million.
– However the DNC in total raised about $350 million for the 2016 campaign. The rest of the money went elsewhere.
– You cherry-picked the "Hillary Victory Fund" spending and made it look like it represented the entire DNC spending, when it didn't.

Misrepresnetations like this do nothing to boost your credibility. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 14:01

So, John, you are going with, "It just ain't so!".

Yet you have nothing to say about the Democrats being a Private Club which has no allegiance, of any sort, to the many?

That is the essential aspect which 2016 revealed.

2020 presents a perfect vision of total failure for the Di$mal Dollar Dem$.

A rallying cry of, "We ain't Trump, we Biden!",
will take you, all, down and out.

The Dustbin of History awaits, truly s most well-deserved, well-earned fate.

BTW, your accusatory comment, some distance up-thread, reveals not skill in honest debate, the factual refutation of or challenge to the perspective of others, but the slander of
ad-hominem assault. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 14:24

With the resources the DNC had at its disposal, the down time could have been minimal. Your telling me they couldn't afford to replace the equipment and have it set up and keep the down time to a matter of hours or less? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

philnc , June 19, 2019 at 18:31

" the DNC would have been DOWN. FOr a while." Doubtful. Any enterprise of the DNC's size, whatever e-mail service it uses, should maintain (or contract for) regular backups of their data and have a DR (Disaster Recovery) plan to restore service in the event the existing servers go offline without warning. If they failed to take those measures then it should raise questions about whether there was anything "big" about the people running that operation. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:35

I love you, the way you write anyway. Yer probably a one-toothed old shit living out in the middle of Kentucky, but you turn a nice phrase.

tom , June 19, 2019 at 16:24

Wasnt that a crime scene?

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 17:28

With respect to the creation of the Marble Framework program, I would like to ask: What can be the legal or ethical basis of creation of a tool that enables hacks to be falsely attributable to others? Such an action, even if used against a foe, would be intolerably vile. I suggest that anyone who engaged in the creation of this program should be fired, stripped of all pensions, indicted, tried, and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Indeed, anyone in our government who would tolerate such conduct should be finding another line of work.

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:48

i'm willing to wait on that trial if we can expedite the mass murder trials of 9-11. trump has said it was bombs not planes that destroyed the wtc.

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:43

Good one, Jeff. We should start where this all started.

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:08

To my understanding Marble Framework was a subset of tools within the what has been called Vault 7. One of the tools within that subset, I forget what its name actually is, is the language "obfuscation" tool that everybody talks about.

I would say "it just goes with the territory". Hacking as such is illegal by definition and it stands to reason that hackers will take what steps they can to disguise their own identity. Conversely, solid attribution to particular actors is said to be generally very difficult.

But see my reply to John, below, reporting a new discovery of fraud in the malware samples CrowdStrike put in its report. If confirmed, that would indeed be vile and shocking conduct. We're talking about ratcheting up tensions toward war as a result of this, and fundamentally deceiving the American people.

And see my reply to John A giving my opinion that the focus on Vault 7 misdirects attention that would better be directed toward the actual steps that were used to put those "Russian fingerprints" into some Guccifer 2.0 metadata, as already fairly well understood by analysts like Adam Carter.

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:44

FIRED???

Firing SQUAD more like.

That'd be MY pleasure, but I'm kinda warped.

Jim Glover , June 17, 2019 at 16:54

Well this helps explain why Pelosi knows that Impeachment of Trump will not only fail but blow up in their face.

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:53

Only because of their utterly imbecilic reliance on this made-up scenario. The Dems are obviously convinced that the made up crap about Muslims that has led to the outrage of the Muslim ban, the lies about the border emergency, the savaging of all of our laws by ICE on the border, the self-dealing, etc. etc. ad infinitum, though obviously impeachable offenses, wouldn't play well among soccer moms or hockey dads or whatever group it is counting on in 2020.

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:50

donald trump is a lucky man, but perhaps his greatest good fortune is history's choice of his opponents.

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 16:29

The Federal "justice" system can create crimes that never happened, avoid collecting evidence that would prove these crimes didn't happen, issue subpoenas and warrants, force people into bankruptcy hiring lawyers, interrogate people until they can entrap them in statements and actions that they can pretend are lies or obstructions to "justice", put innocent people in lockups with violent street criminals, into solitary confinement to debilitate them mentally and physically.

And why not? If you can publicly murder a President and then obviously cover it up and pin it on a patsy, with no consequences, then the Clinton coverups and political destruction operations are a small thing.

Washington networks have long deep histories.
Or is it just a coincidence that Mueller's wife is from the Cabell family – one of whom was the assistant CIA director who John Kennedy fired after the failed Bay of Pigs operation, and whose brother was mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was ambushed in rifle attacks, and was revealed in FOIA document releases to have been a CIA associate.

jaycee , June 17, 2019 at 16:26

From manufacturing consent to manufacturing reality There's been a determined effort to use portions of the Mueller Report to not just buttress the notion that an official Russian government operation indeed "hacked" the DNC to support the opposition candidate, but to assume this information as Established Fact. The revelation that the US government investigators relied entirely on a redacted draft from a private firm with huge conflicts of interest severely challenges this concept, and this obvious weak link now joins the sad list of unprofessional conduct including use of the Steele dossier to establish surveillance on a political campaign, and the description of a State Dept informant as a GRU agent even though Mueller's office had the proper information.

As exhibited in comments below, the partisan divide in America is as wide as it has ever been, with two camps hurling insults while believing only what they want to believe irregardless of factual evidence, and a third camp just trying to navigate through what can be objectively determined. In my observation, commentary over the past three years on this story by groups like VIPS have held up pretty well, while most of the legacy media and partisan bloggers such as empty wheel have embarrassed themselves.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 01:53

The funny thing is that people who buy into this Russian propaganda nonsense is that they excuse Hillary for actually working with people from foreign countries. Steele who wrote the dossier is from the U.K.. He worked with people in Russia and elsewhere to create it. Hillary paid for him to get 'dirt' on her opponent which is against the law. Taking information or anything from a foreign country to advance her campaign. But the biggest stink here is that she used her party's intelligence agencies to spy on her opponent. This sure seems like shades of what Nixon did

But her supporters don't have any problem with that

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 16:18

Google has a cozy $100 million "shared kindred spirit" with "best in class" Crowdstrike.

In this video, Google Capital's Gene Frantz and Dmitri Alperovitch's buddy George Kurtz discuss what led to Google's decision to back Alperovitch and the Keystone Cops at Crowdstrike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRMPZp70WVI

CrowdStrike received funding of $156 million from Google Capital, Accel Partners, and private equity firm Warburg Pincus.

According to the company, CrowdStrike customers include three of the 10 largest global companies by revenue, five of the 10 largest financial institutions, three of the top 10 health care providers, and three of the top 10 energy companies. CrowdStrike also keeps "Partners" like Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud Platform out of the clutches of invisible bears.

CrowdStrike still "stands fully by its analysis and findings" (aka evidence-free allegations) of "Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network" in 2016.

Crowdstrike and Bellingcat benefactor Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Meanwhile, Crowdstrike is growing very fast. It achieved $250 million in revenue in fiscal year 2019 compared to $119 million in fiscal year 2018, 110% year-over-year growth.

In May 2019, Crowdstrike, filed a SEC Form S-1 to raise $100 million for their initial public offering. It is the first American cybersecurity company to file and IPO in 2019 and second overall after the Israeli company Tufin.

Crowdstrike believes it is creating a new category called the "security cloud."

Given the enormous cloud of smoke blown by Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, there definitely is truth in advertising.

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 23:53

Thanks, Abe. Keep the truth coming -- while we are yet able.

"The funding of "The Trust Project" -- coming largely from big tech companies like Google; government-connected tech oligarchs like Pierre Omidyar; and the Knight Foundation, a key Newsguard investor -- suggests that an ulterior motive in its tireless promotion of "traditional" mainstream media outlets is to limit the success of dissenting alternatives.
Of particular importance is the fact that the Trust Project's "trust indicators" are already being used to control what news is promoted and suppressed by top search engines like Google and Bing and massive social-media networks like Facebook. Though the descriptions of these "trust indicators" -- eight of which are currently in use -- are publicly available, the way they are being used by major tech and social media companies is not."
" .Even if its effort to promote "trust" in establishment media fail, its embedded-code hidden within participating news sites allow those establishment outlets to skirt the same algorithms currently targeting their independent competition, making such issues of "trust" largely irrelevant as it moves to homogenize the online media landscape in favor of mainstream media."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-trust-project-big-media-and-silicon-valleys-weaponized-algorithms-silence-dissent/259030/?fbclid=IwAR26cfboaHlUptEt4Lnt4NToqFRRLfmC5xzqqJx6DAAgZTqZD8PDSJADwvQ

michael , June 18, 2019 at 07:17

Their more competent (and dangerous) partner:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/business/media/democrats-disinformation-election-interference.html

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/28/new-knowledge-just-raised-11-million-more-to-flag-and-fight-social-media-disinformation-meant-to-bring-down-companies/

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 15:58

The trolls/propagandists are arriving again with their silly BS about being patriots and not "communists" etc. plus assuming they're in a nest of Trump supporters and Putin lovers. Their ignorance of CN, and the pathetic, childlike quality of these comments, resembles the five year old disappointed with his birthday party.

I'm looking forward to a complete narrative of details on what has been revealed, piece by piece, going back to at least when Assange announced he had a leak on the Podesta emails and the DNC.

The case, in general, and putting it mildly, indicates Official Bias to discredit Trump–clung to, expanded, drummed home in the daily news, and given the semblance of seriousness by an already compromised Mueller investigation.

I realize that to want this case detailed, as part of the question what US official credibility is left, if any? is to be a horrible commie freak SOB supporter of Putin, when I should be saluting the flag and genuflecting toward Washington.

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:50

Actual espionage and infiltration of election systems by Israeli intelligence, not to mention direct interference in US electoral politics by the pro-Israel Lobby organizations backed by the Israeli government is being assiduously ignored by most mainstream and independent journalists, as well as veteran intelligence professionals.

Not a peep, nary a whisper from our vaunted VIPS about such matters as this:

"Following the 2016 election and the heavily promoted concerns about 'Russian hackers' infiltrating election systems, federal agencies like the NSA have used that threat to lobby for greater control over American democracy. For instance, during a 2017 hearing then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers stated:

"'If we define election infrastructure as critical to the nation and we are directed by the president or the secretary, I can apply our capabilities in partnership with others – because we won't be the only ones, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI – I can apply those capabilities proactively with some of the owners of those systems.'

"With Rogers – who is now employed by the Microsoft-funded and Israeli military intelligence-connected company Team8 – having lobbied for the direct involvement of U.S. government agencies, including the NSA and DHS, in supervising elections, it seems likely that ElectionGuard will help enable those agencies to surveill U.S. elections with particular ease, especially given Microsoft's past of behind-the-scenes collaboration with the NSA.

"Given that ElectionGuard's system as currently described is neither as 'secure' nor as 'verifiable' as Microsoft is claiming, it seems clear that the conflicts of interests of its developers, particularly their connections to the U.S. and Israeli militaries, are a recipe for disaster and tantamount to a takeover of the American election system by the military-industrial complex."

Microsoft's ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections
By Whitney Webb
https://www.mintpressnews.com/microsoft-electionguard-a-trojan-horse-for-a-military-industrial-takeover-of-us-elections/258732/

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 07:29

Remember when Karl Rove (aka turd blossom) had his meltdown on fox news over the Ohio vote count. He just knew Romney was going to win that state, but somehow his fix got "unfixed" by the counter hacking group "anonymous". Well, now our so-called "Intelligence" agencies and their corporate sidekicks are going to make sure there are no more surprises. Elections are going to be even more of a useless show than they already are. Zappa was truly prescient when he said "politics is the entertainment division of the Military Industrial Complex."

Here's a good story on Rove in 2012:
https://truthout.org/articles/anonymous-karl-rove-and-2012-election-fix/

Realist , June 18, 2019 at 16:25

Good recollection, Skip. I had completely forgotten that little nugget, as probably did most other people. Our brains are so slipshod, we create our own memory holes big enough for the villains to drive a dumptruck through.

I can also appreciate your caution about all further elections. Will they be entirely orchestrated by the string pullers who make the final choice by simply creating the numbers out of thin air? If so, will the candidates themselves also be clued in to prevent a meltdown like Hillary Clinton's never-ending tirade?

John Hawk , June 17, 2019 at 15:06

Comey: lying through his butthole!, longtime bagman for the Demorat elites and a traitor to boot!

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:02

"Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016 revealing that the DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination" notes veteran intelligence professional Ray McGovern.

Can't Say Why:

Two weeks ahead of the Democratic National Convention, celebrating a "revolution" worthy of the CIA, sheepdog Bernie pledged his fealty to Hillary: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Hillary crowed, "Senator Sanders has brought people off the sidelines and into the political process. He has energized and inspired a generation of young people who care deeply about our country."

She imperiously declared, "To everyone here and everyone cross the country who poured your heart and soul into Senator Sanders' campaign: Thank you."

Bernie had performed his sheepdog function by exciting the Democratic Party's liberal base and winning young voters by large margins during the primary.

The Sanders campaign won primaries and caucuses in 22 states.

But Bernie spat in the face of his "revolution" by not energetically fighting efforts at black voter suppression, and not effectively contesting the votes in states like California and Arizona, as was his campaign's right by law.

Long after Hillary clinched the nomination with California, sheepdog Bernie continued to hold rallies and advocate for his "revolution", which not only served the interests of the Trump campaign, but very effectively delayed incensed Sanders supporters from migrating to third party tickets.

Green Party leader Jill Stein correctly remarked: "A revolution that goes back under Hillary Clinton's wing is not a revolution."

Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford described the debacle:

"Bernie Sanders did not lie to his followers; they deceived themselves, just as most of them – the ones that were old enough – had fooled themselves into believing that Barack Obama was a peace candidate and a political progressive back in 2008, although Obama's actual record and policy pronouncements showed him clearly to be a corporate imperialist warmonger – a political twin of his principal primary election opponent, Hillary Clinton and her philandering, huckster husband.

"Back then, phony leftists like Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden swore on their mothers' honor that Obama's campaign was really a people's movement, a prelude to revolution – as if the Democrats, a militarist corporate political party, could give birth to an anti-corporate, anti-militarist people's revolution.

"Real Fascist vs. Trump Cartoon Version

"Bernie Sanders threw around the word 'revolution' quite a bit. He was still using it in his surrender speech on Tuesday [July 12, 2016], assuring his flock that the revolution would continue as he marched arm in arm with the most dangerous person in the world, today – far more dangerous than Donald Trump [ ] Sanders' job is to shepherd his flock into a little leftwing corner of Hillary's Big Tent, right next to the latrine and alongside her loyal Black Democrats, who are so meek in the presence of power that they won't even complain about the smell."

https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie_endorses_greatest_evil

Bernie's own behavior during and after the "revolution" belies this prattle about CIA "derailment" of a "Sanders insurgency".

A guy who once urged once urged abolishing CIA, Bernie now can't get enough of fact-free claims by "intelligence agencies".

Bloviating with Wolf Blitzer in CNN's Situation Room on 10 May 2017, Bernie declared: "Our intelligence agencies all agree that [Russia] interfered significantly in the American election."

"This is an investigation that has to go forward," he said.

Bernie wasn't so keen on investigation when American votes were at stake during the "revolution" in 2016.

To summarize:

What better way for the CIA to thwart a "revolution" against "intelligence agencies" than to have the Dems front an "insurgent" sheepdog candidate who would not only throw the "fight" at critical moments, but turn around and praise the BS produced by the very "intelligence agencies" he previously sought to abolish.

Put that in your vape and smoke it, kids.

And why is it that all these "intelligence agencies" have nothing whatsoever to say about Israeli intelligence operatives and Israeli interference in the US electoral process?

Let's hear our vaunted veteran intelligence professionals 'splain' that.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:01

Again, Abe -- Keep bringing it while we still can.
Thanks for your courage and honesty.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:14

Outstanding comment, Abe! This is exactly who and what Bernie is and here he is doing it again. People who were upset with him doing that last time are once again getting ready to back his candidacy and when he betrays them again they will wonder why.

Bernie has signed on to the Russian interference nonsense and tells people that Vlad is controlling Trump and he also says that Madura must step down. He was asked after the election if Hillary had won it fair and square and he said yes knowing damn well that she rigged it against him.

As for the big elephant in the room no one ever talks about how Israel has congress in its pocket.

Maxwell Quest , June 18, 2019 at 23:03

Abe, thanks so much for ripping off Bernie's little revolutionary fig leaf and stomping it into the dirt. It really made my day.

EchoDelta , June 17, 2019 at 14:55

Garbage, embarrassing garbage and magical thinking from an Ahab with a fan club.

Address why Roger Stone is now claiming Russians did hack the DNC? And https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/05/15/cloud-computing-and-the-single-server/ splain this?

Otherwise admit you're a red hat brownshirt or profiteering like Alex Jones from gullible chuckleheads.

well oh boy , June 17, 2019 at 15:22

Emptywheel? Isn't this the same person who still thinks Russia elected Trump..? The one who revealed her source to the FBI? Doesn't seem like a journalist at all. What are her credentials?

certainquirk , June 17, 2019 at 15:28

Troll. Starve.

nwwoods , June 17, 2019 at 17:32

Indisputable fact:
Comey has committed purgery under oath
Clapper has commited purgery under oath
Brennan has commited purgery under oath
This is a matter of public record that is beyond dispute.
Your faith-based belief in the Russiagate conspiracy theory is entirely grounded in the baseless assertions of three confirmed liars who have provided precisely zero evidence in support of their claims.

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:34

That is a completely inappropriate comment. Stone's lawyers filed a discovery request for the documents. That is not the same thing as expecting to believe their contents.

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 18:58

This is a garbage comment. @EmptyWheel is just another blue-check pseudo-left journalist who outright promoted the idea that Trump is Putin's puppet before the Mueller Report revealed that to be untrue https://mobile.twitter.com/emptywheel/status/821348649108205569 . I don't know how much CN pays but I'm sure Ray isn't making the big bucks of conspiracy theorist Jones, let alone conspiracy theorists David Corn and Rachel Maddow.

Even the Democratic Party is focusing on propping up their neoliberal leader, Biden, and is not wishing to defend a failed theory exploited by the DNC as an excuse for why they failed to defeat Donald Trump. Their rigging of the primaries, detailed in the WikiLeaks documents, ensured a Trump victory which has seen massive ecological devistation, right-wing ghouls appointed to the Supreme Court, and multiple wars or war scares. I get that they want to hide their and Hillary's personal responsibility, and that the elite as a whole wants to cover up the failed system they have established, but we should be focused on the Sanders campaign and beating Trump in 2020, or grassroots work on saving the environment and helping organize working people.

I thought RussiaGate was false from the moment Hillary blamed Putin for the leaks this time three years ago. It's good to be vindicated, but I'm not really interested in the Trump-Barr counterinvestigation, either, I, like probably most other people, just want the whole thing to be over with.

But the fact that this fake narrative continues to be perpetuated makes me have second thoughts, sometimes.

Robbin Milne , June 17, 2019 at 19:37

Empty wheel Marcy wheeler isn't a credible source.

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

She forgot to keep her chastity belt on when she went to Mueller. Still not sure why.

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:39

No such claim dimwit.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:17

lol! You're quoting emptywheel? Oh boy she is so far out there on this Russian propaganda nonsense I don't recognize her from when she was sane back on daily kos. But then they have bought into too.

I think that you are the one who needs to wake up. Tell us what evidence Mueller or anyone has shown us that proves Russia did the deed? I'll wait

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 18:14

Actually, Echo Delta, according to a link Realist has provided on the thread of a later article, here at CN, Stone and his attorneys are insisting that the government must provide actual proof that Russia hacked the DNC, and the government is claiming, apparently, that it is not subject to any such burden as providing actual proof.

This will be very interesting to observe.

Either the rule of law demands actual proof, or the "rule" has become so very bent that it has broken and disappeared entirely, leaving behind merely an empty nothing that may be shaped, twisted, or sculpted into whatever "authority" may wish, to whatever ends power desires or insists upon.

Vera Gottlieb , June 17, 2019 at 14:28

Oh, enough of this already. Keep distracting people so as not to pay attention to more important matters. Enough!

jmg , June 17, 2019 at 17:07

Vera, "this" is what started the "Russia has attacked us!" hysteria, the new McCarthyist xenophobia, the new Cold War, the new arms race, the Doomsday Clock's current "two minutes to midnight" (first time since 1953), etc. So, if in fact Russia didn't attack, it has some importance.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:21

Ikr? And this when people have already stopped arguing about the Game of Thrones finale. Get your priorities straight, everybody talking about things corporate media isn't instructing you to!

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:33

Go away and be an obedient believer then.

jb , June 17, 2019 at 13:33

Has VIPS said anything about the possibility of a hack first, followed by a leak? (The Nation?)

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:23

Password was used to enter DCCC and then DNC. George Webbs theory. So that would put us somewhere in between a hack and leak?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFbCiVzbVYE&t=426s

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:30

In fact, VIPS had some evidence (since discredited as falsified) of a possible leak. They hyped it as "disproving" any hack. If you want nuanced analysis, don't go to VIPS.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:06

"YOU" say–without any backup to your assertion.
Nice.
New around here, aincha?
I wonder why

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:05

Some parties did make broad and sweeping assertions on evidence that really only related to Guccifer 2.0's releases and they probably should have been more cautious.

However, the underlying research (showing that Guccifer 2.0 moved files around via thumbdrive and then archived them almost 2 months later with Eastern timezone settings in effect) has not been discredited as falsified.

Someone did cook up a highly speculative conspiracy theory and a flawed technical theory to try to support the premise that there was a conspiracy and that files were tampered with but it didn't work out too well for them. (Forensicator debunked their primary conspiratorial claims within a month and just recently dismantled their timestamp tampering theory too.) :)

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:04

Tim Leonard (real name for Adam Carter): The "research" was gobbledygook.
– Even if someone believed every word of your "analysis", it still disregards many variables about how data is handle, and presumes that people used tools, methods and communication techniques no one actually uses in real life, making it stink to high heaven.
– And,of course, nothing can be realistically "proven" from a data file whose source cannot be verified.

And stop referring to yourself as "forensicator" in the third person. It's embarrassing.

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:32

As my other response to your defamation here made clear. Forensicator and I are separate people and even a basic corpus analysis of our work outputs would make that clear.

Also, where have I (or Forensicator) "presumed that people used tools, methods and communication techniques no one actually uses in real life" specifically? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Eric32 , June 18, 2019 at 13:53

You're not very good at this.

The NSA probably has the greatest computer forensics capability in the world – Comey's FBI investigation never asked them to analyze these leaks?/hacks? by internet tracking and hard drive analysis.

No real investigation would depend on consultants paid by interested parties when it could do it itself or through the NSA.

As for hard drive forensic analysis, people who actually know about computer forensics say that the way to make hard disk data irretrievable is to PHYSICALLY destroy the HD plates. Drilling multiple holes through the HD including all the plates is what most of them do. "Cleaning"? No.

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:22

Actually A LOT of investigations rely heavily on computer security consultants and non-FBI security staff. It happen every day. Banks hand off forensic data collected by consultants all the time to the FBI. The word for it in court is "expert witness".

And while the only surefire way to destroy data is to destroy the HD, simply deleting and overwriting it would mangle the **** out of it, making it hard to determine what file the scraps of data are from, when they were written, and if they were ever executed. Basically making it useless to anyone wanting to build a case with it.

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 12:51

No, what you're saying does not hold up to analysis or common sense.
There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates figured it out early on.

No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation.

The Clinton / Democrat party story line was Russian hacking, Russian influenced President Trump, poor victim Hillary.

Private businesses often do leak/hack investigations through private consultants because they fear the (business) consequences of the investigative information becoming public or into criminal prosecution, just like the people controlling the Democrat party feared having the actual method of the email data showing Clinton corruption and Democrat party corruption becoming public was due to an internal leak, not an over the internet hack.

The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview for info – they had enormous leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came into Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows lot of what went on in the matter.

There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates figured it out early on. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:48

If it was a hack, or even a partial hack the NSA would have the forensics and the copies. Please explain why they have not released this information to anyone in authority.

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:20

Seth Rich

Lorri Strawser , June 17, 2019 at 13:18

If I hide someone who is being sought for murder, I will still be charged with harboring a fugitive, even if they later decide that the person Ic was hiding, didn't do it.
And instruction is Justice, is obstruction of Justice, no matter how the lawyers and politicians try to spin it.

LJ , June 17, 2019 at 19:22

Bill Walton, NBA Hall of Fame, sports announcer, dad and all that was once heard to utter on National Television, shortly after winning an NBA Title with the Portland Trailblazers, regarding possible guests of an A-Frame he owned out in the sticks somewhere (As I recall regarding SLA alums Jake and Emily Harris >), " I would never Co-operate with a Fascistic Organization like the CIA". Oh the Times they are a Changin' and have been for what 45 years now.

Pablo Diablo , June 17, 2019 at 11:45

All of this has been an effective distraction to WHAT was in those emails. Far worse than WHO hacked/leaked them.

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 12:34

So very true, Pablo. And distraction from the content – so well managed by the MSM – was the intent behind this whole lying farrago.

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:21

Amen!

Ruth , June 17, 2019 at 14:04

That is so true.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:16

Can't be said too often. And the media misdirection began immediately after the DNC docs were published, largely crowding out coverage of the substance from then until today. Among other things, this is why it's so wrong to even credit/blame Wikileaks for Trump's victory.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile took one for the team, but the big story of DNC dishonesty was relegated to the vast sea of true things that, as Harold Pinter put it, "never happened".

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:56

WHAT was in those emails was basically nothing. No coordination with Clinton, no orders or actions to deliberately sabotage Sanders. Just a handful of snarky comments by a few staffers.

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

No. DNC emails evidence crimes of money laundering and entering into agreements with state officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million

https://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/leaked-emails-prove-dnc-suppressed-voters-favor-clinton-rhode-island

http://linkis.com/wikileaks.org/dnc-em/zxSHn

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 6:30 PM To: CaucusGroup; Wilson, Erin; Wei, Shu-Yen; Miranda, Luis; Pratt Wiley; Jefferson, Deshundra Subject: Problem brewing in Rhode Island New report shows RI gov't opening only a fraction of polling locations: http://www.bustle.com/articles/156771-why-is-rhode-island-closing-its-primary-polls-voters-need-to-check-their-polling-locations Bernie leads Hillary by 4 in the latest poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/04/clinton-sanders-close-in-ctpari-trump-headed-for-big-wins.html If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They'll probably complain regardless, actually. We might want to get out in front of this one with an inquiry to the RI Gov, even though she's one of ours.

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 15:03

The DNC emails include evidence of crimes of money laundering and of entering into agreements with state officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million

http://linkis.com/wikileaks.org/dnc-em/zxSHn

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 06:55

John-

This comment, more than any other, exposes your goal to obfuscate the truth and further a propaganda narrative. They were not "basically nothing". They showed that Clinton holds "private" positions separate from her "public" positions, and is therefore a self-confessed liar. They showed that she used her position as SoS to get large donations from foreigners for the Clinton Foundation. They showed she was involved in cheating and given debate questions ahead of the actual debates. They showed coordination with the DNC to sabotage the Sanders campaign. They showed she had inside connections to quash the investigation into the use of her private server and mishandling of classified information as SoS. They showed her own staff was worried about her health and found her "often confused". I could go on. Here is a link with some of the more serious findings thanks to Wikileaks.

http://www.trueactivist.com/the-20-most-damning-revelations-from-wikileaks/2/

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:38

HEY JOHN .. HEY JOHN .. Crickets.

John , June 17, 2019 at 11:06

Did anyone here actually read Crowdstrike's publicly issued report? The traffic patterns, malware examples and code samples were MORE than enough to conclude Russia did the hacking.

I doubt Crowdstrike even MADE a "unredacted" report everyone here is asking for.

Some data may have been excluded, like sniffed usernames and passwords, but a good security company never publishes use4rnames and passwords of their clients.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 12:58

RE: your question, "Did anyone read Crowdstrike's report?" Ray McGovern read it and so did the rest of VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I read parts of it, but don't know anything about computer hacking, so I have to depend on what experts say about it. You say you've seen enough evidence, can you help me understand how you know that Crowdstrike did not plant that evidence? I'm skeptical. Doesn't it bother you that the FBI did not do their own investigation? Why not? It seems to me that it's like me telling the police, "My house was robbed, and I know the Russian guys who live next door did it" "My evidence? Well, I destroyed the actual evidence, but I do have this report from my own private security company and they are really reliable. The best people." I'm sure in that instance, you would not accept my word for it- how is this situation different? I don't understand how a private security firms report is evidence. Why weren't the servers examined by law enforcement, which the FBI admits would have been best? Why wasn't Assange interviewed? There was not a thorough investigation-why not? I still need more evidence to draw a conclusion-Can you answer my questions?

michael , June 17, 2019 at 13:43

Essentially the DNC destroyed any evidence of a crime. As Hillary herself has said "No evidence, no crime". As federal judge Zloch noted, the DNC is not a government agency, it is not a public company, it is essentially like a yacht club or country club (that can do whatever it wants as far as backstabbing members and determining candidates). It follows that any crime against such a club is inconsequential, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have been all over it. Since it was trivial, why bother?
And Crowdstrike may not have had the skills to mimic Russian hacking, they sound like total incompetents (perfect for muddying the water).
But New Knowledge, which was reported by the New York Times to have interfered in the Alabama Senate Election by pretending to be Russian hackers, DID have the skills, as well as having former NSA employees familiar with Vault 7 tools. They're likely Guccifer 2.o and possibly the "only Russians" involved.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 14:08

Thank you. I'll google more about "New Knowledge" and Alabama Senate Election.

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 14:37

Notice how John ignores questions he has no answer for. Typical acute TDS. Also examine who Crowdstrike is and ask yourself how they could ever be trusted.

John , June 17, 2019 at 14:12

I am exactly ZERO surprised the servers were not sent to the FBI.
– In 25 years of IT security and many virus/hack cleanups, I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen servers shipped to the FBI for investigation.
– IN ALL CASES the hacked equipment was cleaned and reused. Even at Microsoft. THIS IS THE NORM.

I can't imaging the DNC shutting down all their systems, spending piles of money on new duplicate hardware, and terminating all campaign operations for a week while they recover on new hardware, weeks before a Presidential election.
– Especially since the systems were ALREADY CLEANED, and there was essentially nothing new for the FBI to learn from them.

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 17:11

LOL. From the FBI's site:

Computer Forensic Science

Computer forensic science was created to address the specific and articulated needs of law enforcement to make the most of this new form of electronic evidence. Computer forensic science is the science of acquiring, preserving, retrieving, and presenting data that has been processed electronically and stored on computer media. As a forensic discipline, nothing since DNA technology has had such a large potential effect on specific types of investigations and prosecutions as computer forensic science.

Computer forensic science is, at its core, different from most traditional forensic disciplines. The computer material that is examined and the techniques available to the examiner are products of a market-driven private sector. Furthermore, in contrast to traditional forensic analyses, there commonly is a requirement to perform computer examinations at virtually any physical location, not only in a controlled laboratory setting. Rather than producing interpretative conclusions, as in many forensic disciplines, computer forensic science produces direct information and data that may have significance in a case. This type of direct data collection has wide-ranging implications for both the relationship between the investigator and the forensic scientist and the work product of the forensic computer examination

Piotr Berman , June 17, 2019 at 17:23

If the virus/hack cleanups you have witnessed lead to indictments. then I imagine it would be imperative to establish a custody chain for evidence. As a semi-layman, I imagine that it would suffice if FBI made copies of the content of the storage, confirmed that it has "hack signature" described by the private experts and made their own determination if this signature does constitute a proof. However, tracing a hacker is usually pointless and fruitless, so the systems are cleaned and that is that. NEVERTHELESS, Mueller made indictments based on the evidence that had no chain of custody but rather was "hearsay".

At least some elements of the "signature" were very suspicious to me. For example, using name Felix which is not a Russian name, but which belongs to Feliks Dzier?y?ski, a Pole who was the first head of a Soviet internal security and who died in 1926. Far a young Russian hacker it would be somewhat improbable, but to a foreigner who knows very few facts about Russia, Felix is easy to remember. Same with Bear. It was totally a trademark how a Western foreigner images Russians to behave. Same with switching from Latin to Cyrillic keyboard mode in the middle of coding to type a single Russian word.

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 19:00

Hell, Felix's name is probably known among many hardcore Sanders supporters as a key Soviet socialist figure. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

John , June 17, 2019 at 23:01

Crowdstrike's technology for tracking hackers is impressive.
– They can follow every single command and data flow between hackers' command systems and the hacking victim's systems and security log it with timestamps in audited and access-controlled systems.
– Those logs follow chain-of-custody rules, and constitute some of the most powerful evidence a hacking victim can bring to court. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:57

Those may be reasons the DNC wouldn't have wanted to give their hardware to the FBI, but they aren't reasons for the FBI not to have sought a court order and seized it.

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:21

So, if the FBI had crippled the DNC a few weeks before the election by seizing all the computers running their email systems, calendars, contacts, planning and legal documents, group schedules and coordination plans with state and local party workers, you would have happier? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Will , June 17, 2019 at 20:47

stop making sense John.

Andy W , June 17, 2019 at 21:10

You're missing the point, John. This has been portrayed as "an act of war against the United States of America" on par with the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The normal procedures for virus/hack cleanups don't apply because this isn't a normal event.

This isn't about some clown planting malware to mine bitcoins. This is supposed to be a dire threat to our national security, and it calls for a different response.

This isn't about normal IT work like removing malware and patching vulnerabilities so everybody can get back to work. This is about attribution and accurately identifying the hackers -- and since a nuclear superpower is the suspected culprit it's especially important that we get this right.

The investigation should have been led by the FBI, not by CrowdStrike. The FBI should have been the one sharing images of the DNC's servers with CrowdStrike, not the other way around. The FBI should have been the one sharing it's redacted findings with CrowdStrike, not the other way around.

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:40

Wrong – the behaviour of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and the FBI was completely about "normal IT work" for several quite a while.

It was not until WEEKS later, when Wikileaks began publishing internal DNC documents the day before the Convention that this became an issue.

HINDSITE IS 20/20. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:49

On April 11, 2019, NPR,
Nation Public Radio, carried story about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange by David Welna.

"12 Years of Disruption:
A WikiLeaks Timeline".

I am curious about your perspective about Jillian Assange, primarily because you said this.

"It was not until WEEKS later, when WikiLeaks began publishing internal DNC documents the day before the convention that this became an issue."

Would "this" be what you consider to be "normal IT work", John?

Essentially that any rigorous examination of the claim of "Russian hacking", BY the FBI, would have hindered what might be termed, based on your assertion, "business as usual"?

Especially, if the computers were to be considered evidence, as that, if I understand your grave concern, would have cost Crowdstrike too much time and money and would have harmed Hillary and the DNC, is that the gist of it?

Frankly, that seems quite akin to notion of "too big", too important, to be treated to an actual rule of law, reminiscent of "too big to fail, too big to jail".

Of course, as soon as the claim was made, not by WikiLeaks, but by politicians, that Russia had "hacked" those computers, some later even called the alleged "hack" an "act of war", then, at the moment of the assertion, the comfortable (and convenient) "normal IT work" perspective has, and had, no validity.

Under a functioning rule of law, a chain of evidence, not hearsay, is required.

Unless we accept either an empty form of law or a multi-tiered legal system, both of which make mock of rule of law, then evidence, genuine and actual, must take precedence over comfort, convenience, or convention.

The lack of substantive evidence regarding the "hack" is quite as destructive to the whole Russia did it BS as is the use of the Steele Dossier to establish "collusion".

For both taint the two cases, long held to be so related as to be conjoined.

The lack of evidence of hacking, cannot be made something by mere assertion, and the Dossier is evidence of what is known as a "poison tree" and all things growing from are known as "fruits of the poison tree.

So, John, my question for you is this.

Should Jullian Assange be locked up, not merely for offending official authority, but also for causing so much embarrassment for "normal IT work"? <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:51

The comment above is addressed to, John. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Andy W , June 18, 2019 at 17:32

@John – No hindsight was needed. The DNC should have brought in the FBI the second they realized their internal files and communications had been compromised regardless of who did it or why. The theft of this data is the digital equivalent of Watergate, and the Democrats should have turned the matter over to the FBI to figure out who was responsible, not to some private IT company that they paid for themselves.

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if internal documents from the Trump Organization had shown-up on Wikileaks. Suppose Donald Trump said the Democrats stole the documents and used that accusation to justify punitive measures against them. Then suppose Trump wiped his servers so the only evidence anyone had to go on was what a private cyber security company that he was paying provided. And suppose the co-founder of Trump's private cyber security company also happened to be a senior member of the Heritage Foundation. Would any of that arouse your suspicion, because that's basically what we're looking at here.

CrowdStrike's co-founder is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which has a long standing animus towards Russia. CrowdStrike's findings are being used to justify sanctions and other punitive measures against Russia and nobody can independently corroborate CrowdStrike's findings because the servers have been wiped.

The Democratic party is a political organization with a political agenda, and so is the Atlantic Council. You can't just take them or their surrogates at their word. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:41

If you clean and reuse, you lose the license to make statements and allegations based on what you just bleachbitted.
Nice try to shift focus.
You're a believer and are out of line here on VIPS.
You're not even a competent IT professional, with your 'clean' and 'reuse'-mantra.

John , June 18, 2019 at 10:59

Actually, just telling you what I see. Nobody spends the money to buy new hardware after a hack attack.
– To my knowledge, only a handful of multi-billion dollar banks and defense contractors have ever preserved hardware after an attack, and only in exceptionally rare cases.
– Even when I have recommended full rebuild on new hardware, I was overridden by the customer or management.

Seeing something nefarious in the DNC having acted just like any other organization of its size in a similar situation is a sign you don't understand the subject. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

LJ , June 18, 2019 at 15:53

Oh brother? Are you a clown? Don't be silly. That is a leap of faith when Bill and Hillary were meeting publicly on a plane on a tarmac with Attorney General Lynch after an investigation was in progress. The reason there was an immediate investigation going on and Comey was compelled to intervene and whitewash the situation was to try and save the validity of the electoral process , the credibity of the Department of Justice and the credibility and objectivity of investigations by the FBI. And just what of the precedence of using an absurd and obviously phony and unverifiable dossier attributed to a BRIT Clown from MI6, hired by the Clinton Campaign, to secure a FISA warrant to investigate and hopefully discredit the campaign of the presumptive, no the actual nominee of the opposition party? Let's just forget all that. Your point is ridiculous and your experience is of no value in the real world that we all witnessed in real time. No doubt, the people and corporations that paid for your services and expertise knew what they were getting when they hired you and I have no doubt you did a bang up job. Keep it in your own lane. It's safe there. We don't want none of that Seth Rich business unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

Deniz , June 18, 2019 at 19:19

My guess is that John is here to protect the value of his stock options. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 18:43

Bravo, Ruth. (I got a good chuckle from your straight-ahead, quite civil rebuke of what *John* posits.)
Now will he respond at all, let alone without deflection and/or obfuscation?
Yer move, Johnny

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:51

I am fairly confident Crowdstrike did NOT falsify claims or evidence based on a combination of the following reasons:
– Their reports, analysis and conclusions were made public, and were reviewed by several competing security firms. No firm with experience in IT forensics disagreed.
– Their report on tools and files found, infection and control methods and pwershell coding were technically viable and reasonable for a hacking attack. No "Where did they get this" moments you find in flimsier analyses.
– The reports were fat with background and supporting info to read as a "evidence leads to conclusions" report instead "conclusions lead to evidence" reports which tend to be fat with conclusions and skimpy on background info.
– There have been no murmurs or leaks of "they faked this" from inside Crowdstrike. All the "faking" claims are coming from people far outside the company with no security expertise.
– IT Security people tend to be pretty libertarian, so I doubt Crowdstrike could have actually "faked" anything without generating a mini-revolt by the people involved.
– Crowdstrike has MASSIVE incentives to deal honestly in the IT Security field. They do criminal and fraud investigation work for banks, and anything that risks that would be very stupid. (Note: motive evidence tends to be weak, but I included it anyway.)

Now if someone can present evidence that DID fake it, beyond association or speculation about motive, I'm willing to listen.

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:08

Traffic patterns as in how Wikileaks has already shown the CIA can create false trails?

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:48

The CIA's ability to "create false trails" maybe somewhat interesting in itself, but I would urge caution in drawing a connection, even just a speculative one, between this capability and the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of some of the files released by Guccifer 2.0. As far as I can see, the two situations are completely different. This is a point on which I disagree with Ray McGovern, insofar as his repeated emphasis on the point has the effect of misleading many into looking in a direction which is very unlikely to be related to the actual solution of the Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" issue. Most of the rest of his excellent article I agree with.

The CIA clearly has computer hacking capabilities. And one of the tools in its Marble Framework toolbox is software specifically engineered to _disguise its own hacking activities_ by leaving accompanying "clues" in several foreign languages (namely, ones spoken in so-considered adversary states).

With the G-2 materials, are we then possibly presented with something that was actually hacked by the CIA, the said hack having been disguised as the work of Russia by means of "Russian fingerprints" added by means of the automated software program revealed in Vault 7?

I cannot see how this could be so, given that I don't believe that the G-2 materials were obtained by means of a remote hack (even though Guccifer 2.0 did _claim_ to be a "lone hacker" and to have obtained his materials by that means). And if the G-2 materials were not obtained by a hack at all, then ipso facto they were not obtained by a CIA hack. Furthermore, although I am not an expert, it seems to me that researchers like Adam Carter have analyzed the series of steps that were actually taken to produce the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of the documents that G-2 released, and produced a plausible account of how this was done. This account does not include anything that relates to Vault 7 software. In my opinion, Ray McGovern would do well to direct people toward Adam Carter's work instead of misdirecting them toward Vault 7.

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:12

Are you aware that Bruce Leidl has claimed in the last few days to have discovered clear evidence that the malware samples CrowdStrike produced were fraudulently recycled from an earlier hack of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

He wrote on Twitter, June 12: "There was no APT29 hack of the DNC at all. I know this because crowdstrike produced fraudulent malware samples, you know, like they always do."

"The seaduke samples are recycled from the joint chiefs incident. I (and others) know bc they dun goofed stripping the relevant metadata."

And (June 12): "I'll be deleting this tweet and the prior one soon due to suspected lurks on my TL. It's too late in the game for me to sock up."

"The samples were compiled (by cozybear) on 7/30/15 and 8/4/15"

"JCS email hack was 7/25/15 – 8/6/15"

"Not much room for plausible deniability there."

There followed some exchanges with Stephen McIntyre and Larry Beech, which may be of interest to people with technical backgrounds.

There are many other public reasons to suspect that something is amiss in the official version of the timeline, notably the highly implausible claim that WikiLeaks only received the supposedly hacked emails from Guccifer 2.0 during July 14 -18, 2016, leaving far too little time for WikiLeaks to review them for authenticity and publication value before they actually did release them on July 22, and after Julian Assange had already announced more than a month earlier that WikiLeaks already at that time possessed "leaks" related to Hillary Clinton, in the form of "emails" which it planned to publish.

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 18:45

For those who are technically proficient, this essay by Adam Carter provides evidence that 2/3 of the "Fancy Bear (APT28)" malware which Crowdstrike claimed had been implanted in the DNC in spring of 2016 had in fact been compiled AFTER the date on which Crowdstrike was brought into the DNC servers in early May 2016. In other words, this suggests that Crowdstrike may have created this supposed hack.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/12/fancy-frauds-bogus-bears-malware-mimicry/

Crowdstrike's claims also appear absurd in light of the fact that the latest DNC email published by Wikileaks was written on April 25 – three weeks AFTER Crowdstrike installed its Falcon anti-hacking program on the DNC computers.

I reason as follows: Adam Carter, Forensicator, and VIPS have provided a range of compelling evidence that, far from being a GRU hacker, Guccifer 2.0 was a construct, operating within US time zones and most likely controlled by Crowdstrike, intended to falsely incriminate Russian hackers as the source of the DNC emails subsequently released by Wikileaks.

http://g-2.space/

As Norumbega indicates, Mueller's tale of how G2.0 allegedly transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks is absurd on its face.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/mueller%E2%80%99s-new-indictment%E2%80%8A%E2%80%94%E2%80%8Ado-feds-take-us-idiots

But there is a conundrum – Assange stated on June 12 that Wikileaks would soon be releasing "material related to Hillary" . But he did not indicate that this material was DNC emails (indeed, many may have thought he was referring to Hillary's erased SOS private server emails). It is clear that, when Crowdstrike and G2.0 made claims in the next 2-3 days that the DNC server had been hacked and that G2.0 had provided the hacked emails to Wikileaks (note the inconsistency with Mueller's claims!), that they had GUESSED that Assange had been referring to DNC emails. I propose that this was a very educated guess, and that our intelligence agencies had tipped the DNC off to the fact that someone at the DNC was proposing to send leaked emails to Wikileaks. This indeed seems likely if Sy Hersh's informant inside the FBI is correct, and Seth Rich had offered sample emails to Wikileaks, asking for payment for a subsequent large trove. It's reasonable to suspect that the NSA had been attempting to capture all communications to and from Wikileaks, and thus could have intercepted this communication. They could then have informed the DNC that someone on their staff was planning to leak to Wikileaks. That's when Crowdstrike was brought in, and the strategem hatched to fake a GRU hack and attribute the subsequent Wikileaks release to the Russian state.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/how-did-crowdstrikeguccifer-20-know-wikileaks-was-planning-release-dnc-emails

This scenario makes sense only if the DNC was not initially informed that Seth Rich was the source of the impending leak, presumably because he had not been legally unmasked at the time. Otherwise, Seth would have been summarily fired.

The creators of the G2.0 farce were betting Hillary's campaign on it. Which means that the real source of the leak would have to be silenced to prevent unmasking of their hoax. If the perpetrators of the hoax subsequently learned that Seth was the source, eliminating him would have been a high priority.

If someone has an alternative explanation of these facts, of equal or greater plausibility, I would be pleased to read it.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 08:06

Norumbega and Mark-

Thank you for your comments. I have seen this "John" around here before, and he always tries to make the case for Crowdstrike. I also notice that whenever there is something he can't account for he goes silent, or just goes back to regurgitating the same garbage.

One of the underlying themes of RussiaGate is that those evil Ruskies made Trump president, and that he is somehow beholden to them. This is an obvious psy-op with the purpose of distracting from the CONTENTS of the emails, which are mind blowing for their exposure of the shameless duplicity of the Hillary campaign and the DNC. And of course the secondary purpose is to prevent Trump from seeking detente with Russia. In my opinion, even if the Russians were the source, we'd owe them a big THANK YOU.

I believe in freedom of speech, and I think I should be free to speak my mind to anyone on any subject. I also believe that even the Russians have the same right. There is no way that freedom of speech can subvert democracy. In fact, it is essential.

The MSM's job is to control the narrative, and the internet is giving them fits. Sites like CN are a big thorn in their side. Thanks for being part of it. Your comments are invaluable.

Mark F. McCarty , June 18, 2019 at 11:21

Many thanks Skip. You make a point that I've also raised.

As you can imagine, I've quite a number of times been labeled a "Putin puppet" or "Russian troll" while trying to shed some light on the Russiagate hoax on social media. My response is that, if in fact I were in thrall to "the Russians", then I would be eager to give them CREDIT for doing the job that our MSM failed to do, revealing the crass bias of the DNC against Bernie. But I only give credit where credit is due! I suspect our thanks are due to poor Seth Rich.

As to all the "progressives" who are so enraged about the DNC/Podesta Wikileaks releases, may they rot in Hell. The REAL reason that Trump was elected was not the journalism of Wikileaks – revealing TRUTH that the public was entitled to – but to the DNC's efforts to ram Hillary – the most blood-drenched woman in history, a mega-grifter lacking in any intellectual integrity whatever, reviled by a high proportion of the American public – down the throats of the Democratic Party and the American people <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 21:46

These are interesting speculations, worth thinking about.

Two quick thoughts:

Bruce Leidl and Larry Beech are working on the hypothesis that the people behind G-2 didn't actually know (or have) what was in WikiLeaks' possession, until just prior to July 14, when the FBI reported results of its examination of SR's computer.

About possible NSA involvement and possible use of "masked" records. I would consider what we are now hearing regarding NSA database abuses by private FBI contractors, and their use in "unmaskings" of US citizens. I have even read one claim that CrowdStrike was among those private FBI contractors. The names are redacted in Judge Rosemary Collyer's April 26, 2017 FISA court opinion.

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:47

I think this is a very important point, and explains motive for SR's murder, and for the timing of the creation of the G-2 propaganda ploy. If Barr really does pursue all possible leads, I think it will end up tying into SR's murder. However, I've seen this type of play before, and I expect more theater and very little truth from Barr. I pray I'm wrong. <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:48

The first shift to using attachments that were later found in WikiLeaks' DNC emails observed in Guccifer 2.0's releases came at the very end of June 2016.

A few days later (July 6, 2016) he published a batch that was entirely DNC email attachments (including a document that revealed it had been edited using LibreOffice 6 by someone with Eastern timezone settings in effect). ;)

Source attribution and leak attachment correlation information is available at: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs/ <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

There were a bunch of out-of-context IOCs produced by CrowdStrike and when researching the malware samples, we learned most of the APT28 malware was compiled while CrowdStrike were installing Falcon at the DNC.

Putting questions that raises aside, the existence of the Marble framework shows us that relying on code and malware samples for attribution alone isn't entirely reliable.

More significant than all the above, though, is that we saw no incident specific evidence (evidence relating to email exfiltration events) or even had confirmation of the dates on which exfiltration of the DNC's emails occurred and these are things that CS, with Falcon installed across the network, should have recorded and been able to accurately report on.

The report lacked critical information regarding events and any observed/recorded malware activity (not much beyond identifying presence/discovery and what the malware was theoretically capable of).

Brian James , June 17, 2019 at 10:49

May 26, 2019 Trump Scares Swamp with Declassification Move

Ohr-Fusion GPS caught deleting emails; and yet ANOTHER Clinton email cover-up .Latest Judicial Watch Update

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/trump-scares-swamp-with-declassification-move-ohr-fusion-gps-caught-deleting-emails-and-yet-another-clinton-email-cover-up-latest-judicial-watch-update/

Jeff Harrison , June 17, 2019 at 10:12

So much for the so-called "rule of law". The government has been playing Calvinball for some time now. Making up the rules as they went to make sure that they win and you lose.

dag , June 17, 2019 at 09:45

Regardless what people might think about Russia, Vladimir Putin, WikiLeaks, Donald Trump, Roger Stone or anyone else, it should be a major cause of concern that the FBI's "investigation" relied completely on the incomplete findings of a private tech company contracted by the DNC.

Had anyone even heard of CrowdStrike before Election 2016? It's absurd that some unknown IT company would be trusted to do forensic analysis of an alleged crime of any sort, much less one that has been described as an "act of war" by a "foreign adversary" and has sent the US political system into a perpetual state of crisis.

James Comey testified that "best practices" would have dictated that the FBI actually physically access the computers. That's the understatement of the century. In fact I would call it gross misconduct and malpractice for the FBI to outsource this responsibility to a private contractor paid for by the DNC. It calls the entire premise of Russiagate into question and anyone who can't see that is being willfully obtuse.

Thanks Ray McGovern for this report and keeping this fundamental issue in the spotlight.

worldblee , June 17, 2019 at 13:22

Like Bellingcat, the genius of CrowdStrike is that they can instantly confirm the results their paymasters have requested. It's so much more efficient than, you know, actually investigating evidence and following the information to an unbiased conclusion.

Noncomunist American Patriot , June 17, 2019 at 13:28

That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with Putin's wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton, as well as the fact that Trumps campaign welcomed the help and had more secretive encounters with Russian agents than all other campaigns combined.
I remember when the Republicans DIDN'T like Russian meddling, and deeply distrusted Russian intentions. Yet less than a year after Russia HELPED Trump get elected – president Trump announces his great new epiphany to put Russia incharge of American cyber security?
Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand them all of our greatest Intel!
Vote Trump/Putin for 2020!!

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:11

You call yourself a noncomunist. What is a comunist?

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 15:52

I think he/she cannot spell. But he/she clearly is Russophobic as well as being ahistorical, not seeming to be aware that Russia is no longer communist, no longer the USSR. But in that he/she hardly differs from the rest of the neo-liberal, Demrat/Republirat crowd.

Ruth the Truth , June 17, 2019 at 15:01

I don't see Russia as "our greatest enemy" and this Russia hysteria is a kind of resurgence of neo-McCarthyism. I think "Russian meddling" was a very minor issue compared to problems that exist within our own system. I'm more worried about voter suppression via "Cross Check", gerrymandering, etc. I'm more worried about campaign financing, and the fact that our elections are controlled by two political parties that apparently are under no obligation to hold fair and open primary elections. I think the Russian threat has been exaggerated and it distracts us from other issues with our election process. I couldn't find anything when I googled "Trump puts Russia in charge of American cyber security" Can you tell me more about this?

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:14

Absolutely, Ruth the Truth. And that's even assuming that Russia did meddle (Russia, of course, seeming to "mean" the Kremlin always).

Yes, voter suppression, especially in the usual southern states is appallingly undemocratic (even assuming that what exists in the western world is, in fact democracy, which is questionable); gerrymandering, too.

And the corporate-capitalists together with two other nations, well, three, in fact: SA, IS and the UK, have far too much sway, one way or another the former two via money the latter via the cozy relationship between the secret services in our politics (and those of other nations).

The money should be stripped away – no lobbying, no donations, none of that. Simply a certain and small sum of money per candidate from the taxes and an electioneering period that is short. And candidates picked by the people, *not* by the party insiders.

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 21:12

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/27/the-grand-illusion-of-imperial-power/ <img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=60&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=120&#038;d=identicon&#038;r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:04

Your proof that the "IRA" interfered with the election in the Strumpet's favor?

Clearly you would seem to think that dearest Killary would have won but for the Russians – never mind that she ignored the three crucial swing states that determined the Electoral College outcome which in its turn decided which candidate won. The problem lies in both Killary's court and in the existence of the Electoral College – a deliberate stumbling block, erected by those much fawned over FFs to ensure that the great bewildered herd would *not* be the ones to decide, ultimately, who won the presidency.

Your proof that Russia is "our greatest enemy"?

Oh – they're Russian and they won't allow us, god's gift to humanity, to plunder and pillage their natural resources for our benefit not theirs. They want a multi-polar world in which every nation state is sovereign and not at under the hegemonic boot of the Anglo-Americans. Of course, they're our enemy, silly me for thinking that they have sensible people in their government and we have bloodthirsty, hypocritical psychopaths who are all linked arm in arm with the corporate-capitalist elites in ours.

And – talking about interfering in our election??? The sheer hypocrisy of menacing Russia over something that this country has done on a regular basis to other nations is, well, bloody mind-blowing.

Paul Merrell , June 17, 2019 at 17:54

@ "That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with Putin's wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton "

Why so? Robert Mueller has a huge credibility problem and particularly so in his Internet Research Agency ("IRA") indictment, from the day of its announcement. See e.g., https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/mueller-indictement-the-russian-influence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html

It was downhill from there. Mueller apparently assumed he would never have to prove his case since the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia and the indictment charged only 13 Russians and 3 Russian corporations. But surprise for him! One of the Russian corporations (Concord Management and Consulting ("Concord") showed up in court and asked to plead not guilty. Mueller immediately began backspinning, arguing that the court could not accept the plea because Concord had not been served with the indictment. The Court had no difficulty shutting down that spurious argument, properly ruling that it could attain jurisdiction over the defendant by accepting its not guilty plea.

Then Mueller began trying to avoid providing mandatory discovery allegedly because of an alleged threat to national security and because counsel for Concord might show the documents to other defendants who had not been served (more likely because he could not prove his case). That effort to deny discovery is still continuing. See e.g., government's June 12 motion. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.24.0.pdf

Then it turned out that another of the charged corporations did not even exist. Mueller had indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.

No one yet knows how that case will turn out, but I would certainly not bet that Mueller got it right, particularly in a case he never thought he would have to prosecute.

@ "Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand them all of our greatest Intel!"

Has it ever occurred to you that Russia is only our "greatest enemy" because our government has made it so? The fact that the Democratic Party has teamed with the Deep State and military/industrial complex in a glaringly obvious propaganda campaign against Russia counsels restraint and suspicion in regarding Russia as an enemy, unless, of course, you're an unwitting target of the propaganda.

Or didn't you get the memo from Mueller about no collusion with the Russians?

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:30

Not to mention that those charged Russians showed up in court to the surprise of Mueller.

Matt , June 17, 2019 at 23:40

Yes, the IRA agency ran the Face Book Ads that did encourage Democrats to "stay home." But this is not an election "hack," it is a very successful influence campaign. I find it incredulous that Mueller failed to follow the money to the most obvious entity that purchased the services of IRA in the first place- maybe the guy that bought the firm that created the FB targeting algorithm . used to select very specifically the right voters in the right states?

Cambridge Analytica Bannon Mercer

It might be uncomfortable to admit that American Oligarchs and their henchmen exerted the lions share of election "influence."

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

Indeed! When will the free peoples be rid of Putin and the plague of cute puppy pictures he loosed on the poor, helpless U.S.?

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/04/the-mystery-of-the-russia-gate-puppies/

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:49

In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't exactly the place for dimwits.

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 19:50

So much of Comey's schtick is predicated on his Boy Scout image that he has cultivated in his many years as an insider Beltway creature and the same goes for Mueller. At least insofar as Mueller can pull off the choirboy effect with his own physical countenance.
As both are former Fibbie Directors (and significantly, buddies,) just think of what kind of dirt they likely hold over so many D.C. pols in their toolkits. J. Edgar Hoover showed the way for his successors and in incestuous D.C. its top sharks always win. Between them they likely have a threatening wherewithal that many careerists in Foggy Bottom fear. And in that incestuous temple we have Comey's brother employed as an attorney with the firm that's keeping financial score for Clinton Inc -- a "charitable" swamp of its own that has broken virtually every rule on what constitutes a legal U.S. non-profit.

It is patently absurd that an FBI Director would allow an outside entity to substitute for the Bureau's criminal investigation authority and its unparalleled means to attain "honest" and complete answers. If it were indeed 'justice' being sought.
Comey's time at the ultra-crooked HSBC bank must have yielded an interesting harvest of favors owed as well, let alone his $ six million dollar salary for his one year working for Lockheed-Martin.

Both of these guys are cover-up artists, 'fixers' frequently in demand, and for good reason, so the powerful can continue their systematic, multi-generational pillage of not only the U.S., but the world as well.
I think this is one of the largest scandals ever in the history of the United States, along with the Kennedy brothers' assassinations, and that of Martin Luther King. The knaves of both parties with their asses hanging out are going all-out to keep the lid on it. Because what's at stake here is the sanctity of the Empire's Matrix of Woo. Our perception of "exceptionalism" and all that rah-rah jazz. For if the believers that glue this country together get wind of the magnitude of its interior rot and far-advanced decline
A lot of people are doing anything and everything (inventing and exacerbating, inviting and callously so) even potential nuclear destruction in a craven attempt to salvage their dubious-already reputations and their place in their lifespan's pecking order. It's screw us and screw the country; and while they're at it: screw the world too.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

https://digwithin.net/2018/04/08/muellers-history/

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 09:18

Also take a look at:

"And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: 'This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party .. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor'."

And:

"Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-16/us-governments-entire-russia-dnc-hacking-narrative-based-redacted-draft-crowdstrike

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 09:01

I am trying to figure out how Julian Assange could prove that it was not Russia without revealing Wikileaks' source for the DNC emails. It is simple enough to prove that it was a leak instead of a hack, but how do you prove the person wasn't a Russian agent without disclosing their identity?

If they could prove that Guccifer 2's stuff was an intelligence agency "vault 7" ploy, it would lend a lot of credibility to the real leak being a disgruntled DNC employee, probably Seth Rich.

Ron , June 17, 2019 at 10:33

Silly. It was Seth Rich who leaked -- the LATE Seth Rich, killed as he recovered from Clinton/Podesta's assassin in an ICU unit that was invaded by a suspicious SWAT team. Craig Murray has broadly hinted so; so has Kim Dotcom.

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 11:44

I am not saying that I believe it was a Russian spy, I am asking how anyone would prove it without divulging the actual leaker, which Wikileaks has claimed they will never do. How do you prove a negative?

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:39

Skip: Julian Assange could provide evidence that WikiLeaks possessed the DNC emails it published already early June 2016, i.e. by the time he announced that WikiLeaks would soon be publishing leaked emails related to Hillary Clinton.

He could provide internal WikiLeaks communications documenting that work was being done to review these materials for publication between early June and the July 22 release (and specifically prior to their alleged transfer by G-2 on July 14).

These could be done even if the lawyers for Seth's brother Aaron Rich refuse to release Assange from confidentiality obligations, as requested by Ed Butowski's attorney Ty Clevenger.

And, yes, exposure of the persons behind G-2 would certainly help, though I doubt WL will be the one to do that. But people need to stop thinking of "Vault 7 ploys" in this connection, and look instead at the actual work on G-2. My reasons are elaborated in a previous response to John A, above.

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:52

I understand that revealing the timing would undercut the G2 story, but without identifying the source how could they prove that the leaker wasn't a Russian spy who infiltrated the DNC staff? I haven't heard them try to sell that one yet, but they might try it when the G2 story and the hacking story falls apart.

Norumbega , June 19, 2019 at 07:22

Comey has already testified that they "think" the "Russians" used a "cut-out". The Mueller report admits in passing that emails (in that context the Podesta emails or the second batch of DNC emails) may have been passed to WikiLeaks by an intermediary in the late summer of 2016. So some, at least may be contemplating such an allegation as a way out. Nevertheless, further information that underlined the falsity of the official timeline would be significant, I think.

Sally Snyder , June 17, 2019 at 07:44

As shown in this article, the entire anti-Russia narrative was built on a lie:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/washingtons-duplicitous-approach-to.html

Here are, however, serious repercussions that are a result of this lie; the unintended consequence of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to minimize the impact of Washington's sanctions.

[Jun 20, 2019] Trump - a man for some seasons - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Notable quotes:
"... You will not get the same foreign policy with Bernie or Tulsi. The Democrats are not all the same. ..."
Jun 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Jack , 19 June 2019 at 12:05 PM

Sir

What I best like about Trump is that he drives the media and political establishment batshit crazy.

Considering that we have spent several trillion dollars on our foreign interventions mostly on behalf of neocon and zionist pipe dreams of hegemony and domination with nothing positive to show for, and with a consequence of a massive buildup of a national security surveillance state that acts with impunity shredding what limited rule of law we have, IMO, that is the single most important political issue we have if we want to retain even a small semblance of a constitutional republic. Trump has not been a change agent here. The best he's done is openly support Bibi's maximalist vision stripping away the false mask previous president's have worn in this matter. IMO, the American people need to continue to vote for change agents on this issue until they can finally get someone with sufficient character to dismantle the Borg influence.

I also believe that the real national security threat is China's totalitarian CCP. This not just a trade dispute we have with them. They've been fully engaged in a strategic non-military war with us for decades. I give kudos to Trump for highlighting it but IMO he's not gone far enough and the jury's out whether he'll cave to Wall St and corporate interests who were instrumental in us voluntarily supporting the CCP's strategic war aims.

IMO, the data does not support increase in capital investment due to the tax cuts and favorable terms if repatriation of offshore corporate funds. What we've got instead is massive stock buybacks that benefit management and Wall St. Main St is also not doing as well as the headlines purport when one delves deeper into the economic and financial data. I read a lot of perjorative comments when anyone proposes "socialism" for the bottom 80%. However the reality of the past 60 years is that we've only had socialism for the top 0.01%.There's more economic concentration than at anytime over the last century. Across every major sector. We've financialized our economy and de-emphasized the real economy to the benefit of the oligarchy. The symbiotic relationship between big business and big government has never been stronger in my 80+ year lifetime.

The political duopoly has not served us well as all we get is Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

Eric Newhill , 19 June 2019 at 01:57 PM
With the Democrats you'll get the same foreign policy at the end of day and a foreign invasion of the US + socialism + general post modern anti-American insanity culture.

The Pomp publicly says that Trump doesn't want war with Iran and I believe that; if for no other reason than Trump knows that's the one thing that would damage his sure thing win in 2020 - though actually, I'm pretty sure Trump sees it for what it is and what it is offends his business sense (bad ROI, etc).

Voting Trump is the only option.

JamesT -> Eric Newhill... , 19 June 2019 at 10:45 PM
Eric Newhill,

You will not get the same foreign policy with Bernie or Tulsi. The Democrats are not all the same.

Barbara Ann , 19 June 2019 at 07:06 PM
Now if I were a subscriber to Patrick Armstrong's Trump cutting the Gordian knot of foreign entanglements theory, I might just be persuaded that he has deliberately allowed the neocons enough rope to hang themselves, or at least to cut the blood supply off where it really matters.

The House has put the noose around its neck, will the Senate open the trapdoor? Is Patrick right, is Iran a long con and if so who is in on it? Is the Very Stable Genius the most underestimated man in history?

Questions.

Seamus Padraig -> Barbara Ann... , 20 June 2019 at 06:33 AM
You know, BA, I always hate those '400D chess' theories concerning Trump, since they are completely unfalsifiable. And yet, and yet, and yet ... I have to admit that, up till now at least, pretty much everything that's happened in the Persian Gulf has been completely consistent with Patrick Armstrong's thesis, so who knows. One thing's for certain: I can't hope that Armstrong is wrong .
Patrick Armstrong -> Barbara Ann... , 20 June 2019 at 07:22 AM
I remain confused https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/17/trump-mysteries-inconsistent-inconsistencies/
Lars , 19 June 2019 at 10:05 PM
Our taxes went up and Trump endorsed the bureaucratic NASA vision of the future, which is wasteful, already delayed, over budget and undesirable. There is a competing vision, which would be cheaper, is ready to go now and involves private enterprise. Other than that, Trump will be regarded as the worst POTUS ever and hopefully will remain as such for a very long time.
J , 20 June 2019 at 04:47 AM
Colonel

If we could just get rid of the Cigar-store president (Bolton) and the court jester (Pompeo), we'll be a whole lot better off.

The Space Force no longer under the tutelage of the USAF? Perish the thought. O Richard Dean Anderson, where are you when the Stargate calls?

J

J , 20 June 2019 at 04:47 AM
Colonel

Seems that Trump is Santa's helper when it comes to adding even more domestic surveillance on our fellow Americans.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/19/critics-lament-126-house-democrats-join-forces-gop-hand-trump-terrifying-mass

[Jun 19, 2019] Mueller and Russiagate story: The Eternal Witch-hunt

Apr 12, 2019 | counterpunch.org

Mueller looks more and more like a man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there, and finding it.

[Jun 19, 2019] Donald the Destroyer Assessing the Trump Effect

Notable quotes:
"... In a recent irruption of his self-sabotaging panglossia, Trump has given a bizarre interview to the New York Times in which, among other gems: 1) He warned the Special Counsel to stay away from his businesses. 2) He stated that health insurance costs $12 a year. 3) He taught his interviewers that the head of the FBI does not report to the Attorney General. And 4) In a series of blurts that I find particularly bizarre and telling, he repeatedly emphasized that French President Emmanuel Macron is a "strong" guy who "loves holding my hand people don't realize he loves holding my hand He's a very good person. And a tough guy but he does love holding my hand." As the man with the cigar might say, textbook symptomatic utterance. ( It's such a feeling I can't hide. I can't hide. I can't hide .) ..."
"... These are all signs of Trump's complete ignorance regarding policy fundamentals as well as his overwhelming narcissism. It's quite a bonus that it comes so obviously tinged with a familiar "bromantic"–I i.e., per cigar-man, homo-erotic–attraction for strong men who (he imagines) give him the love he so desperately needs. There are charming versions of that in the playfulness of the locker room or at the chessboard , but it's somewhat more disturbing as a central, unrecognized obsession of the pussy-grabbing leader of the most powerful country in the world, whose discourse seems to whirl around a black hole of narcissism and need. It makes for a hollow and dangerous man. ..."
"... The late Wayne Barrett chronicled Trump's quasi-criminal business dealings masterfully and relentlessly. As his warnings about Mueller indicate, Trump's real pedestrian crimes as the High Rise Grifter (rather than his fictional treason as Putin's Secret Agent) are what he is afraid of, and what might bring him down, should RepubliDems and their plutocrat patrons dare to open that worm-laden investigative precedent. ..."
"... Now that he's entered the glass-walled penthouse of political power, his blatant, grabby, unreliability and untrustworthiness become a different kind of liability. Trump comes to this high level, high stakes political game with no political experience or organization, confronting the resentment and/or enmity of the entire political establishment -- including the many Republicans he left in the electoral dust. Unlike them, Trump has no political apparatus -- what we might call strategic political depth -- in Washington, and his incoherence, impulsiveness, and need for constant, absolute adoration, is driving away even his closest henchpersons ( Buh-Bye, Sean! Watch your step, Jeff! ). ..."
"... The crisis that is fracturing the Republican Party is a result of its victory, which calls its bluff on all the purportedly virtuous libertarian policies they've been promoting -- the enactment of which, they know , will create social catastrophe for the American people and political catastrophe for them. Trump doesn't create that crisis, but he does exacerbate it. ..."
"... The Democrats' aggressive attacks, through an overwhelming array of sympathetic media and Deep State channels, have worked to provoke and exacerbate the ongoing decompensation and self-sabotage of the Trump administration. Clearly, the Democrats hope the disarray around Trump will drive enough of their constituency, many of whom left the playground in the 2016 election, to return to the Democratic end of the electoral seesaw. This is not such a good thing. ..."
"... So, Trump's incompetence may be used to increase voter disaffection with the Republicans without increasing voter affection for the Democrats at all. And that would be a good thing. As I've argued before , I think it would be a good thing if more people reject the plutocrat-controlled, designed-for-fraud, two-party election circus. ..."
"... Besides, Trump's positions are not just incipient, they are inconsequentially weak. Schrödinger's Trump is for and against healthcare for everyone, for and against NATO, for and against the war on Syria. ( We're stopping our support of CIA-sponsored rebels, except we're still paying their salaries , " pouring " arms into" Syria, and maintaining ten military bases . ) Trump is susceptible to any determined bi-partisan pressure–indeed, to the last authoritative voice that has shouted sweet praise in his ear. He has no firm political ideology or organization that can resist such charms. For all his bluster, he is swinging wildly, and easily pushed around. As we've seen, he's especially impressed by tough, strong men who know how to handle his narcissism and need. The military and the neocon Deep State are full of Mad Dogs. ..."
"... It's not anything Russia did that's undermining American democracy; it's what the Trump victory lays bare about abysmal state of America political culture: the contradictions within the ruling parties; the discrepancy between their public and private policy positions, and the plutocratic corruption that represents; the silently tolerated, atavistic and anti-democratic elements of our constitutional and federal arrangements (i.e., the Electoral College); the infantile understanding of the world promoted throughout the narrow spectrum of mainstream media from Fox to MSNBC. That media apparatus constitutes the principal form of mass political education. It creates a political world in which someone like Donald Trump can be been seriously as a presidential candidate, and the seesaw between him and someone like Hillary Clinton can be taken as anything other than the insult to the people that it is. It's all that which undermines the credibility of actually-existing American democracy, and It's all that which will become more embarrassingly obvious every day that Donald Trump is president. ..."
"... Under a kind, tolerant president like Obama of Assisi, you see, things like torture and multiple state-destroying imperial wars don't really affect America's "moral standing" or its "ability to make alliances." Only the "political chaos" brought on by Atilla the Trump "undermines the strength" that allows "the most powerful nation" to do those things while maintaining its "ability to lead by example"–that is, its ability to get compliant European governments to get their war-averse populations to go along with the alliances needed to wage American imperialist wars in the guise of international humanitarian crusades. In the vacuum that Trump is creating, European countries might actually have to seize the initiative to make independent decisions, maybe driven by the needs of their own people rather than by the precious, special clout of the most powerful nation in the world. The horror! ..."
"... I am not one who thinks the Trump administration will be any less aggressive and imperialist than its predecessors. It's simply not in the nature of who he, or the American presidency, is. ..."
"... It's not that Trump will be any less imperialist than Obama was or Clinton would have been; it's just, again, that he'll be worse at it -- from the whole "moral standing, needed alliances" point of view. The insufferable sanctimony of American exceptionalism has been an ideological pillar of the imperial project, and anything that undermines it should be welcomed. I doubt anything coming out of the #Resistance, the electoral seesaw, or the thoroughly marginalized radical left in the United States will be more consequential. ..."
"... In sum, the Trump effect is destroying the graven image of the presidency, the Euro-American imperial alliance, the Republican and maybe even the Democratic, Party. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Oh please say to me
You'll let me be your man
And please say to me
You'll let me hold your hand
Now, let me hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand

So, we've officially gone from The West Wing to Animal House. To the regret of Democrats and liberals, Donald Trump cuts a presidential image far removed from the Sorkinite Aristotelian Quaalude (h/t Emmet Penney ) of a Jed Bartlett in the Oval Office. To the chagrin of Republicans and corporate conservatives, his demeanor increasingly resembles the adolescent antics of a Bluto punching it out ringside at the WWF. Politicians and commentators from both sides of the narrow aisle are all shocked and saddened at the ongoing insult to American "presidentialness."

In a recent irruption of his self-sabotaging panglossia, Trump has given a bizarre interview to the New York Times in which, among other gems: 1) He warned the Special Counsel to stay away from his businesses. 2) He stated that health insurance costs $12 a year. 3) He taught his interviewers that the head of the FBI does not report to the Attorney General. And 4) In a series of blurts that I find particularly bizarre and telling, he repeatedly emphasized that French President Emmanuel Macron is a "strong" guy who "loves holding my hand people don't realize he loves holding my hand He's a very good person. And a tough guy but he does love holding my hand." As the man with the cigar might say, textbook symptomatic utterance. ( It's such a feeling I can't hide. I can't hide. I can't hide .)

These are all signs of Trump's complete ignorance regarding policy fundamentals as well as his overwhelming narcissism. It's quite a bonus that it comes so obviously tinged with a familiar "bromantic"–I i.e., per cigar-man, homo-erotic–attraction for strong men who (he imagines) give him the love he so desperately needs. There are charming versions of that in the playfulness of the locker room or at the chessboard , but it's somewhat more disturbing as a central, unrecognized obsession of the pussy-grabbing leader of the most powerful country in the world, whose discourse seems to whirl around a black hole of narcissism and need. It makes for a hollow and dangerous man.

People who have dealt with him in New York City over the past decades have come to know Trump's boundless self-obsession very well -- and not just leftists who were disgusted by his horrid screed about the Central Park Five. My nephew worked taking bids for a contractor in the city whose first rule of business was: "No Trump properties. We do not work on Trump properties. He doesn't pay." I also have a high school classmate who invested in one of his projects. Trump packed the Board of Directors with his cronies, sucked all the money out, and bankrupted the company. The late Wayne Barrett chronicled Trump's quasi-criminal business dealings masterfully and relentlessly. As his warnings about Mueller indicate, Trump's real pedestrian crimes as the High Rise Grifter (rather than his fictional treason as Putin's Secret Agent) are what he is afraid of, and what might bring him down, should RepubliDems and their plutocrat patrons dare to open that worm-laden investigative precedent.

Now that he's entered the glass-walled penthouse of political power, his blatant, grabby, unreliability and untrustworthiness become a different kind of liability. Trump comes to this high level, high stakes political game with no political experience or organization, confronting the resentment and/or enmity of the entire political establishment -- including the many Republicans he left in the electoral dust. Unlike them, Trump has no political apparatus -- what we might call strategic political depth -- in Washington, and his incoherence, impulsiveness, and need for constant, absolute adoration, is driving away even his closest henchpersons ( Buh-Bye, Sean! Watch your step, Jeff! ).

Paranoia is part of the narcissism, and it's contagious. Trump can neither trust nor be trusted, can neither give nor receive loyalty -- only its simulacrum: shallow and fleeting obsequiousness.

It's wonderful to behold how this is playing out with Trump's new Director of Communications, the too-perfectly-named Anthony Scaramucci. Nobody has taken the measure of Trump more accurately than Scaramucci -- who, not so long ago, called Trump "anti-American," a "hack," an "unbridled demagogue," an "inherited-money dude from Queens County," only qualified to be "president of The Queens County bullies." Anthony would know, since he is himself a low-road hedge-fund grifter and mini-Trump. According to Reuters business reporter Felix Salmon, Scaramucci, like Trump, " has two ways to make money: either find stupid people to give him their money, or else shower himself with so many conspicuous indicia of success that people just want to buy into his perceived success." Tony S's flourish on the art of deal-making includes soliciting clients with the admonition: "Always invest with an Italian." (I guess that's a weak attempt at invoking some kind of motivating appeal to ethnic stereotype, like a Bernie Madoff saying: "Always invest with a Jew" -- although in some other register. The Dapper Dick?)

And nothing epitomizes the hollowness of people like birds-of-a-feather Trump and Scaramucci, as well as the hollowness of the political culture they represent (which includes Clinton and the Democrats, whom Trump and Scaramucci both eagerly supported -- and got love from in return -- when convenient for all), than Scaramucci's instantaneous, transparently opportunistic, pivot to obsequious adoration of Donald Trump. Really, a dozen or more times : "I love the President," "We love the President," "The American people love the President," because Donald Trump has "some of the best political instincts in the world and perhaps in history."

Yup, Scaramucci's got the measure of the man alright. Knows exactly what he wants, and needs . I'm sure they will be working together, The Dapper Dick and The Donald, hand-in-tiny-hand. Cage aux Folles .

Until Anthony, too, is chased off the stage like the other characters in this comedy. Nobody who works for Trump comes away the better off for it. All of this insecurity, impulsiveness, and constant churn of personnel makes for a politically surrealistic whirlpool of uncertainty and instability. Was that the Nightly News or Twin Peaks?

Combined with Trump's lack of any coherent political program or political apparatus, it adds up to an administration in chaos and disarray, and it makes Trump a startlingly weak president. He maintains a core base of support among his voters, but he has no intrinsic support among Washington power brokers and policy makers, the Congress, the intelligence apparatus, or any sector or the permanent government known as the Deep State. It's not a matter of disagreement, but distrust. Everyone distrusts him, in a radical sense, and for good reason: No one, including him, knows what he will do or say next. He's got some stubs of ideas, a few of which are not bad (Let's get along with Russia. Let's fight ISIS, not Syria. ) and most of which are terrible, but he doesn't have the intellectual capacity for thinking any of them through, let alone the political facility for executing them. He is way out of his depth.

With all these weaknesses, Trump's only possible political role is to serve as the front man for congressional Republicans, who do have thought-out political ideas and programs, and dangerous ones. They hoped he would play, or could be forced to play, that role for them. The Republican Party is itself a precarious mix of factions -- hardline libertarians, religious fanatics, neocon hawks, and legacy Chamber of Commerce types -- all of whom are frantically trying to stay united around their one common priority: the worship and protection of capital. They need a leader who can mediate among them, and be an effective and reassuring presence to the public, helping them put over policy changes that are going to devastate the lives of most Americans. What they got instead is an incoherent, peripatetic, self-obsessed incompetent, who can't control his cabinet, his family, or his mouth, and who only further confuses their agenda.

This is a good thing.

From the Republicans' perspective, it's become clear that Trump is another problem that they will have to move out of the way or continually work around and make excuses for. From a slightly more nuanced perspective, Trump's confusion and disarray are helping to cover and deflect theirs . Trump does nothing (and can do nothing, since he understands nothing about it) to help the Republicans pass their healthcare "reform," but the real obstacle is the fact that even some of them, who do understand what it's about, are afraid of the social cruelty it represents. Donald Trump will sign just about anything the Republicans put before him, and declare it a huge win. Donald Trump won't stop the healthcare bill; Susan Collins & Co. will.

The crisis that is fracturing the Republican Party is a result of its victory, which calls its bluff on all the purportedly virtuous libertarian policies they've been promoting -- the enactment of which, they know , will create social catastrophe for the American people and political catastrophe for them. Trump doesn't create that crisis, but he does exacerbate it.

And that's a good thing.

The Democrats' aggressive attacks, through an overwhelming array of sympathetic media and Deep State channels, have worked to provoke and exacerbate the ongoing decompensation and self-sabotage of the Trump administration. Clearly, the Democrats hope the disarray around Trump will drive enough of their constituency, many of whom left the playground in the 2016 election, to return to the Democratic end of the electoral seesaw. This is not such a good thing.

But Trump's election caused a crisis in the Democratic Party, too -- or, more accurately, made critical faults therein impossible to ignore. The Democrats' insistence on burning Trump on the stake of Russian-agent treason gets no purchase on the concrete issues of permanent austerity and war that flipped so many voters from Democratic to Republican over the past few election cycles. It ignores the concerns of the millions of voters and Democrats who rallied around Bernie Sanders, making the self-identified socialist the most popular politician in America. That constituency tends to see the Russia fixation, per Max Blumenthal , as "a way of opposing Trump without doing anything remotely progressive." It ends up highlighting the Democrats lack of a comprehensive, coherent program of their own, and fueling their decomposition and disarray.

Indeed, whatever damage has been done to the Trump brand, Hillary Clinton is still more disliked . And it is corporate-donor Clintonism -- including Hillary's personal henchpersons -- that still remains firmly in control of setting the Democratic Party agenda, engendering increasingly widespread and active resistance from the Democratic constituency. Governed by its commitment to the worship and protection of capital, the Democratic party's leadership still refuses single-payer healthcare -- which is immensely popular, is recognized even by some conservatives as the only "fix" for the current horrible "market" system, and would guarantee electoral success. It also proposes a "Better Deal" for disaffected working-class voters based on that one-hit wonder from the 80s mix tape: "a large tax credit" for businesses to re-train workers to become computer programmers Uber slaves. Zombie Clintonism, paving the way for a Democratic dream ticket. Kamala Harris and Mark Cuban

Me, habitual non-voter in semi-rural PA county that flipped Obama-Trump: "Well, now that I've heard about the small business tax credit "

-- Jacob Bacharach (@jakebackpack) July 24, 2017

So, Trump's incompetence may be used to increase voter disaffection with the Republicans without increasing voter affection for the Democrats at all. And that would be a good thing. As I've argued before , I think it would be a good thing if more people reject the plutocrat-controlled, designed-for-fraud, two-party election circus.

At this point, both domestic political parties want rid of Trump. Both adamantly oppose his incipient positions on improving relations with Russia, and are assiduously working to cage him in the aggressive posture they demand. The constant pressure of the Special Counsel investigation is one tool of that. The new anti-Russia sanctions legislation that sets an unprecedented constraint on presidential authority in the matter, which passed the Senate and Congress overwhelmingly, is another. They have plenty of ways to discipline Trump, and are not going to be shy to use them.

Besides, Trump's positions are not just incipient, they are inconsequentially weak. Schrödinger's Trump is for and against healthcare for everyone, for and against NATO, for and against the war on Syria. ( We're stopping our support of CIA-sponsored rebels, except we're still paying their salaries , " pouring " arms into" Syria, and maintaining ten military bases . ) Trump is susceptible to any determined bi-partisan pressure–indeed, to the last authoritative voice that has shouted sweet praise in his ear. He has no firm political ideology or organization that can resist such charms. For all his bluster, he is swinging wildly, and easily pushed around. As we've seen, he's especially impressed by tough, strong men who know how to handle his narcissism and need. The military and the neocon Deep State are full of Mad Dogs.

The real problem is that it's always going to be a struggle for the Serious Politicians of both parties to work around Trump's confusion and inconsistency, and that effort will only highlight and complicate their own decomposition and disarray. So, both parties want to think they'll find a way to tame him. They won't. They can't control him, and he can't control them. His personal impulsiveness will not abate or be discretely managed, and maintaining four years of constant investigation and media hysteria against him will only increase the sense that the American government is losing its grip. Confusion -- indeed, dread -- hangs over Wahington as this realization dawns on the congress and the media.

And that's a good thing.

It's not anything Russia did that's undermining American democracy; it's what the Trump victory lays bare about abysmal state of America political culture: the contradictions within the ruling parties; the discrepancy between their public and private policy positions, and the plutocratic corruption that represents; the silently tolerated, atavistic and anti-democratic elements of our constitutional and federal arrangements (i.e., the Electoral College); the infantile understanding of the world promoted throughout the narrow spectrum of mainstream media from Fox to MSNBC. That media apparatus constitutes the principal form of mass political education. It creates a political world in which someone like Donald Trump can be been seriously as a presidential candidate, and the seesaw between him and someone like Hillary Clinton can be taken as anything other than the insult to the people that it is. It's all that which undermines the credibility of actually-existing American democracy, and It's all that which will become more embarrassingly obvious every day that Donald Trump is president.

And that's a good thing.

Trump is diminishing the aura of the presidency, and generally gumming up the works. As Rob Urie puts it : "The most public political tension now playing out is between those who prefer the veil of 'system' against the venal vulgarity of that system's product now visible for all to see. What Mr. Trump's political opponents appear to be demanding is a better veil." Not I. The lipstick is off the "presidency" and the whole political beast it sits atop of. Good. Let's have no nostalgia for a time when a smooth operator was picking your pocket with a smile while you were transfixed by his mellifluous patter.

After all, it's not as if Donald Trump is the first incompetent to be president. Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson both occupied the office for years in a mentally-enfeebled state. Popular media history just ignores that, and both still have millions of admirers who are blissfully unaware of the holes in the story, and in their heroes', and their own, minds.

Nor is Trump the first (or worst) liar. He's just the worst at it. Indeed, it seems a category error to say Trump is "lying." His discourse is so obsessively fixed on emphasizing how great he is that he seems unaware of the meaning of what he's saying, which is all meant to reinforce that self-aggrandizement. Effective, ongoing political deception is an art. It requires skill and finesse in soliciting an audience -- on a national scale, that means a wide and diverse audience -- to identify with you as the projected image of their needs and desires, without seeming to center yourself . Trump gets away with some of that for some of the people for some of the time, but he's a rookie. Obama was the champ -- easily the most successfully deceptive president I've lived under. He's still got legions of empty-pocketed fans thanking him for his service. I only hope that fewer Trump voters will remain in his thrall four or eight years from now.

It's also undeniable that Trump does not get the pass for his flaws that most of his predecessors got, and most of his contemporary colleagues still get. His many flaws get exposed and magnified and scrutinized on a daily basis. He's under the most relentless pressure put on a president since Nixon. It is a witch-hunt, and Trump does keep riding his broom straight into it. Appointing a Special Counsel was a trap that precisely demonstrates how out of his depth he is. The Special Counsel investigation constitutes a permanent, limitless, intrusive machine that works under the three felonies a day rule. It's an ongoing threat, put in place to enforce his compliance with Deep State mandates.

So, is Trump going to be impeached (and convicted)? Leaving aside the substantive question (Why would anyone want to? To have Pence and Cruz running the country?), it's virtually impossible. Do the math. It would require a majority of an overwhelmingly Republican Congress, and two-thirds of a Republican-majority Senate.

Then do the politics. Sure, as I suggested above, many Republicans would like to get rid of Trump and replace him with a Pence-Cruz government. But almost every Republican also knows s/he can only lose by championing that. Paul Ryan will not get any Democratic votes by voting to impeach Trump; he will only be sure to get fewer Republican votes, and probably get primaried. Despite the current situation, the Republican Party is electorally very weak, as would be obvious if it weren't for gerrymandering and election rigging. Trump brought out anti-establishment voters who are convinced that the bi-partisan elite is contemptuous of them and would like to nullify their choice. They are right, and impeachment would prove it. Republicans will never vote to impeach Trump unless he does something that's egregious for those voters , who also aren't too impressed with the aura of the presidency. Good luck with that Russiagate thing.

So, impeachment would help neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Barring a deus ex machina -- and a fortuitous lone gunman cannot be ruled out -- we are going to have Donald Trump to kick around for a lot more time.

And here's the main reason that's not such a bad thing: Every day of Donald Trump's presidency further erodes the thin remaining patina of America's "soft power" in the world. That's a very good thing, more likely to yield substantive benefit than any domestic turmoil.

The headlines tell the tale: "Allies Fear Trump Is Eroding America's Moral Authority" ( NYT ), "European leaders fear Trump's political chaos is undermining U.S. power" ( WaPo ).

According to Alyssa Rubin in The New York Times , more than a dozen diplomats, international politicians, and other such mucky-mucks she interviewed, worry that, although "America's own actions over the years [mentioning torture, Guantánamo, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] have already eroded its moral standing," there is great fear that under Trump, who "appeared like some kind of Attila, [the United States] was poised to cede its ability to lead by example." With Trump as president, the United States might lose the "moral authority [that] has imbued America with a special kind of clout in the world," or even "its ability to make needed alliances."

In the Washington Post , Michael Birnbaum reports that "Washington's closest allies in Europe are increasingly worried that rising political chaos in the United States is undermining the strength of the most powerful nation in the world," and quotes a Dutch member of the European Parliament that: "this internal chaos in the United States is growing to an unimaginable scale," creating a "vacuum [that] may encourage people all over the world to seize the moment of an absent United States."

Under a kind, tolerant president like Obama of Assisi, you see, things like torture and multiple state-destroying imperial wars don't really affect America's "moral standing" or its "ability to make alliances." Only the "political chaos" brought on by Atilla the Trump "undermines the strength" that allows "the most powerful nation" to do those things while maintaining its "ability to lead by example"–that is, its ability to get compliant European governments to get their war-averse populations to go along with the alliances needed to wage American imperialist wars in the guise of international humanitarian crusades. In the vacuum that Trump is creating, European countries might actually have to seize the initiative to make independent decisions, maybe driven by the needs of their own people rather than by the precious, special clout of the most powerful nation in the world. The horror!

A better argument for what a good thing the Trump-effect is would be hard to find. I'll take Atilla.

I am not one who thinks the Trump administration will be any less aggressive and imperialist than its predecessors. It's simply not in the nature of who he, or the American presidency, is. He probably has some sincere bits of thoughts about better relations with Russia and winding down the war on Syria, but I do not think he has the intrinsic commitment, or the ability in the face of Deep State pressure, to effect substantive change in America's fundamental imperial policies. I see the cessation of aid to certain rebel groups in Syria, for example, as part to a pivot to a Plan C -- an option that may give up on the "Sunnistan" part of breaking up Syria, but drives forward on tearing away a Kurdish statelet, as well as gearing up for new and dangerous aggression against Iran. I doubt Trump understands much of that, but he'll do it, hugely.

It's not that Trump will be any less imperialist than Obama was or Clinton would have been; it's just, again, that he'll be worse at it -- from the whole "moral standing, needed alliances" point of view. The insufferable sanctimony of American exceptionalism has been an ideological pillar of the imperial project, and anything that undermines it should be welcomed. I doubt anything coming out of the #Resistance, the electoral seesaw, or the thoroughly marginalized radical left in the United States will be more consequential.

In sum, the Trump effect is destroying the graven image of the presidency, the Euro-American imperial alliance, the Republican and maybe even the Democratic, Party.

That's a very good thing. Let's give it a hand. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jim Kavanagh

[Jun 19, 2019] Having followed Trump's relentless campaigning from beginning to end, and compared Trump's Herculean energy with Crooked Hillary's lazy excuse for dynamism, I have no hesitation in concluding that Wolff's is a preposterous assumption.

Notable quotes:
"... Speaking as a Deplorable, and having laughed my way through each of the first 60 side-splitting pages of Fire And Fury, Wolff's depiction of Trump as an incurious naif over-exploits humorous rhetoric to sell the fanciful notion that Trump is an incompetent one-dimensional character who won a US Presidential Election by accident. ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 19, 2019 4:22:52 PM | 30

@Madison James , Jun 19, 2019 2:47:33 PM | 4
(Fire And Fury)

Speaking as a Deplorable, and having laughed my way through each of the first 60 side-splitting pages of Fire And Fury, Wolff's depiction of Trump as an incurious naif over-exploits humorous rhetoric to sell the fanciful notion that Trump is an incompetent one-dimensional character who won a US Presidential Election by accident.

Having followed Trump's relentless campaigning from beginning to end, and compared Trump's Herculean energy with Crooked Hillary's lazy excuse for dynamism, I have no hesitation in concluding that Wolff's is a preposterous assumption.

[Jun 19, 2019] Trump's re-election launch is a rabble-rousing rerun

Jun 19, 2019 | theweek.com

Americans were reminded on Tuesday night that the president of the United States has just one big and very limited political talent: the capacity to elicit anger and resentment in a certain segment of the American electorate using a mixture of outright lies and flagrant demagoguery. That's it. When it comes to politics, he knows -- and knows how to do -- nothing else.

[Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... You might think the Democratic Party would be horrified at this result, which one conservative analyst calls: "one of the greatest self-defeating acts in history." You might think Democrats would now move quickly and decisively toward a strategy of offering a substantive political alternative, and abandon this awful own-goal Mueller/Russiagate tack that has already helped Trump immensely (and which they are not going to turn their way). That is obviously what would happen if the Democrats' main goal was to defeat Trump. But it isn't. ..."
"... As discussed above, the Democratic establishment's' main goal throughout this was not to "get" Trump, but to channel its own voters' disgust with him into support for some halcyon, liberal, status quo ante-Trump, and away from left demands for a radical change to the social, economic, and political conditions that produced him and his clueless establishment opponent in 2016. The Democrats' goal was, and is, not to defeat Trump, but to stave off the left. ..."
"... The Democrats' main goal in all this is not to impeach, or stop the re-election of, Donald Trump; it's to prevent the nomination and election of Bernie Sanders, or anyone like him. ..."
"... You mean the five million people who voted for Obama in 2012, in the 90% of counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012, but would not vote for Hillary in 2019, aren’t streaming back into—are indeed still streaming out of—the Democratic Party, despite all the Mueller investigation has done for them? Imagine that. ..."
"... What has Russiagate/The Mueller Investigation wrought? It’s either a shrewd political gambit sure to take down Trump, or it’s ridiculous political theater leading Democrats, and the country, over another cliff. Double-down or leave that table? ..."
Apr 12, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
So the Mueller investigation is over. The official "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" has been written, and is in the hands of Attorney General William Barr, who has issued a summary of its findings. On the core mandate of the investigation, given to Special Counsel Mueller by Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General in May of 2017 -- to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" -- the takeaway conclusion stated in the Mueller report, as quoted in the Barr summary, is that "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.1"

In the footnote indicated at the end of that sentence, Barr further clarifies the comprehensive meaning of that conclusion, again quoting the Report's own words: "In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign 'coordinated' with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined 'coordination' as an 'agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference'."

Barr restates the point of the cited conclusion from the Mueller Report a number of times: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA [Internet Research Agency, the indicted Russian clickbait operation] in its efforts."

Thus, the Mueller investigation found no "conspiracy," no "coordination," -- i.e., no "collusion" -- "tacit or express" between the Trump campaign or any U.S. person and the Russian government. The Mueller investigation did not make, seal, or recommend any indictment for any U.S. person for any such crime.

This is as clear and forceful a repudiation as one can get of the "collusion" narrative that has been insistently shoved down our throats by the Democratic Party, its McResistance, its allied media, and its allied intelligence and national security agencies and officials. Whatever one wants to say about any other aspect of this investigation -- campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, etc. -- they were not the main saga for the past two+ years as spun by the Russiagaters. The core narrative was that Donald Trump was some kind of Russian agent or asset, arguably guilty of treason and taking orders from his handler/blackmailer Vladimir Putin, who conspired with him to steal the 2016 election, and, furthermore, that Saint Mueller and his investigation team of patriotic FBI/CIA agents were going to find the goods that would have the Donald taken out of the White House in handcuffs for that.

Keith Olbermann's spectacular rant in January 2017 defined the core narrative and exemplified the Trump Derangement Syndrome that powered it: an emotional, visceral hatred of Donald Trump wrapped in the fantasy -- insisted upon as "elemental, existential fact" -- that he was "put in power by Vladimir Putin." A projection and deflection, I would say, of liberals' self-hatred for creating the conditions -- eight years of war and wealth transfer capped off by a despised and entitled candidate -- that allowed a vapid clown like Trump to be elected. It couldn't be our fault! It must have been Putin who arranged it!

Here's a highlight of Keith's delusional discourse. But, please watch the whole six-minute video below. They may have been a bit calmer, but this is the fundamental lunacy that was exuding from the rhetorical pores of Rachel, Chris, and Co. day after day for two+ years:

The military apparatus of this country is about to be handed over to scum, who are beholden to scum, Russian scum! As things are today January 20th will not be an inauguration but rather the end of the United States as an independent country. Donald John Trump is not a president; he is a puppet, put in power by Vladimir Putin. Those who ignore these elemental, existential facts -- Democrats or Republicans -- are traitors to this country. [Emphases in original. Really, watch it.]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/IAFxPXGDH4E

This -- Trump's secret, treasonous collusion with Putin, and not hush money or campaign finance violations or "obstruction of justice" or his obvious overall sleaziness -- was Russiagate.

Russiagate is Dead! Long Live Russiagate!

And it still is. Here's the demonstration in New York last Thursday, convened by the MoveOn/Maddow #Resistance, singing from "the hymnal" about how Trump is a "Russian whore" who is "busy blowing Vladimir":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9YZ9kiJ88LM

This is delusional lunacy.

Here are the three lines of excuse and denial currently being fired off by diehard Russiagaters in their fighting retreat, and my responses to them.

1. The Mueller Report is irrelevant, anyhow. 'Cause either A) Per Congressional blowhard Adam Schiff: There already "is direct evidence" proving Trump-Russia collusion, dating from before the Mueller Investigation, so who cares what that doesn't find; or B) (My personal favorite) Per former prosecutor and CNN legal expert Renato Mariotti: Of course there is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, and it's "your fault" for letting Trump fool you into thinking Mueller's job was to find it. (The Mueller "collusion" investigation was a red herring orchestrated/promoted by Trump! I cannot make this up.)

Mueller's report will almost certainly disappoint you, and it's not his fault. It's your fault for buying into Trump's false narrative that it is Mueller's' job to prove "collusion," a nearly impossible bar for any prosecutor to clear.

My piece in @TIME : https://t.co/VQ2WhhC996

-- Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 1, 2019

This is, of course, the weakest volley. It's absurd, patent bad faith, for Russiagaters to pretend that they knew, thought, or suggested the Mueller investigation was irrelevant. It is they who have been insisting that the integrity and super-sleuthiness of the "revered" Robert Mueller himself was the thing that would nail Donald Trump for Russian collusion. To now deny that any of that was important only acknowledges how thoroughly they have been fooling the American people and/or themselves for two years. Either Adam Schiff had the goods on Trump's traitorous Russian collusion two years ago, in which case he's got a lot of explaining to do about why he's been stringing us along with Mueller, or Schiff is just bluffing. Place your bets.

Russiagaters in 2017: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MUELLER KNOWS
Russiagaters in 2018: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MUELLER KNOWS
Russiagaters in 2019: Shut up Mueller, what would you know.

-- Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) March 22, 2019

2. The Mueller Report didn't exonerate Trump entirely. It was agnostic about whether Trump was guilty of "obstruction of justice," and there are probably many nasty things in the report that may not be provably criminal, but nonetheless demonstrate what a slimeball Trump is.

No, Russiagaters will not get away with denying that the core purpose of the Mueller investigation was to prove Trump's traitorous relation to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, which helped him win the 2016 election. They will not get away with denying that, if the Mueller investigation failed to prove that, it failed in its main purpose, as they constantly defined and reinforced it, with table-pounding, hyperventilating, and -- a few days ago! -- disco-dancing to "the hymnal."

They will not get away with trying to appropriate, as if it were their point all along, what the left critics of Russiagate have been saying for two+ years -- that Donald Trump is a slimeball grifter whose culpability for politically substantive and probably legally actionable crimes and misdemeanors should not be hard to establish, without reverting to the absurd accusation that he's a Russian agent.

These are the left critics of Russiagate and Trump, whom Russiagaters deliberately excluded from all their media platforms, in order to make it seem that only right-wing Trump supporters could be skeptical of Russiagate -- the left critics Russiagaters then excoriated as "Trump enablers" and "Putin apologists" for speaking on the only media platforms that would host them. Among them, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté (who just deservedly won the I.F. Stone prize for his Russiagate coverage) were the most prominent, but many others, including me, made this point week after week (Brian Becker, Dave Lindorff, Dan Kovalik, Daniel Lazare, Ted Rall, to name a few). As I put it in an essay last year: "There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them."

So, it's a particularly slimy for Russiagaters to slip into the position that we Russiagate skeptics have been enunciating, and they have been excluding, for two years, without acknowledging that we were right and they were wrong and accounting for their effort to edit us out.

3. But we haven't seen the whole Mueller Report! Barr may be fooling us! Mueller's own team says so! You are now doing what you accused us of doing for two years -- abandoning proper skepticism about Republicans like Barr and even Mueller (Yup. He's a suspicious Republican now!), and assuming a final result we have not yet seen.

This is the one the Russiagaters like the most. Gotcha with your own logic!

Well, let's first of all thank those who are saying this for, again, recognizing that we Russiagate critics had the right attitude toward such an investigation: cautious skepticism as opposed to false certainty. And let's linger for a moment or more on how belated that recognition is and what its delay cost.

But let's also recognize that what's being expressed here is the last-minute hope on the part of the Russiagaters that the Mueller report actually does contain dispositive evidence of Trump's treasonous Russian collusion. Because, again, that is the core accusation that hopeful Russiagaters are still singing about, and nobody ever argued that evidence of other hijinks was unlikely.

Well, that hope can only be realized if one or both of the following are true: 1) Barr's quotes from the report exonerating Trump of collusion are complete fabrications, or 2) Mueller both wrote those words even though they contradict the substance of his own report and declined to indict a single U.S. person for such "collusion" even though he could have.

Sure, in the abstract, one or both of those conditions could be true. But there is no evidence, none, that either is. The New York Times (NYT) report that set everyone aflutter about the "concern" from "some members of Mr. Mueller's team" is anonymous, unspecified, and second-hand. Read it carefully: The NYT did not report what any member of Mueller's team said, but what "government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations" said. Those "officials and others interviewed [not members of the Mueller team itself] declined to flesh out" to the NYT what "some of the special counsel's investigators" were unhappy about. To that empty hearsay, the NYT appends the phrase "although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump's efforts to thwart the investigation" -- suggesting, but not stating, that obstruction of justice issues are the reasons for the investigators' "vexation." The NYT cannot state, because it does not know, anything. It is reporting empty hearsay that is evidence of nothing, but is meant to keep hope alive.

"[T]he report is believed to examine" is a particularly strange locution. Is the NYT suggesting that the Mueller report might not have examined obstruction of justice possibilities? Or is it just getting tangled up in its attempt to suggest this or that? Hey, it could just as well be true that Barr's characterization of what the Mueller Report says about "obstruction of justice" is a misleading fabrication. Maybe Mueller actually exonerated Trump of that. If you mistrust Barr's version of what the Mueller Report says about collusion, why not equally mistrust what it says about obstruction of justice?

There is no evidence that Barr's summary is radically misleading about the core collusion conclusion of the Mueller Report. The walls are closing in, alright, on that story. The I'm just being as cautious now as you were before! line is the opposite of the reasonable skepticism is claims to be; it's Russiagaters clinging to a wish and a belief that something they want to be true is, despite the determinate lack of any evidence.

It's not just the words; it's the melody, and the desperation in the voices. The core Trump-blowing-Vladimir collusion song that #Resisters are still singing is a fantastical fiction and the people still singing it are the pathetic choir on the Russiagate Titanic. And while they're singing as they sink, Trump is escaping in the lifeboat they have provided him. The single most definite and undeniable effect of the Mueller investigation on American politics has been to hand Donald Trump a potent political weapon for his 2020 re-election campaign. A real bombshell.

It would be funny, if it weren't so funny:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qjUvfZj-Fm0

But it's worse than that. The falsity of the Trump-as-a-Russian-agent narrative does not depend on any confidence in Mueller and his report or Barr and his summary. The truth is there was no Russiagate investigation, in the sense of a serious attempt to find out whether Donald Trump was taking orders from, or "coordinating" with, Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.

No person in their right mind could believe that. Robert Mueller doesn't believe it. Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe it. Adam Schiff doesn't believe it. John Brennan, James Clapper, and the heads of intelligence agencies do not believe it. Not for a second. No knowledgeable international affairs journalist or academic who thinks about it for two minutes believes it. Sure, some politicians and media pundits did work themselves up into a state where they internalized and projected a belief in the narrative, but few of them really believed it. They were serving the Kool-Aid. Only the most gullible sectors of their target audience drank it.

With some exceptions, to be sure (Donald Trump among them), the people in the highest echelons of the state-media-academic apparatus are just not that stupid. And, most obvious and important, Vladimir Putin is not that stupid, and they know he is not. Vladimir Putin would never rely on Donald Trump to be his operative in a complex operation that required shrewdly playing and evading the US intelligence and media apparatuses. Nobody is that stupid. Thinking about it that way for a second dissipates the entire ridiculous idea. (Not to mention that Trump ended up enacting a number of policies -- many more than Obama! -- contrary to Russian interests.)

The obvious, which many people in the independent media and none in the mainstream media (because it is so obvious, and would have blown their game) have pointed out, is that any real investigation of Russiagate would have sought to talk with the principals who had direct knowledge of who is responsible for leaking the infamous DNC documents: Julian Assange and former British ambassador Craig Murray ("I know who leaked them. I've met the person who leaked them."). They were essentially two undisputed eyewitnesses to the crime Mueller was supposed to be investigating, and he made no effort to talk to either of them. Ipso facto, it was not really an investigation, not a project whole purpose was to find the truth about whatever the thing called "Russiagate" is supposed to be.

The Eternal Witch-hunt

It was a theater of discipline. Its purpose, which it achieved, was to discipline Trump, the Democratic electorate, and the media. Its method was fishing around in the muck of Washington consultants, lobbyists, and influence peddlers to generate indictments and plea bargains for crimes irrelevant to the core mandate. Not hard, in a carceral state where prosecutors can pin three felonies a day on anyone.

The US establishment, especially its national security arm, was genuinely shocked that their anointed candidate, Hillary, who was, as Glen Ford puts it "'all in' with the global military offensive" that Obama had run through Libya, Syria, and the coup in Ukraine, was defeated by a nitwit candidate who was making impermissibly non-aggressive noises about things like Russia and NATO, and who actually wanted to lose. For their part, the Democrats were horrified, and did not want to face the necessary reckoning about the complete failure of their candidate, and the best-of-all-possible-liberaloid-worlds strategy she personified.

So, "within 24 hours of her concession speech" Hillary's campaign team (Robby Mook and John Podesta) created a "script they would pitch to the press and the public" to explain why she lost. "Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." A few months later, a coalition of congressional Democrats,, establishment Republicans, and intelligence/natsec professionals pressured Trump (who, we can now see clearly, is putty in the hands of the latter) to initiate a Special Counsel investigation. Its ostensible goal was to investigate Russian collusion, but its real goals were:

1) To discipline Trump, preventing any backpedaling on NATO/imperialist war-mongering against Russia or any other target. Frankly, I think this was unnecessary. Trump never had any depth of principle in his remarks about de-escalating with Russia and Syria. He was always a staunch American exceptionalist and Zionist. Nobody has forced him (that's a right-wing fantasy) to attack Syria, appoint John Bolton, recognize Israeli authority over Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, or threaten Iran and Venezuela. But the natsec deep state actors did (and do) not trust Trump's impulsiveness. They probably also thought it would be useful to "send a message" to Russia, which, in their arrogance, they think they can, but they cannot, "discipline," as I've discussed in a previous essay.

2) To discipline the media, making "Russian collusion," as Off-Guardian journalist Kit Knightly says, "a concept that keeps everyone in check." Thus, a Russophobia-related McCarthyite hysteria was engendered that defined any strong anti-interventionist or anti-establishment sentiment as Russian-sown "divisiveness" and "Putin apologetics." This discipline was eagerly accepted by the mainstream media, which joined in the related drive to demand new forms of censorship for independent and internet media. The epitome of this is the mainstream media's execrable, tacit and sometimes explicit acceptance of the US government's campaign to prosecute Julian Assange.

3) To discipline and corral the Democratic constituency. Establishment Dems riled up outraged progressives with deceptive implied promises to take Trump down based on the collusion fiction, which excused Hillary and diverted their attention from the real egregious failures and crimes that led their party to political ruin, and culminated in the election of Trump in the first place. This discipline also instituted a #Resistance to Trump that involved the party doing nothing substantively progressive in policy -- indeed, it allowed embracing Trump's most egregious militarism and promoting an alliance with, a positive reverence for, the most deceptive and reactionary institutions of the state.

Finally, incorporating point 2, perhaps the main point of this discipline -- indeed of the whole Mueller enterprise -- was to stigmatize the leftists and socialists in and around the party, who were questioning the collusion fiction and calling critical attention to the party's failures, as crypto-fascist "Trump enablers" or "Putin's useful idiots." It's all about fencing out the left and corralling the base.

Note the point regarding the deceptive implications about taking down Trump. Though they gave the opposite impression to rile up their constituents, Democratic Congressional leaders, for the reasons given above and others I laid out in a previous essay, did not think for a second they were going to impeach Trump. They were never really after impeaching Trump; they were and are after stringing along their dissatisfied progressive-minded voters. They, not Trump, were and are the target of the foolery.

We should recognize that Russiagate/The Mueller Investigation achieved all of these goals, and was therefore a great success. That's the case whatever part of the Mueller Report is summarized and released, and whoever interprets it. The whole report with all of the underlying evidence cannot legally be released to the public, and the Democrats know that. So, even if the House gets it, the public will only ever see portions doled out by various interested parties.

Thus, it will continue to be a great success. There will be endless leaks, and interpretations of leaks, and arguments about the interpretations of leaks based on speculation about what's still hidden. The Mueller Investigation has morphed into the Mueller Report, a hermeneutical exercise that will go on forever.
The Mueller Investigation never happened and will never end.

It wasn't an investigation. It was/is an act of political theater, staged in an ongoing dramatic festival where, increasingly, litigation substitutes for politics. Neither party has anything of real, lasting, positive political substance to offer, and each finds itself in power only because it conned the electorate into thinking it offered something new. That results in every politician being vulnerable, but to a politically vacuous opposition that can only mount its attacks on largely politically irrelevant, often impossible to adjudicate, legalistic or moralistic grounds. Prosecutorial inquiry becomes a substitute for substantive political challenge.

It's the template that was established by the Republicans against Bill Clinton, has been adapted by the Democrats for Trump and Russiagate, and will be ceaselessly repeated. What's coming next, already hinted at in William Barr's congressional testimony, will be an investigation of FISAGate -- an inquiry into whether the FISA warrants for spying on the Trump campaign and administration were obtained legally ("adequately predicated"). And/or UkraineGate, about the evidence "Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes," involving Tony Podesta (who worked right alongside Paul Manafort in Ukraine), Hillary Clinton's campaign, Joe Biden and his son, et. al. And/or CampaignGate, the lawsuit claiming that Hillary's national campaign illegally took $84 million of "straw man" contributions made to state Democratic campaigns. And/or CraigGate, involving powerful Democratic fixer and Obama White House Counsel, Gregory Craig, who has already been referred to federal prosecutors by Mueller, and whose law firm has already paid a $4.6 million-dollar fine for making false statement and failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act -- for work he did in Ukraine with -- who else? -- Paul Manafort.

There are Gates galore. If you haven't heard about any of these simmering scandals in the way you've heard incessantly about, you know, Paul Manafort, perhaps that's because they didn't fit into the "get Trump" theme of the Mueller Investigation/Russiagate political theater. Rest assured the Republicans have, and will likely make sure that you do. If you think the Republicans do not have at least as much of a chance to make a serious case with some of these as Mueller did with Trump, you are wrong. If you think the Republicans will pursue any of these investigations because they have the same principled concern as the Democrats about foreign collusion in US elections, or the legality of campaign contributions or surveillance warrants, you are right. They have none. Like the Democrats, they have zero concern for the ostensible issues of principle, and infinite enthusiasm for mounting "gotcha" political theater.

Neither party really wants, or knows how, to engage in a sustained, principled debate on substantive political issues -- things like universal-coverage, single-payer health insurance, a job guarantee, a radical reduction of the military budget, an end to imperialist intervention, increasing taxes on the wealthy and lowering them for working people, a break from the "overwhelming" and destructive influence of Zionism, to name a few of the policies the Democratic congressional leadership could have insisted on "investigating" over the last two years..

Instead, both parties' political campaigns rely on otherizing appeals based on superficial identity politics (white-affirmative on the one hand, POC-affirmative on the other) and, mainly, on bashing the other party for all the problems it ignored or exacerbated, and all the terrible policies it enacted, when it was in power -- and for the version of superficial, otherizing identity politics it supposedly based those policies on (the real determinants of class power remaining invisible). What both parties know how and will continue to do is mount hypocritical legalistic and moralistic "investigations" of illegal campaign contributions, support from foreign governments, teenage make-out sessions, personal-space violations, et. al., that they are just "shocked, shocked" about.

It's Investigation Nation. Fake politics in the simulacrum of a democratic polity. Indeed, someone, of some political perspicuity, might just notice, if only for a flash, that the people who do pretty well politically are often the ones who frankly don't give a crap about all that. Maybe because they're talking to people who don't give a crap about all that. But we wouldn't want to confuse ourselves thinking on that for too long.

Which brings us to the last point about Russiagate/The Mueller Investigation mentioned above. It may not (or may!) have been an intended goal, but it has been its most definite political effect: The Mueller Investigation has been a great political gift to Donald Trump. #Resisters and Russiagaters can wriggle around that all they want. They can insist that, once we get the whole Report, we'll turn the corner, the bombshell will explode, the walls will close in -- for real, this time. Sure.

But even they can't deny that's the case right now. Trump is saying the Mueller investigation was a political counterattack against the result of the election, masquerading as a disinterested judicial investigation; that it was based on a flimsy fiction and designed to dig around in every corner of his closets to find nasty and incriminating things that were entirely irrelevant to the ostensible mandate of the investigation and to any substantive, upfront political critique -- a "witchhunt," a "fishing expedition." And he is right. And too many people in the country know he's right. At this point, even most Russiagaters themselves know it -- though they don't care, and will never admit it.

So now Trump, who could have been attacked for two years politically on substance for betraying most of the promises that got him elected -- more aggressive war, more tax cuts for the wealthy, threatening Medicare and Social Security -- has instead been handed, by the Democrats, the strongest arrow he now has in his political quiver. As Matt Taibbi says: "Trump couldn't have asked for a juicier campaign issue, and an easier way to argue that 'elites' don't respect the democratic choices of flyover voters. It's hard to imagine what could look worse."

You might think the Democratic Party would be horrified at this result, which one conservative analyst calls: "one of the greatest self-defeating acts in history." You might think Democrats would now move quickly and decisively toward a strategy of offering a substantive political alternative, and abandon this awful own-goal Mueller/Russiagate tack that has already helped Trump immensely (and which they are not going to turn their way). That is obviously what would happen if the Democrats' main goal was to defeat Trump. But it isn't.

As discussed above, the Democratic establishment's' main goal throughout this was not to "get" Trump, but to channel its own voters' disgust with him into support for some halcyon, liberal, status quo ante-Trump, and away from left demands for a radical change to the social, economic, and political conditions that produced him and his clueless establishment opponent in 2016. The Democrats' goal was, and is, not to defeat Trump, but to stave off the left.

What they are doing with the Mueller Investigation/Russiagate is what they did in the primaries in 2016: Then, they deliberately promoted Trump as an opponent, while working assiduously to cheat their own leftist candidate; now, they gin up a fictional spy story whose inevitable collapse helps Trump, but on which they will double down, in order to continue branding "divisive" leftists who challenge any return to their version of status-quo normalcy as the Kremlin's "useful idiots."

The Democrats' main goal in all this is not to impeach, or stop the re-election of, Donald Trump; it's to prevent the nomination and election of Bernie Sanders, or anyone like him.

Russiagate Forever

Here's Tim Ryan's presidential campaign kickoff speech in Youngstown, Ohio, a poster city of late American capitalist deindustrialization, explaining to the voters what is causing the destruction of their lives and towns. After complaining that "We have politicians and leaders today that want to divide us. They want to put us in one box or the other. You know, you can't be for business and for labor," he elaborates:

Yup, it’s those Russians, you see, sowing division through certain “politicians and leaders,” who are preventing us from fixing our healthcare, education, economic and government systems. This—doubling down on Russiagate—is the centrist Democrats’ idea of a winning political appeal. I consider it utterly delusional.

I heard last week from a friend in Western Pennsylvania, not too far from Youngstown. She’s a good person who is trying to organize Democrats in the area to beat Trump in 2020, and, pleading for advice, she expressed her exasperation: “They’re leaving the party!”

You mean the five million people who voted for Obama in 2012, in the 90% of counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012, but would not vote for Hillary in 2019, aren’t streaming back into—are indeed still streaming out of—the Democratic Party, despite all the Mueller investigation has done for them? Imagine that.

What has Russiagate/The Mueller Investigation wrought? It’s either a shrewd political gambit sure to take down Trump, or it’s ridiculous political theater leading Democrats, and the country, over another cliff. Double-down or leave that table?

Place your bets.

[Jun 18, 2019] I think i know who killed Jesus

Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

TheLastMan , 1 hour ago link

I think i know who killed Jesus

lobro , 1 hour ago link

yes, Pontius Pilates passport was found under the cross.

[Jun 18, 2019] Wikileaks CIA Stole Russian Malware, Uses It to Misdirect Attribution of Cyber Attacks

Notable quotes:
"... So perhaps the DNC was hacked by the CIA and it was blamed on the Russians. ..."
"... How can we trust any investigation when the investigation can be doctored to scapegoat Russia? This is embarrassing. ..."
"... Clapper is a known perjurer. ..."
"... Of course it was the Obama CIA, pros like the Russians or Chinese, never leave behind "fingerprints" they are smart enough to cover their tracks. As a cyber analyst I can tell you that when you see "fingerprints or breadcrumbs" leading to a source, it's usually deceptive and intentional. Let that sink in! ..."
Jun 12, 2019 | russia-insider.com

From the Wikileaks "Year Zero" dump:

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch 's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.

With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.

UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques.

Everyone knew it. Now we have proof. "Fingerprints" are meaningless. It's now clear that the CIA is able to "pose" as "Russian hackers" whenever it so chooses. Just something to think about. All allegations of "digital fingerprints" left behind by Russian hackers must now be dismissed as either fake or meaningless


ChasMoDee 2 years ago ,

So perhaps the DNC was hacked by the CIA and it was blamed on the Russians.

Disco Obama ChasMoDee 2 years ago ,

How can we trust any investigation when the investigation can be doctored to scapegoat Russia? This is embarrassing.

disqus_ayvQwhvS6h Disco Obama 2 years ago ,

Since 2002. You sheep have had the wool pulled over since 2002. It's been 15 years. Imagine how much you won't find out til the next 15.

Tom 2 years ago ,

So the CIA obtained FISA Warrants for the millions of devices hacked? Guess we now know how Trump Tower was wiretapped when DNI Clapper said there was no such order given.

JackBootedThug✓ Tom 2 years ago ,

Clapper is a known perjurer.

American Freeman 2 years ago ,

Now we know how Obama's administration got through the FISA Court to tape Trump.

4ever&anon 2 years ago ,

So! It now becomes clear what Obama and the Democrats were planning for the Trump Administration. They could hack away at anything and everything and leave Russian "fingerprints" to make it appear that the Russians did it. It's really no telling what is already planted. Thst's why some Democrat's seem so supremely confident that Trump will be impeached.

I don't think that it's really sunk in for most people that this was a plan for World Domination by a force more evil than the average person could ever imagine. We're still in grave danger but thank Heaven for Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Not only have they saved America but perhaps the whole world from domination that heretofore couldn't even be imagined except in science fiction.

Our problem will now be how to build enough gallows to accomodate the traitors and seditionists who have participated in this dark plan.

Mike John Elissen 2 years ago ,

Hysteria in Oceania. The same goons blaming Russia for robbing the local candy store (without producing evidence) are robbing the candy factory 24/7. All of a sudden, the MSM has found issues and terms like `non-verified documents` and `non-verifiable, anonymous sources` to be of the utmost importance, in contrast to when they were copy-pasting the ` information` about Russian hacking. I wonder how much time it takes for the Ministries of Information and their docile press-clowns to (again) turn the story around and blame WikiLeaks for being a `Russian tool` to discard their own obvious crimes.

Elevator2TheTop 2 years ago ,

This whole Russian hacking thing is sounding more and more like the anti-Muslim video that sparked the Benghazi attacks.

Bad Hombre 2 years ago ,

They wiretapped the entire Trump team thinking they would come up with an October surprise...and found NOTHING. If they had ANYTHING, it would have been used prior to the election. And, since Hillary was supposed to win, the illegal wire taps would never have been disclosed.

Now Trump has exposed the Obama admin and democrats are hyperventilating over Russia to deflect from the crimes they committed.

ruadh Bad Hombre 2 years ago ,

We always knew that, were told we were crazy, now we have proof. The MSM has been gas-lighting us. I wonder how many red pills you have to swallow to get to the other side of this Rabbit Hole?

middleclasstaxpayer 2 years ago ,

It seems our government really is the most corrupt entity on this planet.

lou Guest 2 years ago ,

Well BO moved to Washington so it will be easy for the Press to shout these questions at him at his home or a restaurant or a ballgame. We need answers BO, and right now. No BS. anymore. Or go back to Indonesia and hide out.

Peter Shoobridge ن ruadh 2 years ago ,

It's really not fun. The intelligence agencies are unaccountable and cloak their criminality with the secrecy of national security. They're not going to back down. They're ruthless. And they kill people for sport. This will not end well unless the military is called in to round them up, which has huge risks of its own...

TGFD 2 years ago ,

TGFD here.
As far as I'm concerned. death becomes anyone in the effing CIA. Same goes for their parasitic family members. Death's image would look good on them.
There is NO secret in the CIA that I would not expose if I could.

I never heard of the term, "Deep State" prior to 2 months ago, and I don't like what I hear, either. I pray that somehow, God will enable TRUMP to vanquish all the filth in the deep state.

William Dickerson 2 years ago ,

I knew it - the documents I looked over, the IP addresses I checked, the supposed "malware" that the US said "was the same as we know Russia had used" and more - and it just did not add up.

Now to be sure the American population is dumb when it comes to technology - and they usually blindly believe what the CIA, and media, tells them. But me - being in IT for some decades and having worked with Russian people for 6 years (in an electronics engineering company founded by a Russian immigrant to the U.S.) and being a network security administrator for a small government agency, something smelled odd.

The IP addresses - hahaha - really? Try again - up until the spring of 2016 American company Verizon routed 1 million stolen IP addresses - used by cyber-criminals in the USA........ so guess where some of those IP addresses REALLY belonged. Further, the "CIA" and other spooks included - honestly? TOR exit node addresses. If you use TOR browser, you will find some of those same addresses in your own logs (unless you are smart and either purge or don't log, etc.)
So try again, U.S. spooks - the malware? HAHA - what a JOKE. Really. I mean older software that John Q. Public can download for FREE? Sorry, Russians are far far smarter and they'd not use OLD software that works on WordPress based on PHP servers when the target isn't based on blogging software.

Sorry, silly Americans - including and especially McCain and others in our congress who are, say what? members of INTELLIGENCE committees? Really?

You help guide the intelligence and security operations of a major country and you fall for the BS that was presented to you? Did you not ask questions? I did - I did my own research and I guess that proves I'm as smart or smarter than any member of and house or Senate intelligence committee. Do these people even know where the power button is on their computer? Smart - they hire unvetted IT people to take care of congressional computers....... and some of the equipment ends up missing, and these people have full free access as admins to computers used by congressional members of armed services committees and more!

That's how smart our U.S. congress is. Hire your brother-in-laws IT geek, give 'em full admin access, let them come and go freely........... and fall for intelligence reports about Russian hacking...... all the while our own CIA is doing MORE and WORSE.

While this topic is still fresh (thanks to the Democrats) - election interference - Election or campaign interference scores according to political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University: Russia - 36 times, U.S.A - 81 times

The USA's score number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

So who exactly is it that interferes or "Helps" with elections? Yeah, I thought so.

President Vladimir Putin must go home each night shaking his head in disbelief at how gullible we are here.

By the way - Podesta was NOT HACKED. He fell for a simple phishing scam. Yes, the email wasn't even very well done. It appeared more like it came out of Nigeria than any professional group, it was lame, didn't even look real, didn't sound real and the URL or link was so obvious, geesh, a fool could have seen it was phishing. Oh, wait, we're talking Podesta here. The man gave away his password (which for a while was indeed 'password'. Worse - he used what for his campaign work? Did you say GMAIL? You have to be kidding! A free consumer email, based in the cloud, and not only that, at least 3 others had account access to his Gmail. He kept documents, calendar, task lists and more in it. The phishing scammer got access to his Gmail inbox, sent items, attachments, calendar, Google Drive, Google Docs, you name it! No hacking needed since this is CLOUD BASED. No one had to touch his computer or iPad.

I really laughed when I found in those emails the admin credentials for his Wi-Fi, and even more funny - the admin credentials for his building security system. Yes, all that in his cloud-based Gmail account. As Bugs Bunny would say- what a maroon!

No wonder he's mad and trying to blame everyone else. He has to know he was scammed and he fell for it and it was all HIS FAULT, no one else but him. Using Gmail for such important work is STUPID as it is - but then to fall for phishing. He got what he deserved, and if it was Russians, tell those teenagers congratulations! That's all it took to phish Podesta - the skill set of KIDS in their early teens.

I could go on about the stupidity involved in all of this, but won't (I hear a collective sigh of relief!)

rayg 2 years ago ,

So, did the Russians hack the election? Or did the Obama CIA hack the election and just did a pizz-poor job of it? Or perhaps Obama really did not want Hillary to win.

This might make those congressional investigations into the alleged hacking of the election by Russians a lot more interesting. That is, of course, assuming that the investigations are really about finding the truth.

Michael K rayg 2 years ago ,

Obama Hates Hillary but could not openly control her. With Trump elected he could work openly to damage his administration, and with the help of MSM demonize him, and make him look like a tool of the Russians as well as his appointees. Notice, there was no talk of Russian hacking prior to the election. The "intelligence" agencies waited for the election results to come out with their charges.

Use delaying tactics to prevent approval of appointees, attack and possibly remove approved appointees eroding confidence in the current government. With the help of RINOs delay legislation. Pay protestors to protest everything Trump does using labels such as sexist, racist, Nazi, etc.

Obama's and DNC's goal: Prevent any progress till the mid term elections and try and overturn the balance in Congress to get the liberal agenda back on track. Get poised for the 2020 election and run a more palatable candidate than Hillary.

Gonzogal Michael K 2 years ago ,

"Obama's and DNC's goal: Prevent any progress till the mid term elections and try and overturn the balance in Congress to get the liberal agenda back on track. Get poised for the 2020 election and run a more palatable candidate than Hillary."

Or, according to Obomber's club make it so that Trump "either resigns or is impeached"
http://www.zerohedge.com/ne...
http://www.zerohedge.com/ne...

Geoff Caldwell 2 years ago ,

Let's unpack this. All those rumors about the Obama's hating the Clinton's? TRUE BUT, he couldn't let DOJ go through with indictment so instead gets Clapper, Brennan and the boys to use Russian fingerprints to hack and then sits back and watches the chaos unfold. When you go back to how he got his start in Chicago its exactly how he operates.

Marsha Moore 2 years ago ,

I am furious. I read the original re CIA attempting to influence French elections. But this is CLEAR TREASON by Obama Administration. I NEVER trusted Brennen. violation for CIA to operate inside US.

rlqretired 2 years ago ,

Looks like this is an example of Obama/CIA preparation for Treason?

The thing that really pisses me off is that the factual basis for all of this criminal and treasonous activity by the Obama Administration, that is being exposed today, remains covered-up by everyone in a position of responsibility to expose it. That factual basis is that every identification document Obama has presented to prove he is a citizen of the USA is a forgery. Based upon the totality of his record as president he is an agent of foreign Islamic allegiance and everything he has done in the Middle East always ends up in favor of radical Islam and refuses to even acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism exists. The same goes for his refusal to acknowledge domestic Islamic terrorism exists.

Factual answers for these three questions will clear up why we are having this treasonous activity. (1) Why does Obama have and need a forged birth certificate as he posted on his POTUS website? (2) Why does Obama's first officially issued copy of his Selective Service Registration Card have a forged 2 digit postal stamp? (3) Why is Obama using a SS# that was first issued to someone else? These three questions must be answered by Congress as the researched information verifying forgery is readily available and will expose the basis of this treason.

Play Hide
Spyplane 2 years ago ,

Let's not forget that logging into an email server because of a weak password and getting a copy of emails does not scream CIA. Also John Podesta's email password was extremely weak. So it did not take a covert CIA hacking program to initiate. We keep hearing Russia hacked our election. Yet have ZERO proof! First the majority of election machines are decentralized and not connected to internet. There was not a single instance where vote the count was effected. This was also immediately stated by Obamas DNI. Claiming they ran a propaganda attack on Hillary Clinton is pathetic. They are claiming the American people did not see who Hillary Clinton truly was. The opposite is true.

Hillary Clinton had made her own propaganda against herself. She is who the American people see. Not what the Russians programmed Us to see. The American people made a choice based on her actions no one else's. The liberals continually attacking someone with false claims without proof is a standard Liberal / Alyinsky strategy. It requires no proof if all liberal extremist continually repeat the same attack which is then amplified by the Liberal propaganda media (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, etc)

The Russian collusion claim is the exact same scenario. Make the claim which we already knew the Trump campaign speaks with Russian diplomats. Most people in politics interact with all countries diplomat and ambassadors. So instantly the claim is impossible to debunk. The Liberal party has become a party willing to use any and all tactics to avoid listening to the American people. This whole Russian drama is created to go against what the American people voted for. The democrat party is as much a threat to The United States as Communism ever was. It has been said if fascism ever comes back to the United States it will come in the form of liberalism. So the American people have a choice.

Use common sense and stop the liberal extremist party from destroying our democracy or deal with the consequences of America becoming ineffective and divided. The majority of the Democrat party and it's supporters have become so ideologically perverted they have lost sight of morality and what America stands for.

The Russians have not hypnotized Americans to vote for Donald Trump. It wasn't possible for the Russians to manipulate voter data and yes the Trump campaign speaks with Russian diplomats.

But it was the same Russian ambassador that Obama left in the country while expelling all others. The same Russian ambassador Obama scheduled meetings with for Jeff sessions. The same rushing ambassador that all Democrat spend time with. Make a claim that's true then find a way to turn it negative.

Typical Saul Alinsky. Everyone needs to remember anything the Liberals attack someone for the opposite is true.

Today Is The Day We Get Trump Spyplane 2 years ago ,

The point of the Wikileaks is that "proof" is easily manufactured.

DanJR 2 years ago ,

And now you know that the CIA (via Obama's orders or tacit approval) was the one that created the ruse of Trump emailing a Russian bank as a pretext to persuade FISA judges to sign off on the warrants to keep surveillance on him and his contacts.

If I were Obama I'd be seeking the nearest airport and fly to any country offering asylum... it's good night, good riddance for him and the rest of the Deep State Globalists.

seanster5977 2 years ago ,

Kind of funny where this started. Remember Hillary stole a server from the government secure server facility and set it up in her basement without proper security software and monitoring for hacking. Proven. And she had idiots in her staff so stupid they used passwords like "p@ssword". Proven. So any 11 year old computer expert could have hacked that server.

And she lied about the content of the messages being transferred. Top secret and classified info was lost due to her illegal actions. But Comey gave the pig a pass.

LH 2 years ago ,

Of course it was the Obama CIA, pros like the Russians or Chinese, never leave behind "fingerprints" they are smart enough to cover their tracks. As a cyber analyst I can tell you that when you see "fingerprints or breadcrumbs" leading to a source, it's usually deceptive and intentional. Let that sink in!

[Jun 18, 2019] Crowdstrike Never Produced Final Report on Alleged Russian Hacking by Ray McGovern

Jun 18, 2019
Notable quotes:
"... In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government. ..."
"... In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense." ..."
"... Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired." Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC. ..."
"... Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief – clues an amateur might leave. ..."
"... But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten . ..."
"... VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company. ..."
"... More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics: ..."
"... On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example. ..."
"... The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | original.antiwar.com

The revelation came in a court filing by the government in the pretrial phase of Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative who had an unofficial role in the campaign of candidate Donald Trump. Stone has been charged with misleading Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a witness.

The filing was in response to a motion by Stone's lawyers asking for "unredacted reports" from CrowdStrike in an effort to get the government to prove that Russia hacked the DNC server. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," the filing says.

In his motion, Stone's lawyers said he had only been given three redacted drafts. In a startling footnote in the government's response, the DOJ admits the drafts are all that exist. "Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked 'draft,' counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced," the footnote says.

In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government.

These drafts were "voluntarily" given to the FBI by DNC lawyers, the filing says. "No redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors," the filing quotes DNC lawyers as saying.

In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense."

The DOJ responded: "The government does not need to prove at the defendant's trial that the Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant made false statements, tampered with a witness, and obstructed justice into a congressional investigation regarding election interference."

Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016 revealing that the DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination. The U.S. indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents in 2018 for allegedly hacking the DNC server and giving the emails to WikiLeaks.

Comey Can't Say Why

At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain and others were calling Russian "hacking" an "act of war," the FBI settled for three redacted "draft reports" from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court document shows.

Then FBI Director James Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he chose not to take control of the DNC's "hacked" computers, and did not dispatch FBI computer experts to inspect them, but has had trouble explaining why.

In his testimony, he conceded that "best practices" would have dictated that forensic experts gain physical access to the computers. Nevertheless, the FBI decided to rely on forensics performed by a firm being paid for by the DNC.

Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired." Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC.

Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief – clues an amateur might leave.

But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten .

CrowdStrike's Early Role

In a Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity referred prominently to this instructive time sequence:

VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed an affidavit in Stone's case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive."

Preferring CrowdStrike; ' Splaining to Congress

Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.

Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.

Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:

BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: 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. But we didn't get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: 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 – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics:

HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on – getting on WikiLeaks.

COMEY: Yes, sir.

HURD: when did the DNC provide access for – to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.

HURD: So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on WikiLeaks and when – you have still been – never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were – that were hacked by the Russians.

COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this – my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

Comey Spikes Deal With Assange

Director Comey's March 20, 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee came at the same time he was scuttling months-long negotiations between Assange and lawyers representing the DOJ and CIA to grant some limited immunity for the WikiLeaks founder. In return, Assange offered to: (1) redact "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," and (2) "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases."

Investigative journalist John Solomon, quoting WikiLeaks ' intermediary with the government, broke this story, based on "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks ' source of the DNC emails, something Assange has repeatedly said.

That, of course, would have been the last thing Comey would have wanted.

On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example.

The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.

Two weeks later, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo branded WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service," and the U.S. put pressure on Ecuador, which had given Assange asylum, to expel him from its London embassy. He was on April 11 when British police arrested him. On the same day he was convicted of skipping bail on a Swedish investigation that had since been dropped. Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in London's max-security Belmarsh prison.

Comey, it seems a safe bet, still worries that Assange or one of his associates, will provide "technical evidence" enough to prove "who did not engage in the DNC releases."

What Were They Thinking?

At the March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy heaped effusive praise on then-FBI Director Comey, calling him "incredibly respected." At that early stage, no doubt Gowdy meant no double entendre . He might now.

As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not.

It is proving very difficult for some of my old FBI friends and others to believe that Comey and other justice, intelligence, and security officials at the very top could have played fast and loose with the Constitution and the law and lived a lie over the past few years.

"How did they ever think they could get away with it?" they ask. The answer is deceivingly simple. Comey himself has explained it in a moment of seemingly unintentional candor in his pretentious book, "A Higher Loyalty." He wrote, "I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president."

There would be no problem, of course, if Mrs. Clinton had won the election. That's what they all thought; and that probably explains their lack of care in keeping their activities off the written record and out of computers. Elementary tradecraft goes out the window with these upper-echelon, "high-class-entity" officials, when they are sure that she, and they, are going to be the inevitable winners – with promotions, not indictments in store for them.

Additional reporting by Joe Lauria

Background Reading on Deep State-Gate

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This originally appeared at Consortium News .

Author: Ray McGovern

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. In the Sixties he served as an infantry/intelligence officer and then became a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). View all posts by Ray McGovern

[Jun 16, 2019] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput

Highly recommended!
Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

freedommusic , 23 minutes ago link

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?

AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.

DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the server was examined?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?

AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.

DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in FBI laboratories?

AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.

(silence)

DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?

AGENT: Uh .. no.

DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually examined the computer hardware?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?

AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?

AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.

DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their servers?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?

AGENT: I don't know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?

AGENT: No, I cannot.

DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?

AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?

AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.

( source )

hooligan2009 , 14 minutes ago link

Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).

[Jun 16, 2019] US Govt's Entire Russia-DNC Hacking Narrative Based On Redacted Draft Of Crowdstrike Report

Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

It's been known for some time that the US Government based its conclusion that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on a report by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which the DNC paid over a million dollars to conduct forensic analysis and other work on servers they refused to hand over to the FBI.

CrowdStrike's report made its way into a joint FBI/DHS report on an Russia's " Grizzly Steppe ", which concluded Russia hacked the DNC's servers. At the time, Crowdstrike's claim drew much scrutiny from cybersecurity experts according to former Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan.

Now, thanks to a new court filing by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone requesting the full Crowdstrike analysis, we find out that the US government was given a redacted version of the report marked "Draft, " as reported by the Conservative Treehouse .

What makes the whole thing even more hokey is a footnote admitting that "counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced. "

So to be clear - the entire narrative that Russia hacked the DNC is based on a redacted draft of a report which Crowdstrike appears not to have even finalized.

me title=

And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: "This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party .. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor."

The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it

and used the claim therein as an official position .

which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.

Think about that for a few minutes. - Conservative Treehouse

Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended , claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.

Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down

General Titus , 10 seconds ago link

Remember when Fugly Debbie " I Know Nothing" Sgt Shultz Washerwoman threatened that Chief of Police?

4medicinalpurposesonly , 17 seconds ago link

Amazing how the Dems are able to commit cyber spying yet Hillary and Lois Lerner lose all of their emails including back ups

Helg Saracen , 1 minute ago link

Oy wey! Do not make my **** laugh (I myself have long been unable to laugh from all this circus). Guys - not tired yet?

:)

Catullus , 5 minutes ago link

Remember that one time Hillary Clinton said on national television during a presidential debate that Russia needed to be held accountable for this? That 17 intelligence agreed they did it. And that we should take action to provoke a nuclear power. On TV.

All because we got to see how corrupt the DNC nomination process is.

brokebackbuck , 23 seconds ago link

its a very simple scheme. its what any child would do hide that they cheated and get out of trouble:

1) stop trumpo
2) fabricate the foreign meddling narrative to implicate trump as LONG as possible, so long it makes people sick to hear foreign meddling, even though it was the DNC that actually paid british people to fabricate compromat.
3) blame russia for everything

Mike Rotsch , 8 minutes ago link

Anyone remember that very brief news story about a California Senator returning from London with "bombshell" information that he had to get to the POTUS immediately? I waited to see if anything would ever come of that. Instead . . .

. . . scrubbed from the internet.

pHObuk0wrEHob71Suwr2 , 10 minutes ago link

Hooty Hoo

https://twitter.com/JakeWharton/status/1092425961361022976

MrBoompi , 12 minutes ago link

If it says Factual Background, it must be true. We are dealing with super trustworthy folks here, remember. How many more "factual reports" will we see that don't mention Seth Rich? The murderers are still running free.

yerfej , 13 minutes ago link

The bureaucracy owns the media, courts, and academia so naturally they can shape the law to meet their personal needs. The average taxpayer is just a tool to allow the bureaucrats to consolidate and maintain their ownership of everyone and everything.

RussianSniper , 13 minutes ago link

Trump enjoys drama and treats this entire treasonous coup as a television drama.

The issue is that ordinary American citizens are sick and tired of the powerful and wealthy having two sets of rules, theirs and those for everyone else.

I stopped watching television except for local sports and NHL.

I rarely look at ZH anymore.

Never watch Fox anymore

Would not consider any paper

My point is that the people who once were concerned, are losing interest.

Those who treat politics as religion will continue to treat those who disagree as criminals and cast offs.

What used to be a great country that a availed opportunity to all who tried, is now a kleptocracy and a club for leftist religious fanatics.

lisa.roy39 , 14 minutes ago link

𝐈'𝐦 ­­­­­­­­­ 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫­­­­­­­­­ $𝟏𝟑𝐤­­­­­­­­­ 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡­­­­­­­­­ 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠­­­­­­­­­ 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 ­­­­­­­­­𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 ­­­­­­­­­𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐜𝐚𝐧 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐈 ­­­­­­­­­𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤­­­­­­­­­ 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭. ­­­­­­­­­𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞.­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡­­­­­­­­­ 𝐦𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐜­­­­­­­­­𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐬 ­­­­­­­­­$𝟏𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟐 ­­­­­­­­­𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤.....

click this link════►►► http://www.todaysfox.com

Bricker , 18 minutes ago link

#Resist will guarantee Trumps re-election, unless the 15 states who are going to use their pact to send their votes towards popular vote.

The United States of America is turning into a shithole Banana Republic with the ******* democrats.

This should be headline news on conservative stations, not including the new liberal news station, Fox News.

glenlloyd , 6 minutes ago link

I don't think states can arbitrarily decide to ignore the electoral college if they want to. Something tells me federal law governs national elections and they can whine and cry and act like triggered embiciles all they want but it doesn't change the law.

The Carbonator , 3 minutes ago link

It would end up going to SCOTUS. Lets hope that Trump gets the honor of replacing that treasonous bitch with a real constitutional judge. Lets keep hope alive!

Pussy Biscuit , 19 minutes ago link

That disgusting *** should be liquidated.

scaleindependent , 21 minutes ago link

Whatever we blame Russia for doing, we are in fact doing.

For example, we blame them for hacking our electrical grid. No proof was given, yet this morning we have evidence we have been messing and hacking Russia's electrical grid.

We blame them for interfering in our elections, when in fact we have been interfering in the world's elections and sovereign governments.


The ultimate hypocrites.

freedommusic , 21 minutes ago link

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?

AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.

DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the server was examined?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratries?

AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.

DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in FBI laboratories?

AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.

(silence)

DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?

AGENT: Uh .. no.

DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually examined the computer hardware?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?

AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?

AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.

DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their servers?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.

DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?

AGENT: I don't know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?

AGENT: No, I cannot.

DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?

AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?

AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.

( source )

hooligan2009 , 14 minutes ago link

Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).

GALLGE , 1 minute ago link

There's no way to sweep it under the official rug at this point. Even kicking off WWIII as a distraction will flop.

Thebighouse , 22 minutes ago link

Lying demon-rats........liars liars liars.........just like cnn, and their affiliates...nbc, cbs abc msnbc...........all weaponized propaganda outlets........should lose fcc licenses and HANG THEIR LYING COLLUDING ANCHORS....hang 'em high........liars

DEDA CVETKO , 23 minutes ago link

As the ring of known Russiagate conspirators gets narrower and narrower, this anti-russian (which also happens to be anti-american and anti-world) clique's collective characteristics and traits are getting easier and easier to discern and quantify because their contours - previously carefully concealed by multiple layers of opaque veils and drapes - are now fully visible.

These people are all (A) privileged elites and dynastic social castes (B) share, more or less, the same social and divine cosmology (no, not Buddhist) (C) do not recognize ethics and morals as having any meaning or significance except on a purely nominal and declarative level, which - of course - applies to others, but not to themselves (D) firmly believe in survival of the fittest, law of the jungle and might-makes-right (E) are all members of the secret frats (F) performed important state functions and aspire to perform some more because, after all, greed is good and so is unlimited ambition (they also seem to enjoy very much their hard-earned social status and prominence) (G) belong to the same "liberal interventionist" war club (H) believe in Keynesian economics, but - absurdly, and in the same breath - in Ayn Rand's right-wing ideological nonsense, depending on what suits them the best at any given moment, (I) typically have background in banking or finance, corporate management or government lobbying (J) prefer to remain anonymous at any cost (K) have a very fluid and elastic perception of human sexuality and libidinal urges (L) Own Panama-or Cayman Islands- chartered tax havens (M) do not mingle with the non-elites or unwashed masses (N) firmly believe in their divine chosenness and messianic role (O) show pronounced, sustained propensity to Groupthink and consistent absence of any creative and constructive thought; (P) are always "centrists", "middle of the road" and "bipartisan" and never tend to stick out in any social milieu, preferring instead to dictate from the opaque deep end, (Q) maintain extremely high fake media visibility (R) do not believe in forgiveness, penitence or remorse - only in never-ending, bloody revenge.

This profile of humans cannot be properly socialized or resocialized, because the social ethos that created them made amply sure that they cannot be adjusted, bettered, improved or otherwise socially tweaked at any point in their lives: in essence, their characters and personalities are cast in stone, cemented unto all eternity and permanently immutable.. The best that we, the normal people, can do is kindly and gently quarantine them to a place where they can't inflict any significant damage and prevent them from rising to the top, which may turn out to be very different because they control (and have every intention of controlling in the future) every road that leads to the top.

hooligan2009 , 11 minutes ago link

well put sir/madam/it!!!

Amy G. Dala , 23 minutes ago link

So, the FBI "asked" the DNC for the servers, and the DNC said they never heard from the FBI.

Guess James Comey musta got Seth Rich on the line.

charliebrown , 24 minutes ago link

Treason including a coup against democracy

ATM , 22 minutes ago link

against the Republic.

Democracy is pure evil.

Government needs you to pay taxes , 24 minutes ago link

Rule of law in Murrika is kaput.

DirtySanchez , 26 minutes ago link

The entirety of the USA government, including the intel agencies, the judiciary, state dept, justice dept, congress, and the growing bureaucracy has been hijacked by a treacherous tribe of people, intent on destroying the nation from within.

Kill the tyrants before they kill you!

Thebighouse , 20 minutes ago link

Punish the tyrants and look at that well organized community...........if you don't think leggo-obummer didn't have a huge hand in this, you are very mis-informed.

ACMeCorporations , 27 minutes ago link

Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie. Follow the money. Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS and CrowdStrike. Raid them like Michael Cohen was raided.

hooligan2009 , 26 minutes ago link

bang on!

SummerSausage , 20 minutes ago link

Raid them like Roger Stone was raided!

BIWEEE , 28 minutes ago link

Wasserman-Schultz = Khazar!!!

hooligan2009 , 25 minutes ago link

= futt bugly mowler honkey

Black Dog 32 , 30 minutes ago link

Crowdstrike just ipo'd this week. Cashing in. I think it was up 100% first day.

natxlaw , 30 minutes ago link

I'm bored, when is someone going to jail. I won't be sharing this information with blue pill normies they would not get it. Trump, you listening?

Joebloinvestor , 32 minutes ago link

The FBI was so "in the bag" with the DNC it is laughable.

Now you know why they wanted the Smollet investigation handed off to the FBI.

Bunch of ******* dirty corrupt cops.

hooligan2009 , 34 minutes ago link

just remember that, aside from the weaponization of federal agencies for political purposes by obama, biden and clinton (which merits waterboarding in guantanamo) - there are hundreds if not thousands of INNOCENTS who have been prosecuted and GUILTY still walking the streets.

the prosecution of the innocent and the releaseof the guilty may have been going on for decades, but, but now, it should be apparet, that in true KGB style, it ballooned to extreme proportions under Obama/Biden and Clinton.

and this is what the howler moneys in the clown car want to inflict on the US in 2020. after all, it's their turn right?

honk honk.

schroedingersrat , 32 minutes ago link

And it got much worse under Trump hiring all the war criminals form yesteryears back into office.

hooligan2009 , 23 minutes ago link

truth is a good way of triggering howler monkeys

Creative_Destruct , 35 minutes ago link

"....based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party"

Hey, when you (the FBI, the entire executive branch) are partisan Never Trumpers and it's your party what else should we expect? After all, gotta concoct all the propaganda possible under the guise of an "objective" investigation for that "insurance policy."

novictim , 37 minutes ago link

Totally believable. The corruption is just as bad as the most pessimistic analysis has suggested.

We live in a time of universal lies and a press that supports illegal activities by treasonous elements of the US Government.

How do we turn this around without an honest Press rallying the public?

Amy G. Dala , 27 minutes ago link

Easy. Apply responsibilities that are commensurate with their constitutional right to publish. It's been three years of ******** and unsourced stories.

At a minimum, when a confidential source provides information that is demonstrated to be false, then that reporter is legally bound to identify them. Fuckers should be in jail.

Look at Assange. He publishes truth, and he's in jail. Tapper/Seltzer/et. al. are millionaire celebrities.

Thordoom , 38 minutes ago link

Why Russians who were sanctioned by US over this hoax are not suing US and asking for huge reparations is beyond me.

schroedingersrat , 37 minutes ago link

Most Russian sanctions are based on lies. Have a look at the Magnitsky Act :)

Thordoom , 36 minutes ago link

I know i follow Lee Stranahan's work about that hoax too for years.

Bill Browder blocked me on twater.

Ruff_Roll , 18 minutes ago link

Maybe they're blocked by sovereign immunity.

pparalegal , 39 minutes ago link

Another day another Hillary crowd-strikes.

[Jun 16, 2019] When false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it becomes almost impossible to correct lies.

Jun 16, 2019 | www.politico.com

Leda Cosmides at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her work with her colleague John Tooby on the use of outrage to mobilize people: "The campaign was more about outrage than about policies," she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage, truth ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into their own core group identities. The actual substance stops being of any relevance.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs, has found that when false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it becomes almost impossible to correct lies.

... ... ...

As the 19th-century Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain put it, “The great master fallacy of the human mind is believing too much.” False beliefs, once established, are incredibly tricky to correct. A leader who lies constantly creates a new landscape, and a citizenry whose sense of reality may end up swaying far more than they think possible.

[Jun 15, 2019] U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia s Power Grid by David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth

Comments published by NYT draw a very sad picture of paranoid, brainwashed society. Very few critical comments (less then a dozen), while number of jingoistic and otherwise stupid comments is in the hundreds). This is very sad, if not tragic.
Petty CIA-controlled provocateurs from Grey Prostitute. Hacking national grid means war.. Bolton needs to be fired for jingoism and stupidity.
I am pretty sure that two of those warmongering neocons David E. Sanger Nicole Perlroth ( MadCow disease.
Do those two presstitutes and their handlers accurately calculated possible reaction from Moscow on such "revelations"?
From comments: "It is horrible to think that we have our of control counterintelligence agencies with their own agenda operating as independent forces capable of dragging the country into international conflict "
From comments: "Aggressive malware intrusions into foreign countries' sensitive (and sovereign) computer systems is now seen as a standard security procedure. "Gunboat diplomacy" is not an apt metaphor, as gunboats remained at discreet distances from borders. Our cyber policy is more akin to placing bombs in the public squares of foreign cities with threats to detonate. "
Notable quotes:
"... But in a public appearance on Tuesday, President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort "to say to Russia, or anybody else that's engaged in cyberoperations against us, 'You will pay a price.'" ..."
"... Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants" -- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack -- inside the Russian grid. ..."
"... Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. ..."
"... The intent of the operations was described in different ways by several current and former national security officials. Some called it "signaling" Russia, a sort of digital shot across the bow. Others said the moves were intended to position the United States to respond if Mr. Putin became more aggressive. ..."
"... Already, such attacks figure in the military plans of many nations. In a previous post, General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United States entered into hostilities with the country. ..."
"... How Mr. Putin's government is reacting to the more aggressive American posture described by Mr. Bolton is still unclear. "It's 21st-century gunboat diplomacy," said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, who has written extensively about the shifting legal basis for digital operations. "We're showing the adversary we can inflict serious costs without actually doing much. We used to park ships within sight of the shore. Now, perhaps, we get access to key systems like the electric grid." ..."
"... successful attack on Iranian centrifuges as one example ..."
"... Not willing to discuss it with the President but happy to chat about it with reporters..? ..."
"... This scenario sounds like something straight out of Dr, Strangelove. All sides and all actors need to realize that this is a no win game, with the very real possibility of serious harm to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hanging in the balance. ..."
"... It's a macho power game that can easily escalate into unintended and out-of-control consequences. As with prior successful nuclear test ban negotiations & treaties we need to step back and consider what's truly in the long-term national interests of all concerned. The citizens of all the countries involved are not pawns to be played with like disposable chess pieces, in a power game with no real winners. ..."
"... This turn of events is truly disturbing, as it presents the seriousness, now, of how cyberwar is more likely a prelude to actual war ..."
"... Restated, the Commander In Chief is not briefed on military operations for fear of betrayal. I feel like I'm going nuts. Someone please tell me what is going on in this country! ..."
Jun 15, 2019 | www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON -- The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said.

In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American com