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:
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 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.
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.
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;
was a joint effort of CIA, FBI and MI6). And there are strong suspicions that Skripal was involved in writing Steele
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
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.
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
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:
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.
June 19, 2019 at 02:59
It looks like Mueller used the Crowdstrike report and just assumed it to be true.
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?
June 20, 2019 at 08:30
You're still trying to sell the "17 agencies" lie too? Unbelievable.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
June 20, 2019 at 08:04
You're citing debunked bullshit invented by Duncan Campbell.
1. I'm left-libertarian, not
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:
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."
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?
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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$, but over much of the world, even as corporations, again a
small and shrinking number, "own" and control governments, including the legal systems of those
governments, readily control institutions of higher learning and so on.
Corporations control the voting systems of our pretend democracy making mock of the very
notion of democracy itself, permitting a rising chorus to sing that the very idea of democracy
In other words, our culture, our very language is being used to circumscribe thought, to
delimit imagination and the formation of new, different, or alternative narratives of how to
construct and maintain a sane, humane, and sustainable human future.
Frankly, in the U$, 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".
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
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
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
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
It might take calamity to shake the complacent from their happy stupor, it may well require
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?
June 20, 2019 at 03:01
You write well. A rarity.
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
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.
June 18, 2019 at 13:54
The corruption is well documented on the internet- Comey is immoral.
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.
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.
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.
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
June 19, 2019 at 00:22
Does anyone here have any evidence that Crowdstrike or Brennan created G2?
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.
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
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
June 18, 2019 at 16:40
Clearly, Carolyn, Guccifer 2.0 was a confection. If not of the DNC, then, most likely, of
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
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
June 18, 2019 at 13:24
Thank you for the link to that Bill Binney – Larry Johnson interview, Bob Van Noy.
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
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
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.
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".
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.
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.)
June 17, 2019 at 22:46
the fbi also claims, to this day, that it never looked at seth rich's phone or computer.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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"
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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 $350 million for the 2016 campaign. The rest of
the money went elsewhere.
– You cherry-picked the "Hillary Victory Fund" spending and made it look like it
represented the entire DNC spending, when it didn't.
Misrepresnetations like this do nothing to boost your credibility.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
June 19, 2019 at 14:01
So, John, you are going with, "It just ain't so!".
Yet you have nothing to say about the
Democrats being a Private Club which has no allegiance, of any sort, to the many?
That is the essential aspect which 2016 revealed.
2020 presents a perfect vision of total failure for the Di$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
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
June 19, 2019 at 16:24
Wasnt that a crime scene?
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.
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.
June 18, 2019 at 19:43
Good one, Jeff. We should start where this all started.
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.
June 20, 2019 at 03:44
Firing SQUAD more like.
That'd be MY pleasure, but I'm kinda warped.
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
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.
June 17, 2019 at 22:50
donald trump is a lucky man, but perhaps his greatest good fortune is history's choice of his
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.
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
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
her supporters don't have any problem with that
June 17, 2019 at 16:18
Google has a cozy $100 million "shared kindred spirit" with "best in class" Crowdstrike.
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.
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
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
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
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."
June 18, 2019 at 07:17
Their more competent (and dangerous) partner:
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.
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
"'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
Microsoft's ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse for a Military-Industrial Takeover of US Elections
By Whitney Webb
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:
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?
June 17, 2019 at 15:06
Comey: lying through his butthole!, longtime bagman for the Demorat elites and a traitor to boot!
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
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
"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."
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
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
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.
June 18, 2019 at 00:01
Again, Abe -- Keep bringing it while we still can.
Thanks for your courage and honesty.
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
As for the big elephant in the room no one ever talks about how Israel has congress in its
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.
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
Otherwise admit you're a red hat brownshirt or profiteering like Alex Jones from gullible
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?
June 17, 2019 at 15:28
June 17, 2019 at 17:32
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
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.
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
. 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
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
But the fact that this fake narrative continues to be perpetuated makes me have second thoughts,
June 17, 2019 at 19:37
Empty wheel Marcy wheeler isn't a credible source.
June 17, 2019 at 19:46
She forgot to keep her chastity belt on when she went to Mueller. Still not sure why.
June 17, 2019 at 19:39
No such claim dimwit.
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
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
June 17, 2019 at 14:28
Oh, enough of this already. Keep distracting people so as not to pay attention to more important
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
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!
June 18, 2019 at 06:33
Go away and be an obedient believer then.
June 17, 2019 at 13:33
Has VIPS said anything about the possibility of a hack first, followed by a leak? (The Nation?)
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?
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.
June 18, 2019 at 00:06
"YOU" say–without any backup to your assertion.
New around here, aincha?
I wonder why
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.
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.) :)
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
And stop referring to yourself as "forensicator" in the third person. It's
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
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.
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
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
June 17, 2019 at 13:20
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.
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.
June 17, 2019 at 11:45
All of this has been an effective distraction to WHAT was in those emails. Far worse than WHO
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.
June 17, 2019 at 13:21
June 17, 2019 at 14:04
That is so true.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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:
Bernie leads Hillary by 4 in the latest poll:
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.
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.
June 19, 2019 at 06:55
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.
June 20, 2019 at 05:38
HEY JOHN .. HEY JOHN .. Crickets.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
– 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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
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
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
June 17, 2019 at 20:47
stop making sense John.
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
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.
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
"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
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
June 18, 2019 at 14:51
The comment above is addressed to, John.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
June 18, 2019 at 10:59
Actually, just telling you what I see. Nobody spends the money to buy new hardware after a
– 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
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
June 17, 2019 at 18:43
Bravo, Ruth. (I got a good chuckle from your straight-ahead, quite civil rebuke of what *John*
Now will he respond at all, let alone without deflection and/or obfuscation?
Yer move, Johnny
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
June 17, 2019 at 14:08
Traffic patterns as in how Wikileaks has already shown the CIA can create false trails?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
As Norumbega indicates, Mueller's tale of how G2.0 allegedly transferred the DNC emails to
Wikileaks is absurd on its face.
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.
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.
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
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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.
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&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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:
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
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
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.
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.
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!!
June 17, 2019 at 14:11
You call yourself a noncomunist. What is a comunist?
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?
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
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.
June 18, 2019 at 21:12
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ddfc8fe9d7877c2e0343c8f07d16df5f?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
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
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.,
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.
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?
June 17, 2019 at 19:30
Not to mention that those charged Russians showed up in court to the surprise of Mueller.
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
Cambridge Analytica Bannon Mercer
It might be uncomfortable to admit that American Oligarchs and their henchmen exerted the
lions share of election "influence."
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.?
June 18, 2019 at 06:49
In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't exactly the place for dimwits.
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.
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
"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."
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?
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.
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.
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?
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,
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.
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.
June 17, 2019 at 07:44
As shown in this article, the entire anti-Russia narrative was built on a lie:
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.
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.]
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 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":
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.