Softpanorama

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

FBI Mayberry Machiavellians: CIA globalists dirty games against Sanders and Trump

Russiagate should actually be called Intelgate

Stealth conversion of FBI into STASI 2.0 by Obama appointees or how "The gang of three" (Comey, McCabe and Strzok) pushed Sanders under the bus and rigged the US elections. According to Ray McGovern of Jan 12, 2018 it became clear that Russiagate became FBI-gate -- a story about FBI attempt to rig Presidential elections The central role in this drama were played by two most powerful USA intelligence agencies FBI (Comey) and CIA (Brennan):

News Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump by neocons and DemoRats Recommended Links Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal Brennan elections machinations James "We are not weasels" Comey Andrew McCabe and his close circle of "fighters with organized crime" Special Prosecutor Mueller and his fishing expedition Strzokgate
Attempts to entrap Trump Papadopoulos entrapment Carter Page Joseph Misfud Halpers FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and DNC leak saga FBI contractor Fusion GPS Was Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr. a trap? Obama administration participation in the intelligence services putsch against Trump
Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections FISA Memo scandal Brennan elections machinations "Seventeen agencies" memo about Russian influence on elections Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit Coordinated set of leaks as a color revolution tool DNC and Podesta emails leak: blaming Vladimir Putin Clapper role in putsch Rosenstein role
False flag operations in cyberspace FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike and very suspicious DNC leak saga FBI contractor Fusion GPS Steele dossier Was Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr. a trap? Obama administration participation in the intelligence services putsch against Trump Samantha Power Susan Rice unmasking campaign as an attempt to derail Trump by Obama administration Do the US intelligence agencies influence the US Presidential elections ?
Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Anti Trump Hysteria Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Control of the MSM during color revolution is like air superiority in the war MSM as fake news industry MSM as an attack dogs of color revolution Hillary Clinton email scandal History of American False Flag Operations
Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few Trump vs. Deep State Michael Flynn removal NGOs as braintrust of color revolutions The Real War on Reality Media as a weapon of mass deception Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Two Party System as polyarchy Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich
US and British media are servants of security apparatus Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Media-Military-Industrial Complex Neoconservatism New American Militarism Corporatist Corruption The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies Bernie Sanders betrayal of his supporters American intelligence services putsch against Trump
Control of the MSM during color revolution is like air superiority in the war The Deep State The Iron Law of Oligarchy National Security State Color revolutions Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Skeptic Quotations Politically Incorrect Humor Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy

Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the US Justice Department.

In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators, intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public opinion makers.

The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators, hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.

The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation, by James Petras
The Unz Review, Feb 9, 2018

Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy.

Stephen F Cohen

Few knew that FBI (which formally is a part of Justice Department) serves as the main USA counterintelligence agency. And that branch of FBI has strong connections with CIA (being essentially a branch of counterintelligence in CIA) and like CIA tend to be heavily politicized in best traditions of East Germany STASI. In essence, we saw the emergence of STASI 2.0 -- the political police heavily engaged in controlling the Presidential elections. The important insight here is that powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with democracy. They, by the mere fact of their existence, tend automatically transfer the state into the regime which can be called neofascism, or inverted totalitarism and in which democratic process is controlled by intelligence agencies. In a very fundamental way the mere existence of powerful intelligence agencies is incompatible with democracy and cause sliding of the state first into the "national security state" and then, possibly, into neofascist state. The internal structure of intelligence agencies perfectly corresponds neofascist state apparatus: regime of total secrecy, unlimited and uncontrolled spending of money on "special operations" which often are outside the law.

That's why Professor Stephen Cohen suggested that Russiagate should be called Intelgate, as Russia played pretty peripheral role.

The publication of the Republican House Committee memo and reports of other documents increasingly suggest not only that "Russiagate" exists without Russia, but also something darker: The "collusion" may not have been between Trump and the Kremlin but between two key US intelligence agencies -- CIA and FBI (with major participation of British Mi6) with the explicit purpose to derail Trump by digging dirt of him (the tried and true J. Edgar Hoover method)

Cohen first raised the question of "Intelgate," perhaps coining the word, in the first half of 2017. He returns to it here.

Referring to the memo whose preparation was overseen by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes and whose release was authorized by President Trump, and to similar reports likely to come, Cohen, having for years researched Soviet-era archive materials (once highly classified), understands the difficulties involved in summarizing such secret documents, especially when they have been generated by intelligence agencies. They must be put in the larger political context of the time, which can be fully understood only by using other sources as well, including open ones; and they may be contradicted by other classified materials not yet available.

Nonetheless, the "Republican memo," as it has become known while we await its Democratic counterpart, indicates that some kind of operation against presidential candidate and then President Trump, an "investigation," has been under way among top officials of US intelligence agencies for a long time. The memo focuses on questionable methods used by Obama's FBI and Justice Department to obtain a warrant permitting them to surveil Carter Page, a peripheral and short-tenured Trump foreign-policy adviser, and the role played in this by the anti-Trump "dossier" complied by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer whose career specialization was Russia. But the memo's implications are even larger.

Steele's dossier, which alleged that Trump had been compromised by the Kremlin in various ways for several years even preceding his presidential candidacy, was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative, at least from the time its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US "Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 (when BuzzFeed also published the dossier), the same month that FBI Director James Comey "briefed" President-elect Trump on the dossier -- apparently in an effort to intimidate him -- and on to today's Mueller investigation. Even though both have been substantially challenged for their lack of verifiable evidence, the dossier and subsequent ICA report remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin collision."

The memo and dossier are now being subjected to close (if partisan) scrutiny, much of it focused on the Clinton campaign's having financed Steele's work through his employer, Fusion GPS. But two crucial and ramifying question are not, Cohen argues, being explored: Exactly when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started? And exactly where did Steele get the "information" that he was filing in periodic installments and that grew into the dossier?

In order to defend itself against the memo's charge that it used Steele's unverified dossier to open its investigation into Trump's associates, the FBI claims it was prompted instead by a May 2016 report of remarks made earlier by another lowly Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos, to an Australian ambassador in a London bar. Even leaving aside the ludicrous nature of this episode, the public record shows it is not true. In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The Washington Post put it at the time , "in triggering an FBI probe."

Certainly both the Post and The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI Director Comey, distracted by his mangling of the Clinton private-server affair during the presidential campaign, may have joined them actively somewhat later.

But when he did so publicly, in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, it was as J. Edgar Hoover reincarnate -- as the nation's number-one expert on Russia and its profound threat to America (though, when asked, he said he had never heard of Gazprom, the giant Russian-state energy company often said to be a major pillar of President Putin's power). The question therefore becomes: When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article , by late 2015 or early 2016 he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding "suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents."

In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate. Certainly, his subsequent frequent and vociferous public retelling of the Russiagate allegations against Trump suggest that he played a (and probably the ) instigating role. And, it seems, a role in the Steele dossier as well. Where, then, Cohen asks, did Steele get his information? According to Steele and his many stenographers -- which include his American employers, Democratic Party Russiagaters, the mainstream media, and even progressive publications -- it came from his "deep connections in Russia," specifically from retired and current Russian intelligence officials in or near the Kremlin . From the moment the dossier began to be leaked to the American media, this seemed highly implausible (as reporters who took his bait should have known) for several reasons:

§ Steele has not returned to Russia after leaving his post there in the early 1990s. Since then, the main Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, has undergone many personnel and other changes, especially after 2000, and especially in or near Putin's Kremlin. Did Steele really have such "connections" so many years later?

§ Even if he did, would these purported Russian insiders really have collaborated with this "former" British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be the ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless "former KGB agent" Vladimir Putin, thereby risking their positions, income, perhaps freedom, as well as the well-being of their families?

§ Originally it was said that his Russian sources were highly paid by Steele. Arguably, this might have warranted the risk. But subsequently Steele's employer and head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, wrote in The New York Times that "Steele's sources in Russia were not paid." If the Putin Kremlin's purpose was to put Trump in the White House, why then would these "Kremlin-connected" sources have contributed to Steele's anti-Trump project without financial or political gain -- only with considerable risk?

§ There is the also the telling matter of factual mistakes in the dossier that Kremlin "insiders" were unlikely to have made, but this is the subject for a separate analysis.

And indeed we now know that Steele had at least three other "sources" for the dossier, ones not previously mentioned by him or his employer. There was the information from foreign intelligence agencies provided by Brennan to Steele or to the FBI, which we also now know was collaborating with Steele. There was the contents of a " second Trump-Russia dossier " prepared by people personally close to Hillary Clinton and who shared their "findings" with Steele.

And most intriguingly, there was the "research" provided by Nellie Ohr, wife of a top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, who, according to the Republican memo, "was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research." Most likely, it found its way into Steele's dossier. (Mrs. Ohr was a trained Russian Studies scholar with a PhD from Stanford and a onetime assistant professor at Vassar, and thus, it must have seemed, an ideal collaborator for Steele.) We are left, then, with a vital, ramifying question: How much of the "intelligence information" in Steele's dossier actually came from Russian insiders, if any? (This uncertainly alone should stop Fox News's Sean Hannity and others from declaring that the Kremlin used Steele -- and Hillary Clinton -- to pump its "propaganda and disinformation" into America. Such pro-Trump allegations, like those of Russiagate itself, only fuel the new Cold War, which risks becoming actual war any day, from Syria to Ukraine.) And so, Cohen concludes, we are left with even more ramifying questions:

§ Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance. (To understand more, we will need to learn more, including whether Trump associates other than Carter Page and Paul Manafort were officially surveilled by any of the agencies involved. And whether they were surveilled in order to monitor Trump himself, on the assumption they were or would be in close proximity to him, as the president once suggested in a tweet.)

§ If Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems likely, why was it undertaken? There are various possibilities. Out of loathing for Trump? Out of institutional opposition to his promise of better relations -- "cooperation" -- with Russia? Or out of personal ambition? Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration?

§ What was President Obama's role in any of this? Or to resort to the Watergate question: What did he know and when did he know it? And what did he do? The same questions would need to be asked about his White House aides and other appointees. Whatever the full answers, there is no doubt that Obama acted on the Russiagate allegations. He cited them for the sanctions he imposed on Russia in December 2016, which led directly to the case of General Michael Flynn (not for doing anything wrong with Russia but for "lying to the FBI"); to the worsening of the new US-Russian Cold War; and thus to the perilous relationship inherited by President Trump, who has in turn been thwarted by Russiagate in his attempts to improve relations through "cooperation" with Putin.

§ With all of this in mind, and assuming Trump knew most of it, did he really have any choice in firing FBI Director Comey, for which he is now unfairly being investigated by Mueller? We might also ask, given Comey's role during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign (for which she and her team loudly condemned him), whether as president she would have had to fire him. Listening almost daily to the legion of former US intel officers condemn Russiagate skeptics ever more loudly and persistently in the media, we may wonder if they are increasingly fearful it will become known that Russiagate was mostly Intelgate. For that we will need a new bipartisan Senate Church Committee of the 1970s, which investigated and exposed misdeeds by US intelligence agencies and which led to important reforms that are no longer the preventive measures against abuses of power they were intended to be. (Ideally, everyone involved would be granted amnesty for recent misdeeds, ending all talk of "jail time," on the condition they now testify truthfully.) But such an inclusive investigation of Intelgate would require the support of Democratic members of Congress, which no longer seems possible.

Fmr. FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom argued that FBI planned to destroy Donald Trump's presidency (Dec 19, 2017). In his Fox interview he said that there was a "cabal" of FBI personnel around Comey as well as selected group of people in Justice Department working together toward this goal. He asks an interesting question: "Why Trump Justice Department does not comply with congressional subpoena?" The answer is that it is not Trump Justice Department yet. So far this is still Obama Justice Department, or more correctly "neoliberals dominated Justice Department". Deposing a couple of people who were openly involved in the attempt to rig elections in favor of Hillary like Bruce Ohr does not solve the problem. the problem are no so much people, but the underlining doctrine that the department supports -- which is neoliberalism

The role of Peter Strzok is probably the most interesting in this drama as he was instrumental is swiping the dirt about Hillary private email server under the carpet and thus derailing Sanders; later he used Steele Dossier to start color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate) : Jordan: Appears There Was Orchestrated Plan Within DOJ, FBI to Prevent Trump From Becoming President - YouTube

From what we know as of January 2018 the operational part of Stzrok-gate consists of at least following overlapping operations (listed not exactly in chronological order)

  1. Swiping under the carpet Hillary Clinton email scandal and thus derailing Sanders candidacy (which at this point looks like a provable crime committed by "FBI Mayberry Machiavellians")
  2. False flag operation with organizing Russian lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Trump Jr.
  3. False flag operatin by FBI and CIA contractor Crowdstrike with DNC leak saga -- blaming it on Russians. It is quite probable that the "intrusion" was a false flag operation which involved FBI, Crowdstrike and elements on CIA and was directed against Sanders and Trump. It helped to save Hillary candidacy and ensure her becoming the candidate from Democratic Party in 2016 Presidential elections.
  4. Creation of falsified Steele dossier by FBI contractor Fusion GPS and British intelligence services
  5. Obtaining FISA court warrant using Steele dossier by FBI Mayberry Machiavellians
  6. Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections
  7. "Seventeen agencies" memo about Russian influence on elections
  8. Unleasing witch hunt against Trump in neoliberal MSM
  9. Attempt to instigate the Electoral college revolt
  10. Attempt to instigate violate demonstrations on the capital during inauguration
  11. Michael Flynn removal from the Trump team (as a former head of military intelligence agency he was the most dangerous for plotters member of Trump team)
  12. Coordinated set of damaging to Trump leaks by senior intelligence officiials such as Comey
  13. Appointment of a Special Prosecutor gambit
  14. Neutering Flynn using entrapment and indictment on falsified charge by Peter Strzok
  15. Hyping to the stratosphere Trump Tower meeting as proof of "collision" (using Wolff'f book as a pretext)
  16. Using "mentally unstable" meme to discredit Trump and his administration. As Peter Van Buren said "His opponents are trying to use the 25th Amendment as a backdoor to impeachment, but that's more Maoist than American." As John Grudlos noted on January 26, 2018 at 9:49 am
    In East Germany, Stasi leader Markus Wolfe took things a step further with the "zersetzung" tactic. The idea was to *induce* a "personal crisis" through clandestine harassment,

I realize that Clinton wing of Democratic Party (soft neoliberals) and their supporters which include a part of Wall Street, large part of Silicon valley and most MSM progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking him down. So they joined efforts with the neoconservatives to prevent any changes that can negatively affect military industrial complex or neoliberal globalization (and by extension the US led global neoliberal empire). That's why war-mongering against Russia is now OK (and implicitly directly against China). that's why the Democratic Party now is just another War Party along (or even more jingoistic) then Republican Party -- traditional war hawks pandering to military industrial complex (that was pretty evident from Hillary campaign).

See also the following Youtube video (Jim Jordan GRILLS Rod Rosenstein: Calls For Second Special Counsel 12/13/17 ). From comments:

unit472, December 23, 2017 at 6:26 am GMT • 200 Words
We now know the 'fix' was in when Comey admitted that Congress was not informed that an FBI counterintelligence investigation with the Trump campaign as the target in the summer of 2016. The basis for this investigation seems to be nothing more than that Clinton supplied Russian dossier. That the head of the FBI's counterintelligence operations, Bill Priestap deemed the matter 'too sensitive' to disclose to Congressional Intelligence Committees until March of 2017 yet the Obama Administration disseminated the results of NSA surveillance throughout his Administration to the point where low level operatives like Evelyn Farkas could blurt out during an MSNBC interview that "it was important to conceal how we knew what we knew" from the president elect.

Mueller, if he were to really do his job, would redirect his investigation and target the Obama Administration and his close friend Jim Comey but his conflicts of interest, in particular, the Uranium One deal he approved makes that impossible. His only job now is to coverup the biggest conspiracy in the history of the US government.

spider, December 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT
The assumption that Mueller is honest is questionable. He hounded Steven Hatfield for years about the anthrax letters. Then, he went after Bruce Ivins until he committed suicide–or was suicided. The chance that Ivins was guilty is about 0,001 percent.
Svigor, December 23, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT • 700 Words

If the media was hoping to persuade the American people that Trump is guilty of a crime, they have a long way to go.

Thanks for all the poll numbers, Mike. As suspect as poll numbers are, they give us at least an idea of what a lemon Big Media is selling. They pushed that narrative that hard for that long, and they haven't even cracked 50%.

As for Mueller, it's not hard to pick up his swamp-rat odor. He's BFFs with Comey, for one thing. And Comey is a consummate swamp creature, absolutely tailor-made for DC (just think about all his moralizing, how his tummy hurt dealing with Trump, etc). Remember, it's extremely likely that Mueller had to sign off on Comey's post-firing behavior. Those two put their heads together to game-plan, and Comey's subsequent shitshow was by mutual design. That shitshow displayed that the two were at least as interested in playing politics as they were in being FBI.

Also FBI is essentially an imperial institution and as such designed (and staffed with appropriate type of people) to serve the Us-led global neoliberal empire and ensure continuity of imperial policies (much like CIA, arm of which it essentially is, especially its counterintelligence part). In this sense the fact that many high level staff were pro-warmonger Clinton should not surprise anybody. Clinton was the establishment candidate hell-bent on continuation of disastrous Mid-East wars and neoliberal/neocon imperial policies toward Russia and China designed to extend the period of the USA sole supremacy it obtained after the dissolution of the USSR.

Anon says: • Disclaimer December 23, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT • 200 Words
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.

Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and all its racy tales.

"… there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.'

That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments. Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."

Svigor December 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT • 600 Words
Corvanus keeps lubing his corvanus in hopes Comey and Mueller will come by for shiatsu but so far nothin'.

I don't think Trump should fire Mueller (makes a martyr of his fishing expedition), but I also don't know WTF Trump is doing with this thing. I haven't read a single report about the Administration stone-walling Mueller's investigation, which suggests that the administration isn't stonewalling Mueller's investigation. I think I would've stonewalled Mueller's investigation many months ago. "Fuck you, fish by yourself."

Hey, I guess he has better lawyers than I, but my strategy would've kept 3 of the 4 guys currently under indictment in the "not indicted" category.

If Trump wants Mueller fired, he should start firing the top brass at FBI. Give no reason, just keep firing guys until one of the replacements terminates Mueller's investigation. Then he can stop firing people.

... ... ...


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2018 2017 2016

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed

Highly recommended!
They are afraid to admin that a color revolution was launched to depose Trump after the elections of 2016. Essentially a coup d'état by intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of Democratic Party.
Notable quotes:
"... The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA. ..."
"... The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources . ..."
"... Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. ..."
"... The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. ..."
"... The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. ..."
"... The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton's opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump ..."
"... The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. ..."
"... Attorney General Bill Barr's recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed." ..."
Aug 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

As the Russiagate circus attempts to quietly disappear over the horizon, with Democrats preferring to shift the anti-Trump narrative back to "racist", "white supremacist", "xenophobe", and the mainstream media ready to squawk "recession"; the Trump administration may have a few more cards up its sleeve before anyone claims the higher ground in this farce we call an election campaign.

As The Hill's John Solomon details, in September 2018 that President Trump told my Hill.TV colleague Buck Sexton and me that he would order the release of all classified documents showing what the FBI, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other U.S. intelligence agencies may have done wrong in the Russia probe.

And while it's been almost a year since then, of feet-dragging and cajoling and deep-state-fighting, we wonder, given Solomon's revelations below, if the president is getting ready to play his 'Trump' card.

Here are the documents that Solomon believes have the greatest chance of rocking Washington, if declassified:

1.) Christopher Steele 's confidential human source reports at the FBI. These documents, known in bureau parlance as 1023 reports, show exactly what transpired each time Steele and his FBI handlers met in the summer and fall of 2016 to discuss his anti-Trump dossier. The big reveal, my sources say, could be the first evidence that the FBI shared sensitive information with Steele, such as the existence of the classified Crossfire Hurricane operation targeting the Trump campaign. It would be a huge discovery if the FBI fed Trump-Russia intel to Steele in the midst of an election, especially when his ultimate opposition-research client was Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The FBI has released only one or two of these reports under FOIA lawsuits and they were 100 percent redacted. The American public deserves better.

2.) The 53 House Intel interviews. House Intelligence interviewed many key players in the Russia probe and asked the DNI to declassify those interviews nearly a year ago, after sending the transcripts for review last November. There are several big reveals, I'm told, including the first evidence that a lawyer tied to the Democratic National Committee had Russia-related contacts at the CIA.

3.) The Stefan Halper documents. It has been widely reported that European-based American academic Stefan Halper and a young assistant, Azra Turk, worked as FBI sources . We know for sure that one or both had contact with targeted Trump aides like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos at the end of the election. My sources tell me there may be other documents showing Halper continued working his way to the top of Trump's transition and administration, eventually reaching senior advisers like Peter Navarro inside the White House in summer 2017. These documents would show what intelligence agencies worked with Halper, who directed his activity, how much he was paid and how long his contacts with Trump officials were directed by the U.S. government's Russia probe.

4.) The October 2016 FBI email chain. This is a key document identified by Rep. Nunes and his investigators. My sources say it will show exactly what concerns the FBI knew about and discussed with DOJ about using Steele's dossier and other evidence to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in October 2016. If those concerns weren't shared with FISA judges who approved the warrant, there could be major repercussions.

5.) Page/Papadopoulos exculpatory statements. Another of Nunes' five buckets, these documents purport to show what the two Trump aides were recorded telling undercover assets or captured in intercepts insisting on their innocence. Papadopoulos told me he told an FBI undercover source in September 2016 that the Trump campaign was not trying to obtain hacked Clinton documents from Russia and considered doing so to be treason. If he made that statement with the FBI monitoring, and it was not disclosed to the FISA court, it could be another case of FBI or DOJ misconduct.

6.) The 'Gang of Eight' briefing materials. These were a series of classified briefings and briefing books the FBI and DOJ provided key leaders in Congress in the summer of 2018 that identify shortcomings in the Russia collusion narrative. Of all the documents congressional leaders were shown, this is most frequently cited to me in private as having changed the minds of lawmakers who weren't initially convinced of FISA abuses or FBI irregularities.

7.) The Steele spreadsheet. I wrote recently that the FBI kept a spreadsheet on the accuracy and reliability of every claim in the Steele dossier. According to my sources, it showed as much as 90 percent of the claims could not be corroborated, were debunked or turned out to be open-source internet rumors. Given Steele's own effort to leak intel in his dossier to the media before Election Day, the public deserves to see the FBI's final analysis of his credibility. A document I reviewed recently showed the FBI described Steele's information as only "minimally corroborated" and the bureau's confidence in him as "medium."

8.) The Steele interview. It has been reported, and confirmed, that the DOJ's inspector general (IG) interviewed the former British intelligence operative for as long as 16 hours about his contacts with the FBI while working with Clinton's opposition research firm, Fusion GPS. It is clear from documents already forced into the public view by lawsuits that Steele admitted in the fall of 2016 that he was desperate to defeat Trump , had a political deadline to make his dirt public, was working for the DNC/Clinton campaign and was leaking to the news media. If he told that to the FBI and it wasn't disclosed to the FISA court, there could be serious repercussions.

9.) The redacted sections of the third FISA renewal application. This was the last of four FISA warrants targeting the Trump campaign; it was renewed in June 2017 after special counsel Robert Mueller 's probe had started, and signed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . It is the one FISA application that House Republicans have repeatedly asked to be released, and I'm told the big reveal in the currently redacted sections of the application is that it contained both misleading information and evidence of intrusive tactics used by the U.S. government to infiltrate Trump's orbit.

10.) Records of allies' assistance. Multiple sources have said a handful of U.S. allies overseas – possibly Great Britain, Australia and Italy – were asked to assist FBI efforts to check on Trump connections to Russia. Members of Congress have searched recently for some key contact documents with British intelligence . My sources say these documents might help explain Attorney General Bill Barr's recent comments that "the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign, to me, is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed."

These documents, when declassified, would show more completely how a routine counterintelligence probe was hijacked to turn the most awesome spy powers in America against a presidential nominee in what was essentially a political dirty trick orchestrated by Democrats.


rahrog , 2 minutes ago link

America's Ruling Class is laughing at all you fools still falling for the Rs v Ds scam.

Stupid people lose.

LibertyVibe , 3 minutes ago link

I disagree with Solomon. Nothing will "doom" the swamp unless the righteous few are willing to indict, prosecute and carry out sentencing for the guilty. Exposing the guilty accomplishes nothing, because anyone paying attention already knows of their crimes. Those who want to believe lies will still believe them after the truth comes out.
It's ALL A WASTE OF TIME unless we follow through.

#TheDailyNews #DrainTheSwamp

Lord Raglan , 5 minutes ago link

Where's all the other, earlier docs Trump was going to declassify? Just wondering..............

TheFQ , 16 minutes ago link

Does anyone see a pattern here after the 2009 Tea Party movement began?

2009 - Republicans: "If we win back the House, we can accomplish our agenda."

2011 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House)

2012 - Republicans: "If we win back the Senate, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 2 YEARS After winning back the House)

2013 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 1 YEAR after winning back the House and the Senate)

2014 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 2 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)

2015 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 3 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)

2016 - Republicans: "If we win back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: 4 YEARS after winning back the House and the Senate)

2017 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 6 YEARS AGO and the Senate 4 YEARS AGO)

2018 - Republicans: "Now that we've won back the Presidency, we can accomplish our agenda." (NOTE: After winning back the House 7 YEARS AGO and the Senate 5 YEARS AGO)

2019 - John Solomon - "If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed"

I hate to say it, but I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, JOHN.

ALL WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE COURSE OF THIS DECADE IS "IF THIS HAPPENS...THEN THEY ARE DOOMED / WE CAN ACCOMPLISH OUR AGENDA / YADDA YADDA YADDA.

WHEN THE FOLLOWING ARE FOUND GUILTY OF TREASON, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I BELIEVE YOU:

WHY ARE THESE TREASONOUS, VILE, CORRUPT CRIMINALS NOT INDICTED FOR TREASON?

WTF?

FFS...

benb , 12 minutes ago link

WHY ARE THESE TREASONOUS, VILE, CORRUPT CRIMINALS NOT INDICTED FOR TREASON?

Because the people doing the indicting are in on it.

enfield0916 , 36 minutes ago link

As if there's any major philosophical difference between the Librtads and Zionist Cocksuckvatives.

Both sides use the .gov agencies to subvert and ignore the Constitution whenever possible. Best example is WikiLeaks and how each party wished Assange would just go away when he revealed damaging information about both sides on multiple occasions.

[Aug 17, 2019] The Unraveling of the Failed Trump Coup by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko trace to Steele dossier is a real shocker.
Notable quotes:
"... On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled " WhosWho19Sept2016 ." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. ..."
"... If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI. ..."
"... What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr. ..."
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble. ..."
"... It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from... ..."
"... So..the Timeline Indicates Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination.. ..."
"... I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos and Archey Declarations? ..."
"... So what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it? ..."
"... Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for his impeachment. ..."
"... They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose. ..."
"... Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'??? ..."
"... Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort. ..."
"... So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign influence in a U.S. election! ..."
"... The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest and law enforcement, became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good. ..."
Aug 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There are many moving pieces in the drama surrounding the Deep State attempt to kill the Trump Presidency. God Bless Judicial Watch. I think most of the key evidence that has surfaced came courtesy of Tom Fitton, Chris Farrell and their team of tireless workers.

I want to bring you back to Mr. Felix Sater . He was part of Bayrock, which worked closely with Donald Trump's organization and, most importantly of all, was an FBI Confidential Human Source since December of 1998.

Thanks to Judicial Watch we have a new dump of Bruce Ohr emails, which include several from his wife, Nellie. There are 330 pages to wade thru (you can see them here ). There is one item in particular I encourage you to look at:

On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled " WhosWho19Sept2016 ." The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and "linkages" between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. This list of individuals allegedly "linked to Trump" include: a Russian involved in a "gangland killing;" an Uzbek mafia don; a former KGB officer suspected in the murder of Paul Tatum; a Russian who reportedly "buys up banks and pumps them dry"; a Russian money launderer for Sergei Magnitsky; a Turk accused of shipping oil for ISIS; a couple who lent their name to the Trump Institute, promoting its "get-rich-quick schemes"; a man who poured him a drink; and others.

The spreadsheet starts on page 301. If you search the document for the name Felix Sater, he will pop up. Now here is the curious and, I suppose, reassuring thing about this document--Nellie Ohr did not have a clue that Felix Sater was an active FBI informant. We can at least give the FBI credit for protecting Sater's identity from Nellie Ohr and, more importantly, her husband, DOJ official Bruce Ohr.

If you want to have more fun, search the pdf using the term "BAYROCK." You will discover that Nellie Ohr, like a female Don Quixote, is searching desperately to link Trump and Sater to dirty Russian money. What she does not suspect is that Sater was being used, via his company Bayrock, to try to gain access to Russians who were potential targets of the FBI.

One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or one of the other "suspects" she exhaustively listed.

Shifting gears, there are two very important pieces recently posted at The Conservative Tree House that I encourage you to read:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/12/quirky-angle-overstock-ceo-patrick-byrne-2016-fbi-activity-was-political-espionage/#more-168122 https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/12/federal-judge-completely-rejects-doj-argument-orders-archey-declarations-descriptions-of-comey-memosreleased/ The first piece focuses on CEO Patrick Byrne and the role he played in trying to entrap and portray Marina Butina as a Russian agent.

What is not emphasized in the piece, and it is something I want to direct you to, is that the idea or impetus to launch the investigation of Butina came courtesy of Christopher Steele, who was relaying rumor and conjecture to Bruce Ohr.

You can find this information in the Bruce Ohr 302s that Judicial Watch also secured. Marina Butina was unfairly and unjustly portrayed and prosecuted as a Russian intelligence agent. It was a damn lie.

I do not ever want to hear another American complaining about an American State Department or CIA employee who is entrapped and unfairly prosecuted in Russia.

We have done the same damn thing that we have accused the Soviets of doing. The same thing. It is shameful.

The second piece is the ultimate feel good piece. Kudos to its author, Sundance.

He details how a Federal Judge, infuriated by the FBIs stupidity and mendacity, tells the Bureau to go pound sand. The FBI is frantically trying to prevent the Archey Declarations from being revealed thanks to a lawsuit brought by CNN (finally, CNN did something right).

The Archey Declarations provide a detailed description of the memos written and illegally removed from FBI Headquarters by that sanctimonious twit, Jim Comey. More shoes will be dropping in the coming days.

It appears that Inspector General Horowitz is going to present at least one report on Jim Comey and one report on the FISA abuse by the FBI.

FBI Director Christopher Wray reminds me of one of the workers in the bowels of the Titanic who was furiously shoveling coal into the doomed boilers of the sinking ship. The FBI, like the Titanic, is in trouble.

Finally, Gateway Pundit's Joe Hoft put up an important piece today ( see here ). Here is the bottomline, and keep this in mind as you read the piece, on June 20, 2016 the FBI signed off on a deal with Hillary Clinton's attorney's that gave Hillary's team the right to destroy computers and emails.

It also gave immunity to all of the people on Hillary's team that participated in obstruction of justice. On that same day, Jim Comey signed off on a separate memo that decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

The fix was in more than a month before Jim Comey appeared on camera to try to explain why he was not recommending prosecution of Hillary for putting Top Secret information on her unclassified server.

Jim Comey lied when he declared that could not prove "intent."

I am sure that those of you who have never held a clearance and handled Top Secret material probably believed that lie.

But anyone who knows how the TS system is set up knows that the ONLY WAY, I repeat, the ONLY WAY to put TS material on an unclassified server is to do so intentionally. There is no way to do this mistakenly.


Jim Ticehurst said in reply to Jim Ticehurst... ,

Larry..Fusion GPS has always refused to Reveal who where its Financial support came from...

So..the Timeline Indicates Fusion GPS was hired by The "Washington Free Beacon" around October 2015 to background checks and Profiles of The Republican Candidates for President.and that Fusion GPS continued to do so until May 2016..when it became clear that Donald Trump clinched the Nomination..

creating Phase 2..Operations..

"The Washington Free Beacon ".Has an Editor in Chief ..who is William Kristols Son In Law..And William Kristols ..Father....Irving Kristol..is Called..."the God Father of Neo Conservatism". William Kristol..was a John McCain supporter..

Thus Fusion GPS..retained Nellie Ohr..(strangly..NO Wiki Profile) who apparently had to Use her husbnd Bruce Ohrs Clearances,,to continue Her Collaberation with Fusion GPS..

By June 2016 the Strategy was to bring in Christopher Steele..who was know to Bruce Ohr back to 2006.. Strange.. NO early life BIOS for Bruce or Nellie Ohr..

Jack , 16 August 2019 at 01:38 AM
Larry

Do you believe the current DOJ under Barr will really investigate and convene a grand jury to hear testimony from Comey, Brennan and Clapper?

And what do you make of the fact that Epstein who was on suicide watch either was murdered or killed himself while in custody?

akaPatience , 16 August 2019 at 01:38 AM
I wonder why AG Barr isn't forcing the FBI to comply sooner with Judge Boasberg's ruling to hand over unredacted Comey Memos and Archey Declarations?

The Gateway Pundit item about the ridiculously unfair and unethical deals made in Hillary Clinton's email scandal investigation is just further proof of how the Clinton taint infected the FBI. "Crooked" is a very apt epithet, that's for sure. I'd love to know how much Bill and Hill raked in during her Sec'y. of State racketeering.

Fred , 16 August 2019 at 01:38 AM
So what did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?
plantman , 16 August 2019 at 01:38 AM
You say: "One point is clear--she uncovered no evidence implicating Trump working with the Russians, either thru Felix Sater or one of the other "suspects" she exhaustively listed."

This is true, but it is also true that Nellie Ohr was working for a privately-owned firm that had employed her to make false accusations about Trump's alleged connections to Russians in order to sabotage his presidency and lay the groundwork for his impeachment.

They also hired foreign agent, Chris Steele to concoct a thoroughly-debunked dossier for the same purpose.

Can these people be charged with a crime or have we entered a new world of 'dirty tricks'???

Keith Harbaugh , 16 August 2019 at 01:38 AM
Let me just add this piece by John Solomon: "New evidence shows why Steele, the Ohrs and TSA workers never should have become DOJ sources" by John Solomon, 2019-08-15
...
Examination of the Nellie Ohr documents given to the FBI shows some of her source material also came from former Ukrainian presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko and a lawsuit she filed against Manafort.

Why is that significant? Tymoshenko and Hillary Clinton had a simpatico relationship after the former secretary of State went out of her way in January 2013 to advocate for Tymoshenko's release from prison on corruption charges.

So, Bruce Ohr became a conduit of information not only for intelligence from Clinton's British opposition-researcher but also from his wife's curation of evidence from a Clinton foreign ally and Manafort enemy inside Ukraine. Talk about foreign influence in a U.S. election!
...
The tales of Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Christopher Steele, Yulia Tymoshenko, and those DEA and TSA agents raise a stark warning:

The lines between government officials and informants, unverified political dirt and real intelligence, personal interest and law enforcement,
became too blurred for the Justice Department's own good.

That's a problem sorely in need of fixing.

oldman22 said in reply to Keith Harbaugh... 17 August 2019 at 01:16 AM

The person responsible for securing the release of Yulia Tymoshenko was Chancellor Merkel. Further, that USA opposed Tymoshenko.

quote
As for one of the leaders of the war party in Kiev, Merkel has privately and publicly endorsed every claim of Yulia Tymoshenko, promoting her release from prison and protecting her campaigns for war against Russia, even though – according to the high-level German source – “they [Chancellery, Foreign Ministry] have known for years that [Tymoshenko] was a crook.”
endquote

There is a lot more detail Tymoshenko's corruption and Merkel's rescue here:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/john-helmer-the-political-motivation-of-chancellor-merkels-embrace-of-yulia-tymoshenko-and-war.html

(republished from John Helmer's website, includes a great cartoon worth viewing)

If you want more sources for this story,google
"Merkel, Tymoshenko, prison"

[Aug 12, 2019] Bruce Ohr 302s by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Highly recommended!
That suggest that FBI actions were influenced by Obama administration and CIA to much greater expent thatn we assuned.
Notable quotes:
"... It may be that much of the dossier was created out of whole cloth by Nellie Ohr who was tasked to create a narrative that jibed with Simpson's political objectives. ..."
"... The ukraine is probably behind a great deal of the "info" the democrats and fib used.. ..."
Aug 12, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

In reviewing these 302s there are some salient points I want to bring to your attention.

First, Christopher Steele was terminated as an FBI Confidential Human Source at the end of September 2016 for leaking to the press. That should have put an end to the relationship. Instead, the FBI starts using Bruce Ohr, the number four guy at the Department of Justice, as a cutout. Absolutely no justification for this kind of behavior by the FBI. It is, at a minimum, unethical and creates a real problem if any of the info collected from Ohr was to be used in a court proceeding. Something known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" would kick in and the so-called evidence proffered by Ohr would be inadmissible or unusable because of Steele's previous lies to the FBI.

Second, Glenn Simpson played a huge role in helping spread anti-Trump propaganda generated by Steele. In fact, it was Simpson's insistence on Steele speaking with the press that got Steele terminated as an FBI source.

Third, the FBI knew by mid-December 2016 that Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, was working with Simpson and Steele. This too should have set off alarm bells about the potential conflicts of interest and unethical conduct.

Fourth, evidence used ultimately against Paul Manafort came from Nellie Ohr. If this was not disclosed to Manafort's attorney's there is a likely Brady violation, which bolster's Manafort's prospects for an appeal.

Fifth, Steele and Simpson made several claims of fact about Russia ties to the Trump campaign that were later proven to be false. For example, stating that Michael Cohen was in Prague meeting the Russians. Important to note that Christopher Steele produced the final report of the so-called dossier bearing his name on 13 December 2016 yet this information was "passed" to Ohr one day prior to the date on the report.

Sixth, the "debriefing" of Ohr on 12 December 2016 also provided the foundation for going after Marina Butina. (See Sara Carter's excellent update on this case here ). The false information from Steele/Simpson via Bruce Ohr became the pretext for launching an investigation of Butina, who was working for a wealthy Russian banker, Alexander Torshin. This too turns out to have been a fabrication. I believe this provides Butina's attorneys more ammunition for arguing prosecutorial misconduct and failure to provide critical Brady material.

Seventh, Ohr's report that Simpson and Steele were communicating with the State Department, including Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Kathleen Kavalec makes it clear that State Department was used as a front to pass on info from the questionable Steele Dossier. This information was used in the FISA warrant and provided a seemingly reliable justification for spying on Carter Page (see the Page FISA warrant here .)

And finally, Fusion GPS, which was hired on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, was regularly communicating and coordinating with Obama's Department of Justice and Department of State. This was a complete abuse of power.

Now, here is the summary of the 302s:

11/22/2016 (entered on 12/19/2006)

Ohr met with Steele in 2007 (not sure of date) at a conference.

July 30, 2016 Steele met Ohr for breakfast. Steele claimed Carter Page had met with Russian Sechin at a conference.

States that Glenn Simpson hired Steele and Ohr's wife to dig up dirt on Trump's connections to Russia.

Noted that reporting was going to the Clinton Campaign, Jonathan Winer and the FBI.

Ohr met with Steele in late September and was told about Alfa Bank ties to Trump and the Sergei Millian organization.

Noted that Steele was desperate to stop Trump and to thwart the Kremlin.

Ohr knew that Glenn Simpson and "others" were meeting with Victoria Nuland.

12/05/2016 (entered on 12/19/2016) (drafted on 12/12/2016)

Glenn Simpson directed Christopher Steele to speak to the press, including David Corn at Mother Jones.

Ohr provided FBI info on Manafort Chronology prepared by his wife.

12/12/2016 (entered on 12/19/2016) (Drafted on 12/14/2016)

Ohr states, per Simpson, that Cohen replaced Manafort and Page as the contact with the Russians.

Says that Cohen met with Russians in Prague.

Claims that Torshin is a Russian mobster and is trying to infiltrate the NRA and was pushing money to Trump.

Simpson opined that Sergei Millian was an SVR officer and a link to Trump.

12/20/2016 (entered on 12/27/2016)

Thumb drive with Nelly Ohr's research passed to FBI.

1/23/2017 (entered on 1/31/2017) (drafted on 1/25/2017)

Simpson tells Ohr a source will be outed in the coming days.

Steele claims he met with a McCain staffer prior to October 2016

1/25/017 (entered on 1/27/2017)

Ohr spoke with Steele on 25 January 2017.

1/27/2017 (entered on 1/27/2017)

Steele told Ohr he wanted to keep lines of communication open.

02/06/2017 (entered on 02/08/2017)

Ohr contacted by Steele via What'sApp on 31 January 2017. Was reacting to firing of Sally Yates. Worried that if Ohr got fired he would have no one to talk to.

"Interviewing agents asked Ohr to ask Steele if he would be comfortable getting the name of an FBI agent."

Ohr reminded agents that Steele had spoken several times prior to 2016 Presidential election with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec. Ohr identified one of the sources for Steele's report as a Ukranian.

02/14/2017 (entered on 02/15/2017)

Ohr tells FBI about Steele's concerns about his business. Identifies other lawyer (name blacked out) he is working with. Steele is preparing a proposal to re-establish his business releationship with the FBI.

05/08/2017 (entered on 05/10/2017)

Steele tells Ohr that he is worried about Comey's upcoming testimony. Ohr tells Steele what Comey will say and Steele is "happy."

Ohr said that Glenn Simpson would be visiting Steele soon.

Jonathan Winer was bringing a letter to Steele.


walrus , 11 August 2019 at 04:43 PM

this is treason.
PRC90 , 11 August 2019 at 08:24 PM
As an aside, note the similarities between Steele and Downer. Both carried some imprimatur of credibility based on prior government service, and popped up from no where and returned to relative obscurity after producing a document that was able to be immediately misused by others for the same purpose.

I'd wondered why anyone would want to involve Downer in these events, the man is a moron. However, one of his greatest strengths is producing wonderful well written reports, and to that extent would appear to have been chosen well.

confusedponderer , 12 August 2019 at 05:52 AM
It is, however despicable the whole story is, suggesting - and in its own way entertaining - that apparently the experienced gutter lady "Eff the EU" Nuland was also involved, probably bringing in her ... regime change experience aquired in the Ukraine.

I wonder, did she ever say "Eff the Orange Man too"? Alas. Either way, more interesting to me is whether she also handed out cookies to Steel and/or Ohr?

https://orf.at/static/images/site/news/20131250/ukraine_klitschko_usa_body_a.4532409.jpg

As far as financial price of the Ohr & Steel operation goes, compared to the 5+ billion that were according to Nuland proudly poured into Ukraine to get Maidan and backstab Janukowytsch, hiring Steel to backstab somebody else - Trump - was probably way cheaper - i.e. 'however illegal, it was more economic'.

That said, I detested Nuland well before this story for her Maidan stuntery and the "Eff the EU" arrogance, but then, she really made it easy even for an at time even more benevolent observer.

Thanks for sharing and elaborating.

Patrick Armstrong , 12 August 2019 at 08:48 AM
But the big question that I would be interested to get opinions on is this:
when is all this stuff going to be revealed in a way that not even the readers of the WaPo NYT et al can deny thet the entire Russia collusion/interference story is false from beginning to end?

The longer the Russia-interfered-in-our-election-and-everybody-else's lie is perpetrated, the closer we all get to nuclear annihilation. So it's a matter of some importance.

Any ideas?
One that occurs to me is that nothing will happen -- it will all dribble out over such a long time that nothing will ever be ever dramatic and simple enough to make an effect.

My other thought is that Trump & Co wants the big explosive revelations to hit the street next Mar/Apr so as to destroy the Dems in 2020.

But many of us have known the general outline of the conspiracy for a couple of years, but nothing big ever hits the street and the lies get dug in a little deeper every day that they're not exploded.

turcopolier , 12 August 2019 at 09:02 AM
PA

Unless there are a lot of indictments none of this will matter.

plantman , 12 August 2019 at 11:39 AM
So, state department honchos--Victoria Nuland, Kavalec and Sally Yates (DOJ)--all had some knowledge of what was going on, right? And so did national security advisor Susan Rice.

Doesn't that prove that Obama must have been in the loop?

I think it does.

Second, how much of Nellie Ohr's russia research actually ended up in the steele dossier? I think that it is very unlikely that Chris Steele maintained his sketchy connections in Russia after the seismic political changes in the early 2000s. It may be that much of the dossier was created out of whole cloth by Nellie Ohr who was tasked to create a narrative that jibed with Simpson's political objectives.

notamusedobserver -> plantman... , 12 August 2019 at 04:42 PM
The ukraine is probably behind a great deal of the "info" the democrats and fib used..

[Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Like the Wolfowitz explanation of the Iraq War, Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized. Cold Warriors like to hate on Russia. It justifies arms spending and their own importance. Clintonistas need an excuse to distract from her being a loser. The DNC needs an excuse for manipulating the candidate selection in favor of donor interests. "Moderates" need a distraction from their ongoing refusal to address the interests of voters. ..."
Aug 12, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Mark Thomason , August 12, 2019 at 10:34

Like the Wolfowitz explanation of the Iraq War, Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized. Cold Warriors like to hate on Russia. It justifies arms spending and their own importance. Clintonistas need an excuse to distract from her being a loser. The DNC needs an excuse for manipulating the candidate selection in favor of donor interests. "Moderates" need a distraction from their ongoing refusal to address the interests of voters.

[Aug 07, 2019] Taibbi via Antiwar.com: The rise and fall of superhero Robert Mueller

Aug 07, 2019 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al August 2, 2019 at 5:31 am

Taibbi via Antiwar.com: The rise and fall of superhero Robert Mueller
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-superhero-robert

The testimony of Robert Mueller should have marked the end of a national nightmare. Instead, a new legend was born

This myth died on television .

Mueller on the stand was a potted plant. Reporters saw Moses and Jesus. If you need evidence we're in a religious mania, look no further. This was a pure exercise in restoring an idol for worship

In mid-March, just before Mueller's probe wrapped up, CNN found a whopping zero percent of Americans identified "Russian investigation" as their primary concern heading into 2020. The network wrote (emphasis mine):..,

ussiagate should be dead. Instead, it's gaining new life, with impeachment looking like the New Testament phase of the religion
####

Much, much more at the link.

Mark Chapman August 2, 2019 at 5:11 pm
Every time I read a piece by Matt Taibbi, I ask myself, "Why don't you read Matt Taibbi more often?" By God, he can write – I nearly horked up a lung when he described John Brennan as a 'paranoid outpatient'. His descriptions of the frantic dissembling amongst the Democrats create passages in which you can actually smell the despair and incoherent rage, like burnt hair.

The whole Mueller testimonial dirge will turn out to have only divided Americans further. Republicans will chuckle with satisfaction at watching Mueller fly into a window like a careless jackdaw, while Democrats will sense that something crazy happened but that this is a time for blind loyalty. And never the twain shall meet. The fact that that was supposed to be East and West makes the irony but more pronounced.

[Aug 01, 2019] Comey Avoids DOJ Prosecution On Memo Leak; FISA Abuse Still On The Table

Aug 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Former FBI Director James Comey will avoid prosecution after illegally leaking personal memos in the hopes of instigating the special counsel's investigation into the 2016 US election, as reported yesterday by The Hill 's John Solomon and confirmed today by Fox News .

According to Solomon, DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz referred Comey for possible prosecution under laws governing the handling of classified information, however Attorney General William Barr has declined to prosecute - as the DOJ does not believe they have enough evidence of Comey's intent to violate the law.

"Everyone at the DOJ involved in the decision said it wasn't a close call," an official told Fox News . "They all thought this could not be prosecuted."

That said, it's important to note that this decision was the result of a 'carve-out' investigation separate of the IG probe on FISA abuse .

The Conservative Treehouse lays out the situation:

This is NOT the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse.

This is a carve-out.

...

From the outset it was reported and confirmed that U.S. Attorney John Huber was assigned to assist Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Huber's job was to stand-by in case the IG carved out a particular concern, discovered during his investigation, that might involve criminal conduct.

Earlier this week Matt Whitaker said : "John Huber is reviewing anything related to Comey's memos and the like. "

Put the two data points together and what you realize is that during the OIG review of potential DOJ and FBI FISA abuse IG Horowitz investigated the Comey Memo's and then passed that specific issue along to John Huber for DOJ review.

The IG criminal referral for the James Comey memo leaking was a carve-out sent to U.S. Attorney John Huber.

...

This is not the inspector general report on DOJ and FBI FISA abuse. This is an IG report carved out of the larger investigation. - Conservative Treehouse

In short, we will first see an IG report just covering Comey, with a more comprehensive report to follow on FISA abuse. _arrow 1


chunga , 2 minutes ago

Every day this gets a little more humiliating.

libertysghost , 2 minutes ago

So it has to be proven that the head of the FBI knew what the frikin laws were that he was violating?

Knowing the laws were not in his job description?

Aside from that not being a standard for determining prosecution for anyone else aside from Deep Staters, the claim is laughable on its face. Did Comey's office (or Comey himself) ever provide evidence for the prosecution of ANY individual for ANYTHING where they argued "intent" didn't matter? I'm 100% sure he did. So why is this hard to point out in showing that "intent" doesn't matter?

FFS...this is a scam. I was leery as soon as Trump handing over declassification to Barr. We will know who is involved in the cover up by their response to this...in particular those claiming to be at the front lines of demanding consequences for the spying/coup.


Bavarian , 3 minutes ago

This was always small potatoes. FISA and the involvement in setting up the coup will involve the meat of his convictions anyway. Anyone thinking he's walking isn't paying attention.

I am Groot , 5 minutes ago

Comey: Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to help throw a coup.

Barr: Ok, no problem, we won't charge you. We know it was just an accident. You're all good. You can go on CNN and rub everybody's nose in it now

Real Estate Guru , 14 minutes ago

What makes you think that Comey didn't cut a deal with Barr to get the others, folks? Stay tuned!

You do the math.

I am Groot , 12 minutes ago

WHY THE **** WOULD BARR CUT A DEAL WITH ANY OF THOSE TREASONOUS ***** !

THEY ARE ALL GUILTY AS HELL ! ! !

Real Estate Guru , 11 minutes ago

I agree. But this fool might be naming Obama for all we know. That would be worth it, or Hillary.

Either way, he is going down on the FISA warrants. He signed off on them.

I am Groot , 8 minutes ago

Obama is fucked six ways to Sunday. They have the FBI text messages that prove he was directing all of this and was neck deep in it.

spyware-free , 12 minutes ago

Then why not state that as the reason? There is enough evidence to prosecute. They could have at the least waited and added the charge to future indictments instead of dismissing right away.

buckboy , 13 minutes ago

Prosecuting Comey by DOJ risks DOJ involvement and alike................just too many to protect.

TruthAbsolute , 13 minutes ago

haha the USA has a two tier justice system...You poor sick Patriots!

libertysghost , 21 minutes ago

Comey will walk and Trump will be impeached for "obstructing" an investigation into a non-existent crime, because he tried to defend himself against the coup proclaiming his innocents.

If this happens...

Cabreado , 22 minutes ago

Maintaining some sense of optimism just got a little harder...

enough of this , 23 minutes ago

All those dire pronouncements by conservative pundits that Comey would be nailed for taking classified information home from his office and releasing it to his friend, who in turn leaked it to the press was all ********. It turns out Comey could do it with impunity and he knew he would skate because his deep-state pals at the DOJ would never indict him for doing so. Rigged justice system = Rigged outcome.

SRV , 25 minutes ago

Flynn is facing 5 years for a clear FBI trap, after spying on everything he said in the WH... not a good start for Barr... and if he's a plant, it's over.

Real Estate Guru , 20 minutes ago

Flynn is a Patriot. He is not going down. He has not even been sent anywhere. Relax. if they had him, he would be in jail by now. He is like the invisible russians that Mueller convicted of nothing. They showed up by the way, and wanted to see the evidence...Mueller just blew them off. Mueller is a shill for Weissmann, he is clueless, feeble, and doesnt know one damn thing. No sentencing of anybody. Flynn is a hero, not a criminal. That tells you everything you need to know.

Real Estate Guru , 27 minutes ago

They have something far larger than this, and they don't want to lose the first case on him. Don't worry, the stuff that is coming out on this guy will easily convict him within weeks. It will involve the FISA warrants.

- Hannity, Soloman

Stay tuned...much more to come Patriots!

LookAtMeme.com , 14 minutes ago

Who said that they have to charge Comey piecemeal starting with smaller charges and therefore it's best to let him skate on those smaller charges? Prosecutors regularly load up charges against defendants.

RagaMuffin , 28 minutes ago

Unless he can be nailed on a larger charge, this is how the Swamp protects its own, particularly since intent is not the basis of whether the law was broken?

Roger Rabbit , 23 minutes ago

He IS going to be nailed on a much bigger charge: FISA abuse. It's already well established he lied to the FISA court. Too bad they are all Jesuit graduates though, hence why they've taken no corrective action, and never objected to what was obviously FISA fraud.

LookAtMeme.com , 16 minutes ago

It's already well established by Comey's own congressional testimony that he purposely leaked FBI documents in order to prompt an investigation of the President.

LookAtMeme.com , 5 minutes ago

If they intend to prosecute Comey for other crimes later then they don't have to "waste time" exonerating him now. They can throw the entire ball of wax at him at a later date. The man admitted to congress that he leaked FBI documents in order to prompt an investigation of the President. We all know this.

Ergo I.C. , 31 minutes ago

"... however Attorney General William Barr has declined to prosecute - as the DOJ does not believe they have enough evidence of Comey's intent to violate the law."

WTH! FBI agents went to Comey's house a month after he was fired to pick up documents he was not suppose to have. Not enough evidence to show intent my ***!

[Jul 29, 2019] Looks like E>pstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier

Highly recommended!
Did Mueller done this at the request of Clintons?
Notable quotes:
"... That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows. ..."
"... *CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating Inside the U.S. ..."
"... That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is highly probable. ..."
"... For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that, for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties. ..."
"... Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects. ..."
"... Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands. There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told. ..."
"... As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over." ..."
"... The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death. ..."
"... Boy that Mueller has had a busy career hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he did or didn't do. ..."
"... Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone. ..."
"... In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and to the corridors of power throughout Europe. ..."
"... Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something on them? ..."
"... Epstein is the destruction of the Deep State. ..."
"... That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one. ..."
"... The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution ring. ..."
"... Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103 bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation. ..."
"... The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being sued by his lead investigator in that case. ..."
"... Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite, the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the hip ..."
"... partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world. ..."
"... The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union, along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services. ..."
"... The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities run by the two main communications intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS. ..."
"... Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then, three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations. ..."
"... For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief, to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized. ..."
"... Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations. ..."
"... Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree. ..."
"... There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars." ..."
Jul 11, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

leveymg on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 11:30am

That was while Robert Mueller ran the Bureau, which means everything about Epstein's blackmail and kompromat operation has been tucked safely away out of sight in FBI files for at least a decade. Much longer, new evidence shows.

For those who may have wondered why Epstein was given such an incredible deal in sentencing, that explains it. Epstein was an extraordinary value informant, and he leveraged it. https://truepundit.com/fbi-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-was-informant-for-m...

A figure who often gets overlooked in this is Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's chief procurer of underage girls. Ghislaine, the daughter of publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, was granted immunity and never charged in exchange for her own cooperation in the 2008 pseudo-prosecution. https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/ghislaine-maxwell/ ; https://pagesix.com/2016/03/17/alleged-epstein-madam-forced-to-hand-over...

The real question is, why did the FBI wait for more than a decade to bust Epstein and Maxwell?

Epstein and Maxwell came to the attention of the FBI in 1996, when, curiously, the Bureau never acted on an accusation that they had together sexually abused a 15 year old girl in a bedroom inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Documents in a recent law suit filed by an alleged victim, Maria Farmer, show that the FBI had been aware of Epstein and Maxwell's child abuse activities in New York for at least a dozen years before Epstein was finally charged in 2008 with much-reduced Florida state offenses. https://www.yourtango.com/2019323698/who-maria-farmer-latest-woman-accus...

Farmer claims she reported her sexual assault to New York police and the FBI in 1996. "To my knowledge, I was the first person to report Maxwell and Epstein to the FBI," she wrote in her affidavit."

*CIA Acknowledged in 2003, It Knew that Ghislaine Maxwell's Late Father was a Major Foreign Intelligence Agent Operating Inside the U.S.

Previously, Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine's father, had for many years been known to have been involved in high-level espionage in the United States, as detailed in a 2003 publication of the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, The Intelligence Officer's Bookshelf . Therein, the CIA reviewer of a biography by British author Gordon Thomas acknowledged about Maxwell: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-pub...

That Robert Maxwell was a ruthless, corrupt, tax-dodging international businessman who served as an Israeli agent is highly probable.

For the deeper background to the Epstein-Maxwell multinational blackmail, coverup and kompromat operation, we have to look at the events that led up to the 1991 death of Robert Maxwell. A summary of the Maxwell bio by its authors recounts:

British Publisher Robert Maxwell
Was Mossad Spy
By Gordon Thomas And Martin Dillon
The Mirror - UK
12-6-2002
[ . . .]
Eleven years after former Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell plunged from his luxury yacht to a watery grave, his death still arouses intense interest.

Many different theories have circulated about what really happened on board the Lady Ghislaine that night in May 1991.

[ . . . ]

The Jewish millionaire and former Labour MP [born Ludvik Hoch
in Czechoslovakia] died the way he had lived - threatening.

He had threatened his wife. Threatened his children. Threatened the staff of this newspaper.

But finally he issued one threat too many - he threatened Mossad.

He told them that unless they gave him £400million to save his crumbling empire, he would expose all he had done for them.

In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and to the corridors of power throughout Europe.

On top of that he had built himself a position of power within the crime families of eastern Europe, teaching them how to funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around the globe.

Maxwell passed on all the secrets he learned to Mossad in Tel Aviv. In turn, they tolerated his excesses, vanities and insatiable appetite for a luxurious lifestyle and women.

He told his controllers who they should target and how they should do it. He appointed himself as Israel's unofficial ambassador to the Soviet Bloc. Mossad saw the advantage in that.

[ . . . ]

The more successful Maxwell became the more risks he took and the more dangerous he was to Mossad. At the same time, the very public side of Maxwell, who then owned 400 companies, began to unwind.

He spent lavishly and lost money on deals. The more he lost, the more he tried to claw money from the banks. Then he saw a way out of his problems.

He was approached by Vladimir Kryuchkov, head of the KGB. Spymaster and tycoon met in the utmost secrecy in the Kremlin.

Kryuchkov had an extraordinary proposal. He wanted Maxwell to help orchestrate the overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist Soviet leader. That would bring to an end a fledgling democracy and a return to the Cold War days.

In return, Maxwell's massive debts would be wiped out by a grateful Kryuchkov, who planned to replace Gorbachev. The KGB chief wanted Maxwell to use the Lady Ghislaine, named after Maxwell's daughter, as a meeting place between the Russian plotters, Mossad chiefs and Israel's top politicians.

The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control. In return, Kryuchkov would guarantee to free hundreds of thousands of Jews and dissidents in the Soviet republics.

Kryuchkov told Maxwell that he would be seen as a saviour of all those Jews. It was a proposal he could not refuse. But when he put it to his Mossad controllers they were horrified. They said Israel would have no part in such a madcap plan.

For the first time, Maxwell had failed to get his own way. He started to threaten and bluster. He then demanded that, for past services, he should receive immediately a quick fix of £400million to bale him out of his financial difficulties.

Instead of providing the money, a small group of Mossad officers set about planning his murder. They feared that he was going to publicly expose all Mossad had done in the time he worked for them. They knew that he was gradually becoming mentally unstable and paranoid. He was taking a cocktail of drugs - Halcion and Zanax - which had serious side effects.

The group of Mossad plotters sensed, like Solomon, he could bring their temple tumbling down and cause incalculable harm to Israel. The plan to kill him was prepared in the utmost secrecy. A four-man squad was briefed.

Then Maxwell was contacted. He was told to fly to Gibraltar, go aboard the Lady Ghislaine and sail to the Canary Islands. There at sea he would receive his £400million quick fix in the form of a banker's draft. Maxwell did as he was told.

On the night of November 4, 1991, the Lady Ghislaine, one of the world's biggest yachts, was at sea.

[ . . . ]

As Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent told us: "On that cold night Mossad's problems with Robert Maxwell were over."

The incontrovertible facts about his murder are contained in a previously-unseen autopsy report by Britain's then-leading forensic pathologist Dr Iain West and Israel State Pathologist Dr Yehuda Hiss. Of all the documents in our possession, these reports confirm the truth about Maxwell's death.

Gordon Thomas & Martin Dillon are authors of The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy, published by Robson Books.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12419168&method=f...

The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked. The answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its several operators to let it all end too soon.

###

Linda Wood on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 12:45pm
Two parts of your reporting

leap out at me as suggesting how Epstein connects to much bigger subjects. First is the assertion that Maxwell was

... teaching them how to funnel their vast wealth from drugs, arms smuggling and prostitution to banks in safe havens around the globe.

This area of trafficking and money laundering directly connects to Mueller and his essential exoneration of HSBC .

The other quotation that suggests the importance of money laundering is here:

The plan was for the Israelis to go to Washington and say that democracy could not work in Russia and that it was better to allow the country to return to a modified form of communism, which America could help to control.

The life's work of Antony Sutton at Stanford's Hoover Institution shows that American industry was ALWAYS controlling communism as well as Soviet industrial development, and that a trend toward social democracy, represented by Gorbachev, would have put an end to that control.

leveymg on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 4:29pm
Curiously, the CIA review of the Maxwell bio doesn't touch on

@Linda Wood his money laundering and blackmailing activities. While the review confirms that Robert Maxwell was for decades a major Mossad agent actively setting up operations and cover in the United States and the UK, I can only surmise that the spreading political influence of Eastern European organized crime networks and child honey traps are things that the Agency didn't want to discuss publicly in 2003.

As for Mueller, let's not forget that he was FBI Director and before that the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice at the time that global "black finance" grew along with the catastrophic spread of multinational crime and terrorism. BCCI, Iran-Contra, 9/11, and the rise of transnational Oligarchs happened on his watch. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States at the time, it is hard to imagine anyone more responsibility for the ultimate consequences than Robert Mueller. There is perhaps someone who bears ultimate responsibility, the President who appointed Mueller: George Herbert Walker Bush and his lesser son, Shrub, who promoted him.

Pluto's Republic on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 5:21pm
From your own research

@leveymg

... wouldn't you assume that this entire affair is an ongoing Mossad operation, which may or may not have concluded? The US IC is just another operative inside the envelope, but Mossad owns the assets and the intellectual property. I think we could assume that some of this is automated and Mossad has ongoing leverage still in play.

The obvious question, why did the U.S. government let these intelligence crimes continue for decades, isn't being asked. The answer is almost self-evident. Information and leverage obtained by Maxwell-Epstein and Co. was far too valuable to its several operators to let it all end too soon.

.

Mossad's legendary blackmail traps ensnared even high-level deep state authorities and made them pliable. The recent history of United States foreign policy is an enigma that can only be solved when that assumption is inserted. Once the assumption is in place, it opens like a Pandora's box. Don't you find that to be the case?

Thanks for compiling this revealing argument.

Deja on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 11:03pm
HSBC?

@Linda Wood
From your link:

In a recent investigation I presented the case that British banking and financial giant HSBC conspired with banking institutions with documented links to terrorist financing, including those responsible for helping bankroll the 9/11 attacks.

Thank you for the link!

Linda Wood on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 1:11pm
HSBC article

linked here does not mention Mueller but does outline the crimes Mueller worked so hard not to solve:

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2012/07/black-dossier-hsbc-terro...

SUNDAY, JULY 29, 2012
Black Dossier: HSBC & Terrorist Finance

Moral equivalencies abound. After all, when American secret state agencies manage drug flows or direct terrorist proxies to attack official enemies it's not quite the same as battling terror or crime.

Pounding home that point, a new report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations accused HSBC of exposing "the U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering (AML) controls."

That 335-page report, "U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History," (large pdf file available here ) was issued after a year-long Senate investigation zeroed-in on the bank's U.S. affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., better known as HBUS.

Drilling down, we learned that amongst the "services" offered by HSBC subsidiaries and correspondent banks were sweet deals with financial entities with terrorist ties; the transportation of billions of dollars in cash by plane and armored car through their London Banknotes division; the clearing of sequentially-numbered travelers checks through dodgy Cayman Islands accounts for Mexican drug lords and Russian mafiosi.

From richly-appointed suites at Canary Wharf, London, the bank's "smartest guys in the room" handed some of the most violent gangsters on earth the financial wherewithal to organize their respective industries: global crime.

A case in point. In 2008 alone the Senate revealed that the bank's Cayman Islands branch handled some 50,000 client accounts (all without benefit of offices or staff on Grand Cayman, mind you), yet still managed to ship some $7 billion (£10.9bn) in cash from Mexico into the U.S. Now that's creative accounting!...

Alligator Ed on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 10:49pm
Thank you, Linda

@Linda Wood HSBC, huh--there must be some clever name for it, which deserves no research.
what an eloquent article you presented. Brief but right on target. It isn't just sex, drugs and rock and roll. Now it is drugs - money -sexual perversion--and perhaps worse? Rumors are flying about what video on the Weiner laptop showed. It is strictly heresay, but a core of folks seem to believe the suspicions are possible.

snoopydawg on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 8:48pm
Boy that Mueller has had a busy career hasn't he? Didn't he start out in Chicago where he gave Whitey Bulgar cover for being a mob boss? Then there's his cover up before and after 9/11. The weapons of mass destruction that he said Saddam had. The anthrax prosecution, Epstein's pedophilia cover up, HSBC and now he is trying to cover Hillary's buttocks. And maybe Obama's? I'm sure I've missed a few things that he did or didn't do.

Acosta is saying that if he hadn't made the plea deal then Epstein would never have served any time in prison. Well he actually only slept there since he got to leave every day for work and then there's the massages he got after his busy day at work. But there were more than 80 pages that the Feds wrote on his escapades so I think that story he told congress is true. Acosta was told to stand down by someone at the top of the food chain. Mueller. Ugh what a slimy piece of work he is. But not to the Russia Gaters. Oh no. "He is a highly decorated marine who takes no guff from anyone.

In that time, he had free access to Margaret Thatcher's Downing Street, to Ronald Reagan's White House, to the Kremlin and to the corridors of power throughout Europe.

Inquiring minds want to know did Maxwell have access to Margaret and Ron because they liked him or because he had something on them?

Great information! The more I learn the more I need a shower.

Linda Wood on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 9:11pm
That needing a shower thing

@snoopydawg

is how I've been feeling all week from reading about this, just more and more demoralized when I think about the depravation of our so-called "leadership." What is it that we're supposed to think of as the new normal after this behavior?

Alligator Ed on Thu, 07/11/2019 - 10:53pm
Linda, you could shower in my extra long tub

@Linda Wood No problem--but, seriously, yecch! Epstein is the destruction of the Deep State.

leveymg on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 1:02pm
Remember Craig Spence and the 1989 Whitehouse Call Boy Ring?

@snoopydawg

That pedophelia and politics scandal, better known as the Franklin Coverup, made the papers for a few months, too, before it was made to go away. Similarly, a couple of the operators served some time on reduced charges after that one.

The two main suspects in the Bush, Sr. White House child ring were Craig Spence and Lawrence E. King Jr. King sang the National anthem at two GOP national conventions. He served time in jail for bank fraud. Spence was a Republican lobbyist before he committed suicide. Several of his partners went to jail for being involved in the adult part of the homosexual prostitution ring.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Franklin/FranklinCoverup/l...

Roy Blakeley on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 12:29pm
And let's not forget

@snoopydawg

Mueller's scrupulous avoidance of the CIA link in his prosecution of Manuel Noriega and his diversion of the PanAm 103 bombing and framing of two Libyans. Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.

Linda Wood on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 1:09pm
Absolutely.

@Roy Blakeley

You sum it up perfectly:

Bobby Mueller has been a real go to guy when the security establishment needs a phony investigation.

The anthrax investigation is the most serious of his crimes. Mueller is being sued by his lead investigator in that case.

Because researchers in our biological weapons labs went public with what they were doing, and where such research was being done in the U.S., we learned the CIA was one of several outfits doing biological weapons research.

But Mueller exonerated all of them, including the CIA, with no explanation and only focused on a lone vaccine researcher at the Army lab when journalists began to ask why no one had been indicted after seven years of investigation, at which point the FBI attempted to harass the suspect into committing suicide.

lotlizard on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 1:44am
Comparable to "Deep State" scandals in Turkey?

Every now and then, here and there the curtain lifts for a moment and the political elite of a country, the business elite, the spy services, the military, and organized crime are revealed to be all working together, indeed practically joined at the hip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susurluk_scandal

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ergenekon-plot-massive-trial-...

leveymg on Sat, 07/13/2019 - 11:08am
Read "Politics of Heroin in SE Asia". The CIA-Mafia-warlord

@lotlizard @lotlizard

partnership started during the early Cold War with US intelligence officers facilitating the drug trade out of Turkey and Burma through Europe. That soon spread to the Americas and globally. Covert operations such as Gladio, Condor, and the Safari Club, and associated banks (Franklin National Bank, BCCI, Riggs Bank, HSBC, etc.) produced massive human rights violations, transnational terrorism and governmental corruption. The CIA's secret wars provided funds and official cover for private-public sector alliance of criminals, bankers and spooks around the world.

This "dark alliance" assumed a political and economic life of its own beyond its original intent to counter communist movements. By the Vietnam War, Agency operators were running most of the heroin trade in the world through proprietary airlines, banks and logistics companies. In the mid-1970s, CIA Director Bush expanded privatization with Saudi funding in his Safari Club deal that eventually morphed into Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The CIA, MI6 and Mossad ran overlapping coordinated operations using privateers, paramilitaries and organized crime networks that consumed vast amounts of cash generated by money laundering mechanisms. Enriched by the looting of the former Soviet Union, along with the infusion of Arab oil money (the Saudi Yamamah slush fund), the "Octopus" became the instrument of Oligarchs that have thoroughly corrupted western governments and secret services.

Multinational honey trap operations such as Maxwell-Epstein & Co. are an inevitable and continuing part of this privatization and criminalization of intelligence that stretches back to the days of Tom Braden and Cord Meyer handing out stacks of greenbacks to Mafiosi on the Corsican Docks.

leveymg on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 11:31am
NSA and GCHQ have gotten into the honeytrap and influence game

@leveymg

The Snowden release included a number of documents that illustrate the on-line entrapment and political disruption activities run by the two main communications intelligence agencies.

"Honey-trap; a great option. Very successful, when it works" (GCHQ, UK training program slide)

https://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2014/05/lots-of-secret-nsa-documents-plu...

The "Information Ops" category is of particular interest to me...

Does this really seem like the sort of thing that would be done only to a jihadist...?

WoodsDweller on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 1:48pm
Here's an interesting take

https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/epstein-was-running-a-blackmail-scheme-...

Without quoting the whole thing (which is worth a read):

Epstein recruits young girls, throws parties where he invites potential hedge fund clients, lets nature take its course and films the proceedings, extracts blackmail in the form of investments to his (largely fake) hedge fund, which actually just buys an index fund (no actual fund management required). He takes a percentage from the coerced investments. Nobody talks because they have too much to lose. No suspicious payments to raise eyebrows at the IRS.

There's no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that's just needlessly overfitting.

Except such an operation would be quite attractive to intelligence services. Maybe they were in on the ground floor, maybe they made Epstein an offer he couldn't refuse once they heard about it.

leveymg on Sat, 07/13/2019 - 10:28am
My gut tells me that G. Maxwell provided the Know-how, and

@WoodsDweller

Epstein brought in the clients. The CIA/MI-6/Mossad provided necessary cover from the FBI and local cops - then, three or four agencies shared the intelligence take, as they had for decades from Robert Maxwell's operations.

For Ghislaine, it was simply carrying on the family business for fun and profit. For the spooks, it was business as usual going back to the Green House, the Berlin bordello founded in the the 1870s by Wilhelm Steiber, a Prussian Police section chief, to provide useful intelligence to Bismarck's Military Intelligence, which he reorganized.

Steiber is considered the father of modern espionage. His methods were vastly influential, and he attracted students from London, St. Petersburg to Tokyo. Each put their own national spin on the science of sexual blackmail. As for the Japanese, they are among the most interesting and innovative in their use of a parallel network of privatized intelligence services incorporating underworld Yakuzi groups alongside conventional military intelligence units. Using compromise, they gained and maintained control over Imperial Japan and its Colonies: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/03/15/eastern-peril/

To realize these divinely inspired ambitions, Japan needed a modern espionage system. Adopting the German model, Japanese officials were sent to study under Wilhelm Stieber in the mid-1870s. Over the next decade Japan built up separate army and naval intelligence services, each with an accompanying branch of secret military police (Kempeitai for the army and Tokeitai for the navy). These latter organizations also provided an excellent counter-espionage service. However, where the Japanese were unique was in the use of spies belonging to unofficial secret societies working alongside or independently of the official intelligence agencies. These shadowy institutions were ultra-nationalist by nature, drawing their membership from a cross-section of Japanese society, including the military, politics, industry and Yakuza underworld. Under ruthless leadership, their henchmen would spy on, subvert and corrupt Japan's Far East neighbours.

For more on Steiber and his superior, von Hinckeldey, methods of international counter-insurgency, espionage, and political policing included deception and a forerunner of today's internet surveillance: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/29/275653/-

While armies are essential to the maintenance of autocracy, the preservation of dynastic rule and the prevention of democracy requires an effective secret police. The suppression of its middle-class constitutionalists [during the 1840s] was followed by the expansion of the Prussian political police under Karl Ludwig Friedrich von Hinckeldey.

Appointed police president of Berlin in late 1848, Hinckeldey was an innovator of many of the features of modern systematic political policing. Among the tactics that he introduced with his new police system in Berlin was the "Litfass columns". Named for Ernst Litfass, Frederick William's court printer, he had dozens of these large poles erected in strategic spots around Berlin. The public posting of political notices was then banned. By application to a state office for a waiver, however, the columns could be used to display messages. The police dutifully recorded the names of all who had applied. A. Richie, Faust's Metropolis: A History of Berlin, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998 at p.134.

LEGACY OF THE LITFASS COLUMNS: A similar ploy was later adopted by the People's Republic of China. In the mid-1980s, the Communist authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing could post political writings, initially, without being arrested. Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities in other Chinese cities. For this apparent opening to democracy, the Deng regime much applauded, particularly by some in the Reagan-Bush Administration, eager to legitimize the regime and its growing commercial ties with U.S. corporations. Eventually, many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters that followed the Tienamen Square massacre. The impression of anonymity and "freedom" conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police to cast a wide net for identifying persons and organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in the future.

Hinckeldey also founded the Police Union, the first recorded international network of counterrevolutionary police spies in modern times. Primarily made up of police officers from Prussia and the German states, the Union operated throughout Europe, Britain and in the United States. The Union was run by his deputy, the notorious police provocateur, Wilhelm Steiber, who would later reorganize the Okhrana along similar lines. Internationally active from 1851-1866, the Police Union, according to Mathieu Deflem, was "one of the first formal initiatives in industrial society to establish an organized police system across national borders."13

I disagree with the Alternet view on this. See, this is the norm. A purely private sexual blackmail ring of any scale would be the historical exception. It certainly wouldn't survive very long.

Pluto's Republic on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 5:45pm
This is a chilling thought I try to avoid.

@leveymg

...authorities at first appear to tolerate the operation of a so-called Democracy Wall, where "dissidents" in Beijing could post political writings.... Similar walls then sprung up under the noses of the authorities in other Chinese cities. Eventually, many of those who had availed themselves of the wall to post political messages were, of course, arrested in the roundup of hundreds of thousands of democracy supporters....

The impression of anonymity and "freedom" conveyed by the Internet, of course, presents a similar opportunity for police to cast a wide net for identifying persons and organizations who may not hold favor for the regime in power, or may not in the future.

But why should one avoid the thought? If the situation looks like the people are going to lose the war for their minds, and are unwilling to back a publisher like Assange who has given his all to try to empower them, why should anyone put themselves at risk by expressing their opinions? It's a honeypot of our own making, just as Facebook is where people go to write their own dossiers for the Authorities.

leveymg on Sat, 07/13/2019 - 10:36am
Every time you entrap yourself as

@Pluto's Republic an enemy of the status quo, you raise the calculated costs of the eventual crackdown, pushing back the day of reckoning. Keep it up! Visible rebellion is the only defense of the people.

Pluto's Republic on Fri, 07/12/2019 - 5:54pm
Background: If someone were to choose the ideal node

...from which to leverage access to the elite, Harvard University would be a top choice.

Jeffery Epstein actually entered the social salons of the elite through many doors. He was, of course, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. One would have to be to rub shoulders with the political elite. From there he matriculated to the Trilateral Commission becoming friendly with Harvard President, Larry Summers. **

Becoming a surprise mystery philanthropist at Harvard, with Summers help, was a booster rocket for Epstein. In the Havard Crimson , in June 2003, Epstein's involvement with Harvard was celebrated.

People in the News: Jeffrey E. Epstein

Elusive financier Jeffrey E. Epstein donated $30 million this year to Harvard for the founding of a mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program.

While the mathematics teacher turned magnate remained unknown to most people until he flew President Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development facing the region, Epstein has been a familiar face to many at Harvard for years.

Networking with the University's leading intellectuals, Epstein has spurred research through both discussions with and dollars contributed to various faculty members.

Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn, former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky and Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz are among Epstein's bevy of eminent friends that includes princes, presidents and Nobel Prize winners.

Epstein is also well acquainted with University President Lawrence H. Summers. The two serve together on the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, two elite international relations organizations.

Epstein's collection of high-profile friends also includes newly-recruited professor Martin A. Nowak, who will run Harvard's mathematical biology and evolutionary dynamics program.

Like Kosslyn, Rosovsky and Dershowitz, Nowak praises Epstein's numerous relationships within the scientific community.

"I am amazed by the connections he has in the scientific world," Nowak says. "He knows an amazing number of scientists. He knows everyone you can imagine."

Epstein's relationships within the academy are remarkable since the tycoon, who has amassed his fortune by managing the wealth of billionaires from his private Caribbean island, does not hold a bachelor's degree.

Yet, friends and beneficiaries say they do not see Epstein merely as a man with deep pockets, but as an intellectual equal.

Dershowitz says Epstein is "brilliant" and Kosslyn calls Epstein "one of the brightest people I've ever known."

Epstein's beneficiaries say they are particularly appreciative of the no-strings-attached approach Epstein takes with his donations.

"He is one of the most pleasant philanthropists," Nowak says. "Unlike many people who support science, he supports science without any conditions. There are not any disadvantages to associating with him."

Friends and associates say Harvard stands to benefit from its evolving relationship with Epstein.

"I hope that he will, over time, become one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard," Rosovsky writes in an e-mail.

__________________________________________
** A footnote on Larry Summers seems important here: Harvard-trained economists have been running the US economy for a very long time, and continue to do so. Summers began his ascent as a professor of economics at Harvard University, leaving shortly before Bill Clinton won the Presidency. He was clearly the Neoliberal seed planted for the New American Century.

In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.

While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the Harvard Institute for International Development and American-advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

At This Point the Ball is Passed to the Bush Team Republicans, while the Democrats Sit Back and Wait for 2008.

There's now a Treasury surplus to transfer to the wealthy, and the necessary deregulation for Wall Street empowerment is in place. The Soviet era had ended and Russia is ended forever. The world is finally primed to be seized by the One Exceptional Power. It's 2001, and we are standing on the threshold of the New American Century . Time to throw a flash-bang of chaos onto the world stage and trigger the booming War Economy that will carry us directly to global control.

There's a rocky road ahead for Larry Summers. Summers introduces Epstein into the Harvard fold, but becomes reckless with his newly-refined Neoliberalism and his opinions concerning "lady scholars."

Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization. Remarking upon political correctness in institutions of higher education, Summers said in 2016:

Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering

There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.

After his departure from Harvard, Summers cooled his jets on Wall Street, positioning himself to be called back into the game when it was Team Democrat's turn in 2008.

Summers worked as a managing partner at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co., and as a freelance speaker at other financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Summers rejoined public service during the Obama administration, serving as the Director of the White House United States National Economic Council for President Barack Obama from January 2009 until November 2010, where he emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration's response to the Great Recession.

Jeffery Epstein continued to weave himself into the fabric of government like a good psychopath would. He was by no means the only one.

[Jul 29, 2019] CrowdStrikeOut Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims by Aaron Matι

Notable quotes:
"... The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it. ..."
"... The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers. ..."
"... It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe. ..."
"... The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust. ..."
Jul 25, 2019 | off-guardian.org
Vaska
Originally by Aaron Matι, July 5, 2019 First published by RealClearInvestigations .

At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate hearing.

While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report's evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks. The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them. There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores. Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA). Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity. John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report: potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.

Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails

The Mueller report's narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.

In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:

Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC's mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [ Italics added for emphasis.]

The report's use of that one word, "appear," undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment , which contained no such qualifier:

"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusing assertions in court, he didn't have to worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations in question."

The report also concedes that Mueller's team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."

Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:

Contrary to Mueller's sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best, suggesting that the GRU, via its purported cutout Guccifer 2.0, may have transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

A Questionable Timeline

Mueller's uncertainty over the theft and transfer of Democratic Party emails isn't the only gap in his case. Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

As the Mueller report confirms, on June 12, 2016, Assange told an interviewer, "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great." But Mueller reports that "WikiLeaks's First Contact With Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks" comes two days after that announcement:

If Assange's "First Contact" with DC Leaks came on June 14, and with Guccifer 2.0 on June 22, then what was Assange talking about on June 12? It is possible that Assange heard from another supposed Russian source before then; but if so, Mueller doesn't know it. Instead the report offers the implausible scenario that their first contact came after Assange's announcement.

There is another issue with the report's Guccifer 2.0-WikiLeaks timeline. Assange would have been announcing the pending release of stolen emails not just before he heard from the source , but also before he received the stolen emails . As noted earlier, Mueller suggested that WikiLeaks received the stolen material from Guccifer 2.0 "on or around" July 14 – a full month after Assange publicly announced that he had them.

In yet one more significant inconsistency, Mueller asserts that the two Russian outfits running the Kremlin-backed operation -- Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks – communicated about their covert activities over Twitter. Mueller reports that on Sept. 15, 2016:

The Twitter account@guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the personas. During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.

Why would Russian intelligence cutouts running a sophisticated interference campaign communicate over an easily monitored social media platform? In one of many such instances throughout the report, Mueller shows no curiosity in pursuing this obvious question.

For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017. "WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the Russian government."

Guccifer 2.0: A Sketchy Source

While Mueller admits he does not know for certain how the DNC emails were stolen or how they were transmitted to WikiLeaks, the report creates the impression that Russian intelligence cutout Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen material to Assange.

In fact, there are strong grounds for doubt. To begin with, Guccifer 2.0 – who was unknown until June 2016 – burst onto the scene to demand credit as WikiLeaks' source. This publicity-seeking is not standard spycraft.

More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian has reported for The New Yorker, the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks. For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, "but which were almost surely not," Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a "dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC." The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was "Felix Dzerzhinsky," the Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.

WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists "to send me their questions via Twitter Direct Messages." And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer 2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017 interview, Assange said he "didn't publish" any material from that source because much of it had been published elsewhere and because "we didn't have the resources to independently verify."

Mueller Didn't Speak With Assange

Some of these issues might have been resolved had Mueller not declined to interview Assange, despite Assange's multiple efforts.

According to a 2018 report by John Solomon in The Hill, Assange told the Justice Department the previous year that he "was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out certain parties" in the leaking of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. Given Assange's previous denials of Russia's involvement, that seems to indicate he was willing to provide evidence that Moscow was not his source. But he never got the chance. According to Solomon, FBI Director James Comey personally intervened with an order that U.S. officials "stand down," setting off a chain of events that scuttled the talks.

Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these overtures, though it does cite and dismiss "media reports" that "Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an 'inside job,' and purported to have 'physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange."

Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation.

No Server Inspection, Reliance on CrowdStrike

Before he nixed U.S. government contacts with Assange, Comey was implicated in another key investigative lapse – the FBI's failure to conduct its own investigation of the DNC's servers, which housed the record of alleged intrusions and malware used to steal information. As Comey told Congress in March 2017, the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves." Instead, he explained, the bureau relied on CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."

While acknowledging that the FBI would "always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves, if that's possible," Comey emphasized his confidence in the information provided by CrowdStrike, which he called "a highly respected private company" and "a high-class entity."

CrowdStrike's accuracy is far from a given. Days after Comey's testimony, CrowdStrike was forced to retract its claim that Russian software was used to hack Ukrainian military hardware. CrowdStrike's error is especially relevant because it had accused the GRU of using that same software in hacking the DNC.

There is also reason to question CrowdStrike's impartiality. Its co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the preeminent Washington think tank that aggressively promotes a hawkish posture towards Russia. CrowdStrike executive Shawn Henry, who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia for the DNC breach, previously served as assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.

And CrowdStrike was hired to perform the analysis of the DNC servers by Perkins Coie – the law firm that also was responsible for contracting Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson declined a request for comment on its role in the Russia investigation.

The picture is further clouded by the conflicting accounts regarding the servers. A DNC spokesperson told BuzzFeed in early January 2017 that "the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers." But Comey told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee days later that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," but for unknown reasons, he explained, those requests were denied.

While failing to identify the "different levels" he consulted, Comey never explained why the FBI took no for an answer. As part of a criminal investigation, the FBI could have seized the servers to ensure a proper chain of evidentiary custody. In investigating a crime, alleged victims do not get to dictate to law enforcement how they can inspect the crime scene.

The report fails to address any of this, suggesting a lack of interest in even fundamental questions if they might reflect poorly on the FBI.

The Mueller report states that "as part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But it does not specify how much "later" it received those server images or who provided them. Based on the statements of Comey and other U.S. officials, it is quite likely that they came from CrowdStrike, though the company gets only passing mention in the redacted report.

Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.

If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.

There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.

Redacted CrowdStrike Reports

While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things, allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton's emails.

Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu explained , CrowdStrike itself redacted the reports that it provided to the government:

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC's legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."

According to an affidavit filed for Stone's defense by Binney, the speed transfer rate and the file formatting of the DNC data indicate that they were moved on to a storage device, not hacked over the Internet. In a rebuttal, Stone's prosecutors said that the file information flagged by Binney "would be equally consistent with Russia intelligence officers using a thumb drive to transfer hacked materials among themselves after the hack took place." In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Binney could not rule out that possibility. But conversely, the evidence laid out by Mueller is so incomplete and uncertain that Binney's theory cannot be ruled out either. The very fact that DoJ prosecutors, in their response to Binney, do not rule out his theory that a thumb drive was used to transfer the material is an acknowledgment in that direction.

The lack of clarity around Mueller's intelligence community sourcing might appear inconsequential given the level of detail in his account of alleged Russian hacking. But in light of the presence of potentially biased and politically conflicted sources like CrowdStrike, and the absence of certainty revealed in Mueller's lengthy account, the fact that his sourcing remains an open question makes it difficult to accept that he has delivered definitive answers. If Mueller had the invasive window into Russian intelligence that he claims to, it seems incongruous that he would temper his purported descriptions of their actions with tentative, qualified language. Mueller's hedging suggests a broader conclusion at odds with the report's own findings: that the U.S. government does not have ironclad proof about who hacked the DNC.

Social Media Campaign

Mueller's other "central allegation" regards a "Russian 'Active Measures' Social Media Campaign" with the aim of "sowing discord" and helping to elect Trump.

In fact, Mueller does not directly attribute that campaign to the Russian government, and makes only the barest attempt to imply a Kremlin connection. According to Mueller, the social media "form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled."

After two years and $35 million, Mueller apparently failed to uncover any direct evidence linking the Prigozhin-controlled IRA's activities to the Kremlin. His best evidence is that "[n]umerous media sources have reported on Prigozhin's ties to Putin, and the two have appeared together in public photographs." The footnote for this references a lone article in the New York Times. (Both the Times and the Washington Post are cited frequently throughout the report. The two outlets received and published intelligence community leaks throughout the Russia probe.)

Further, in a newly unsealed July 1 ruling , a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having "improperly suggested a link" between the IRA and the Russian government. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Mueller's February 2018 indictment "does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government" and alleges "only private conduct by private actors." The judge added the government's statements violate a prohibiting lawyers from making claims that would prejudice a case.

Even putting aside the complete absence of a Kremlin role, the case that the Russian government sought to influence the U.S. election via a social media campaign is hard to grasp given how minuscule it was. Mueller says the IRA spent $100,000 between 2015 and 2017. Of that, just $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the 2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05% of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined -- which is itself a tiny fraction of the estimated $2 billion spent by the candidates and their supporting PACS.

Then there is the fact that so little of this supposed election interference campaign content actually concerned the election. Mueller himself cites a review by Twitter of tweets from "accounts associated with the IRA" in the 10 weeks before the 2016 election, which found that "approximately 8.4% were election-related." This tracks with a report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that found that "explicitly political content was a small percentage" of the content attributed to the IRA. The IRA's posts "were minimally about the candidates," with "roughly 6% of tweets, 18% of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts" having "mentioned Trump or Clinton by name."

Yet Mueller circumvents this with what sound like impressive figures:

IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts. In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled account.

Upon scrutiny, Mueller's figures are exaggerated, to say the least. Take Mueller's claim that Russian posts reached "as many as 126 million" Facebook users. That figure is in fact a spin on Facebook's own guess, as articulated by Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch's congressional testimony in October 2017. "Our best estimate ," Stretch told lawmakers, "is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a page associated with the IRA at some point during the two-year period ." And the "two-year period" extends far beyond the 2016 election, to August 2017. Overall, Stretch added, posts from suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook's News Feed comprised "approximately 1 out of [every] 23,000 pieces of content."

Yet another reason to question the Russian operation's sophistication is the quality of its content. The IRA's most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a gun-wielding Yosemite Sam . On Instagram, the best-received image urged users to give it a "Like" if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election that mentioned Hillary Clinton was a conspiratorial screed about voter fraud . Another ad featured Jesus consoling a dejected young man by telling him: "Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together."

Mueller also reports that the IRA successfully organized "dozens" of rallies "while posing as U.S. grassroots activists." Sounds impressive, but the most successful effort appears to have been in Houston, where Russian trolls allegedly organized dueling rallies pitting a dozen white supremacists against several dozen counter-protesters outside an Islamic center. Elsewhere, the IRA had underwhelming results, according to media reports: At several rallies in Florida " it's unclear if anyone attended ," the Daily Beast later noted; "no people showed up to at least one," and "ragtag groups" showed up at others , the Washington Post reported, including one where video footage captured a crowd of eight people .

Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports suggest that Russian troll farm workers engaged in futile efforts to spark contentious rallies in a handful of states. When it comes to the ads, they may have been engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as " a social media marketing campaign ." Mueller's February 2018 indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold "promotions and advertisements" on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. "This strategy," a Senate report from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project observes, "is not an invention for politics and foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing."

That, in fact, was Facebook's initial conclusion. As the Washington Post first reported , Facebook's initial review of Russian social media activity in late 2016 and early 2017 found that the troll farm's pages "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a foreign government." That view only changed, the Post added, after "aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama" developed "theories" to help them "explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events" in their loss of the 2016 election. Among these theories: "Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas." Despite the fact that "these former advisers didn't have hard evidence," the Democratic aides found a receptive audience in both congressional intelligence committees. Democrat Mark Warner, the Senate intel vice chairman, personally flew out to Facebook headquarters in California to press the case. Not long after, in the summer of 2017, Facebook went public with its new "findings" about Russian trolls. Mueller has followed their lead – just as the FBI followed the leads of other Democratic sources in pursuing both the collusion (Fusion GPS) and Russian hacking (CrowdStrike) allegations.

John Brennan and the ICA

As it falls short of proving its case for a "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference campaign, the Mueller report also fails to support its claim regarding the motive behind such efforts. In the introduction to Volume I, Mueller states that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." But nowhere in the ensuing 440 pages does Mueller produce any evidence to substantiate that central claim.

Instead Mueller appears to be relying on the intelligence community assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 – four months before his appointment – that accused the Russian government of running an "influence campaign" that aimed "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," and hurt Hillary Clinton's "electability and potential presidency" as part of what it called Russia's "clear preference for President-elect Trump."

But the ICA itself produced no evidence for any of these assertions. Its equivocation is even more blunt than Mueller's: The ICA report's conclusions, it states, are "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

On the core conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump, there is not even uniformity: While the FBI and CIA claim to have "high confidence" in that judgment, the NSA makes a conspicuous deviation in expressing that it has only "moderate confidence."

As it casts doubt on a core allegation of Russia's alleged motives, the NSA's dissent debunks the oft-repeated claim that the ICA represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

Moreover, it would even be misleading to portray the ICA as the product of the three agencies that produced it – the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Instead, there are multiple indications that the ICA is primarily the work of one person, who would spend the next two years accusing Trump of treason: then-CIA Director John Brennan.

A March 2018 report from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee says that Brennan personally oversaw the entire ICA process from start to finish. In December 2016, the GOP report recounts, President Obama "directed Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 elections." The resulting ICA "was drafted by CIA analysts" and merely " coordinated with the NSA and the FBI." The GOP report observes that Brennan's CIA analysts were "subjected to an unusually constrained review and coordination process, which deviated from established CIA practice ."[ Italics added for emphasis.] A lengthy Democratic rebuttal to the GOP members' report does not refute any of these findings.

Echoing the NSA's dissent, the House GOP questions the ICA's conclusion that Putin interfered to secure Trump's victory. The committee, they write, "identified significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the U.S. election." [ Italics added for emphasis.]

The Brennan-run process may have also excluded dissenting views from other agencies. Jack Matlock, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, has claimed that a "senior official" from the State Department's intelligence wing, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), informed him that it had reached a different conclusion about alleged Russian meddling, "but was not allowed to express it." An INR spokesperson declined a request for comment.

The ICA's production schedule also raises a red flag: The outgoing Obama administration tasked Brennan with churning it out in seemingly unprecedented time. "Ordinarily, the kind of assessment that you're talking about, there would be something that would take well over a year to do, certainly many months to do," former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told the House Intelligence Committee in June. " [S]eems to me, in this instance, there was a rush to get that out within a matter of days."

But even if Brennan had been given all the time in the world, the very fact that he was placed in charge of the intelligence assessment was a massive conflict of interest. Brennan was handed the opportunity to validate, without independent scrutiny or oversight from unbiased sources, serious allegations that he himself helped generate.

Efforts to reach Brennan through MSNBC, where he is a commentator, were unsuccessful.

Months before he oversaw the intelligence assessment, Brennan played a critical role in the FBI's decision to open the probe of Trump-Russia collusion. "I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," Brennan told Congress in March 2017, "and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred."

On top of his self-described role in generating the investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion, Brennan also played a critical role in generating the claim that the Russian government was waging an influence campaign. According to the book "The Apprentice" by the Washington Post's Greg Miller, the CIA unit known as "Russia House" was "the point of origin" for the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion during the presidential campaign that "the Kremlin was actively seeking to elect Trump." Brennan sequestered himself in his office to pore over the CIA's material , "staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night." Brennan "ordered up," not just vetted, "'finished' assessments – analytic reports that had gone through layers of review and revision," Miller adds, but also "what agency veterans call the 'raw stuff' – the unprocessed underlying material."

Anyone familiar with how cherry-picked, false intelligence made the case for the Iraq War will recognize "raw material" as a red flag. Here's another: According to Miller, one piece of intelligence that was "a particular source of alarm to Brennan," was the "bombshell" from "sourcing deep inside the Kremlin" that Putin himself had "authorized a covert operation" in order to, "in his own words damage Clinton and help elect Trump" via "a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." A former CIA operative described that sourcing as "the espionage equivalent of 'the Holy Grail.'"

Undoubtedly, a mole within Putin's inner circle – able to capture his exact orders – would indeed fit that description. But that raises the obvious question: If such a crown jewel of espionage exists, why would anyone in U.S. intelligence allow it to be revealed? And why hadn't that "Holy Grail" source been able to forewarn its American intelligence handlers of any number of Putin's actions that have caught the U.S. off-guard, from the annexation of Crimea to the Russian intervention in Syria?

Brennan was the first to alert President Obama of a Russian interference campaign, and subsequently oversaw the U.S. intelligence response.

Since leaving office, Brennan has laid bare his personal animus towards Trump, going so far as to call him "treasonous" – an unprecedented charge for a former top intelligence official to make about a sitting president. In the weeks before Mueller issued his final report, Brennan was still predicting that members of Trump's inner circle, including family members, would be indicted. Given Brennan's bias and consistent patterns of errors, Mueller's unquestioning, apparent reliance on a Brennan-run process is suspect.

Although Mueller seemed to accept the ICA's explosive claims at face value, Brennan's work product is now facing Justice Department scrutiny. The New York Times reported on June 12 that Attorney General William Barr is "interested in how the C.I.A. drew its conclusions about Russia's election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered that operatives help Mr. Trump." In what is most likely a direct reference to Brennan, the Times adds that Barr "wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign," as well as about "the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016."

Until Barr completes his review of the Russia probe, the April 2018 report from GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee remains the only publicly available assessment of the Brennan-controlled ICA's methodology. One reason for this is the fact that President Obama personally quashed a proposed bipartisan commission of inquiry into alleged Russian interference that would have inevitably subjected Brennan and other top intelligence officials to scrutiny. According to the Washington Post, in the aftermath of the November election, Obama administration officials discussed forming such a commission to conduct a sweeping probe of the alleged Russian interference effort and the U.S. response. But after Obama's then chief-of-staff, Denis McDonough, introduced the proposal, he:

began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress. Obama then echoed McDonough's critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.

With Obama having killed "any chance that a Russia commission would be formed," there has been no thorough, independent oversight of the intelligence process that alleged an interference campaign by Russia and triggered an all-consuming investigation of the Trump campaign's potential complicity.

New Opportunities to Answer Unresolved Questions

Barr's ongoing review, and Mueller's pending appearance before Congress, offer fresh opportunities to re-examine the affair's fundamental inconsistencies. Authorized by the president to declassify documents, Barr could shed light on the role that CrowdStrike and other sources played in informing Mueller and the Brennan-directed ICA's claims of a Russian interference campaign. When he appears before lawmakers, Mueller will likely face questions on other matters: from Democrats, his decision to punt on obstruction; from Republicans, his decision to carry out a prolonged investigation of Trump-Russia collusion despite likely knowing quite early on that there was no such case to make.

If the U.S. government does not have a solid case to make against Russia, then the origins of Russiagate, and its subsequent predominance of U.S. political and media focus, are potentially even more suspect. Given that allegation's importance, and Mueller's own uncertainty and inconsistencies, the special counsel and his aides deserve scrutiny for making a "central allegation" that they have yet to substantiate.

Correction:


Steve Hayes

The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it.
Tim Jenkins
That's an excellent brief summary description of events ongoing, Steve & very telling. I have the feeling that most of the moral indignation is from those with most to hide !
Roberto
The takeaway of 2 1/2 years of nonsense, succinct version:

The congressman asks:
"When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?"
"I am not familiar with – with that," Mueller replied.
"It was. It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS," Chabot retorted.
The Congressman then asked whether Mueller was familiar with the owner of Fusion GPS.
"That's outside my purview," Mueller replied."

Tim Jenkins
It seems likely, that Trump planned to discredit Robert Mueller's integrity, from the very beginning. Think about it: Robert (d'Mule) Mueller and his history:-

1) Heavy involvement in Uranium One deal, with the Russians.

2) Cover up of all investigations 9/11, as FBI Boss.

3) Clean up of Epstein's abhorrent dealings, last time around.

4) The Great Russia-Hoax, by Magic Mueller & Co.

For my mind, I can imagine BTO -"You ain't seen nothin', yet "

GRAFT
But the lunatics still believe millions upon millions of people believe it still
Cesca
This is just one of the events where the psychopathic scum show how divorced they are from humane consciousness.

They are thick as sh.t when it comes to hiding what they do, have the power to make it hard to find the truth tho.

Tim Jenkins
Coulter was calling for him to be in solitary in a 'SuperMax', as if that would protect him. Meanwhile, Priti Patel wants to bring back the death sentence
(stoooopid woman, not interested in learning, better said, in others learning) 😉

Off with their heads: Final Solutions ? Judge Priti Patel ?

Personally, i'd love to see Epstein in a safe cell, in between Cardinal sinner George d'Pedo Pell & Harvey Weinstein: all with webcams & wifi LIVE & pay per view:-

VIP Big Bro. Chokey & the Bandits, (online Live 🙂 )

I would actually pay to view that, even if only briefly on the BBC, though I've never given a penny to the BBC, since 1979 I swear m8 🙂

mark
The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers.

The poor chap is obviously suffering from advanced Alzheimer's. You'd think they could come up with a better front man for their conspiracy theory.

It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe.

Roberto
It wasn't [the dreaded, one-day] Alzheimer's. It's a Modified Limited Hangout version of 'I don't recall', 'What page is that on?', 'What page?', 'Oh I see it now', 'Can you repeat the question?', and 'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is' (well, OK, everything except that – it's copyrighted).
Add dozens of 'That's not my purview' or some variation of it, and 5 hours magically shrinks.
Question This
Why not write an article why so much time, effort & money has been wasted on this subject. Is it a surprise to anyone that competing super powers (I use the term loosely) attempt to interfere in election results? Frankly i take it as given that Russia, USA & US of Europe do so at any & all possible opportunity.

And asking if politicians are corrupt is like asking what colors the sky, we all know the answer.

binra
The lie accuses its own sin in the other – as intent at sustainability of power by deceit. Unravelling to source is the nature of a true harvest.
Each unto its own.
UreKismet
Well IMO you'd be wrong. English elites have been saying "the evil russian other" for at least 200 years. Even in the islands no one sees as a good earner, Aotearoa, has an 'anti russian fort" It was built in the 1880's when some pommie pols beat up a "Russia is trying to steal our empire" scare.
Tim Jenkins
Get Mifsud, Now !
****************

"Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation." with an unlimited budget to investigate !

What more than that did you need to know ? Alles Klar and if you are still unsure, then just ask yourself why Bill Binney & Kurt Weibe, ex NSA programmers of "Parallel Platforms", have NOT been called to testify, either ! The technical end 'stuff' proves that Mueller has been lying all along on his 'Witch Hunt' & Russia-Hoax and has NOT been addressing any one of the most important questions & problems that lead to further investigations & indictments of many key figures: which include potentially prosecuting the murderer of Seth Rich and why Mueller charged all others for lying to him during his pathetic investigation, but NOT Jo' MIFSUD ! Mueller himself should be prosecuted for his omissions & failure to prosecute Mifsud & question Richard Dearlove more intensively !

Get Mifsud under Oath immediately: he started all this who the hell is MIFSUD? Why is MIFSUD being protected? What the Fuck were Steele & Mifsud & Dearlove thinking to conspire & concoct on behalf of Deep State Governors & Operatives, who transcend both the USUK Governments combined ! ? !

This is an old article that helps you comprehend something of the background of the lies & deceptions of Mueller's pathetic efforts, & yesterday's statements confirm that he never intended to reveal anything at all, including yesterday, but why do we not have some brief qualification of Mueller's Testimony just yesterday, as an addendum here @OffG ?

How does OffG expect the Brits. to keep up to speed ? Especially, what will happen next with Boris Johnson and his dilemmas @home with GCHQ ? Coz' GCHQ were wholly involved in this TREASON USA attempt & Russia-Hoax, as were Italian Secret Services and the Ukrainian S.S. !

These matters can no longer be resolved behind closed doors, unless you wish to live continuously & forever onwards, under a corporate Fascist Dictatorship of "Parallel Platforms" & Pedophile Politicians ! it's that simple, so take 5 minutes and listen to Jim Jordan cross question Mueller, just yesterday, and you'll begin to see that Mifsud is being protected and we need to know WHY? HOW? & What from ? & by whom Logic, the wholly zionist owned & controlled mainstream media, surely! Coz' the ball is still rolling and it will not stop @Mifsud's desk, nor the boss of GCHQ's desk heads are gonna' roll, when this ball gets finally kicked into the annals of a very pissy secret service "History of the National Security State" and BoJo has some serious thinking to do about how he deals with the nameless cnuts in the British not so civil service, who used orphans kids in Ireland to entrap politicians and leverage any future political discussions with British Pedophile Politicians fully controlled !!!
E.G. GARY HOY !

It should be noted that yesterday, before Bill Barr stepped into his bullet proof vehicle, after answering a few questions to journalists, he beamed the biggest smile I ever saw on his public face and uttered the words "it goes with the territory". Bill Barr has clearly grown more comfortable with where he stands, today and he has no intention of kicking this can of worms down the road, including Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell, charges will be brought, thankfully finally and Boris Johnson will be forced to reveal much more than he would likely wish regarding "The History of the National Security State" and it will help mask his inevitable blunders, down the road.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KNIipT35Eh4

You should have, after watching Mueller !

I have pasted three links deliberately so that Admin must read this 😉

DunGroanin
Superb post Tim and a great catch! I missed David Nunes bit yesterday. The PM of GB and Mifsud in full colour! Lol

The Guardian live reporting missed every mention of Steele, Dearlove, a 'Russian' how very suspicious! Lol

I do believe the Russian State is capable of hacking – as is every such capable state in the world. I surmise they did hack – that is the most likely source of the Integrity Initiative / Institute of Statecraft material.

We will see how many independent news sites and bloggers actually exist by their journalism and blogging on this revealed conspiracy.

Tim Jenkins
My pleasure, thanks DG & I honestly 'almost choked' early morning, when sifting through the guardian script writers & their video editing efforts for today's 'damage limitation': (no doubt, on command of GCHQ), just how much key info. was truly omitted, scandalous clearly, 'The Lobby' is working hard on distractions, for not just all the government politicians, but also all journalists & editors: and therefore, Operation Charlemagne never gets mentioned, so that the 'Mifsud confusion' prevails and a disconnect is established from GCHQ, Steele & Treason USA & Epstein Island & Ghislaine Maxwell's historic sexual endeavours to control key political figures' future decision making: which includes Judges, down the line, as well as key figures working on "Parallel Platforms" of computing, within the National Security State throughout NATO nations !
And this all presents a prime opportunity for OffGuardian. 🙂
It will be a tough ole' cookie for Kit to crack: maybe in bite sized pieces, step by step

It's a very real tangled web that transcends borders of governance and forces one to not shy away from the words Corporate Fascist Dictatorship, with zero privacy & total control of all flows of Knowledge,

Not just Scientific . . .
Mercer & Cambridge Analytica ? the tip of the iceberg,
as UreKismet rightly points out below, Carole d'Cad certainly has much to answer for, in the biggest internet Psyop sting & string of distractions from the Key issues of programming our futures, collectively.

UreKismet
AFAIK there is zero evidence that the russian state was involved in the pathetic beauty contest which the US elites use to distract the more credulous citizens every 4 years. Why would they? They know damn well this quadrennial farce is a crooked game from start to finish. A game that only allows the same two contestants, the republican tweedledee and the democrat tweedledum to compete – both sides cheat like f++k on a massive scale so whatever skullduggery the Russian state could insert into that rigged crapshoot would have two chances of success, Buckley's and none.

But more important than even that is, even if the Russian State – oops sorry. . . "Putin" {said quickly with all emphasis on vowels none on consonants so it sounds more like a hoick & spit than a word} by some miracle did succeed so what? You cannot push a decent spliff skin between the dems & rethugs on the stuff which really matters.

Disagree? Check out the Tufts alumni diary entry for yesterday . The article tells us how the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who are the mob allegedly responsible for devising and implementing amerika's foreign policy, actually had a falling out on monday, a disagreement between a dem senator and a rethug member of the old boys steamroom and bar club.

This was the first public contretemps in decades. Wow I bet that was over something vital!

Nah, the dispute was over the murder of that Kashoggi creep, they reckon the dems wanted to slap Saudi with a wet bus ticket, whereas the rethugs preferred a damp feather as the instrument of corporal punishment.

Why on earth would anyone who hadn't bought a seat at the table e.g. the invaders of occupied Palestine waste energy, let alone the $30,000 that crowdstrike claimed Russia had spent on a forlorn hope of trying to get something up like sanctions relief, when everyone knows the correct way to do it is to bribe both sides with tens of millions?

Now "tens of millions" may seem a lot until you understand you will get it all back plus a lot extra for the hassle. Yep the amerikan pols become dependent on your 'donation' real quick. So from then on out, they find a way to give you money for some nonsense program which you then give back to 'em all as donations – less about 95% for expenses natch – but everyone is cool with that, they know there are considerable overheads in the lobbying biz.

That is why just about all of them plan on getting into lobbying themselves – just as soon as their little black books are chocka with the foibles of all the other congress-creeps and senate-slugs.

I watched the netflix doco "The Great Hack" which tries a camera eye view of the Cambridge Analytica investigation. IMO It reveals graun contractor Carole Cadwalladr to be the sort of deeply dedicated journo not too proud to let the facts stand in the way of a good beat up/fit up.

Shockingly for the graun, the target of this character assassination is a 'sister', yep another member of the victimised by patriarchy club.

A young woman by the name of Brittany Kaiser whose parents were financially destroyed by the cfc. After the family home was seized in 2014 she had to quit being an unpaid worker for the dems in DC & took an extremely well paid gig (VP) with CA. Apparently her conscience got the better of her so when the stories about what they and facebook had been doing came out she whistle blew in the US inquiry and the english parliament enquiry.

Too bad Cadwalladr decided she (Kaiser) would be useful in yet another graun attack on Julian Assange.

Kaiser had sent Wikileaks a couple bit coins back in the noughties when she was an idealistic Obama intern and bit coins weren't worth much. Years later she visited Julian at the Ecuador embassy on CA business and she insists that neither Russia or H Clinton's email were discussed, but Cadwalladr ran this article claiming she did both, without a scintalla of watchamacallit – evidence, proof whatsoever.

Of course in reality Kaiser may be nothing like the possum trapped in the headlights she presents as; this is a TV show (all over the torrent and usenet sites if like me, people prefer not to pay for the fibs they are told) in which both Cadwalladr & Kaiser get lots of time. For me Kaiser came across as someone acting more like a human than, the bigger the front, the smaller the back, Cadwalladr did.

None of us can ever know for sure who did what to whom during prez 2016, so we are left with considering the mountains of bulldust using our sense of humanity mixed with the few facts we can be sure of. In that light IMO, it makes zero sense for the Russian state to try on something that is so obviously doomed to fail, so they didn't.

Antonym
Good to see a factually well informed author here ATL void of ideology or theory. Mueller has bended truth when ordered since decades while looking like Eliot Ness. A good fella.
Martin Usher
The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust.

I've always maintained that any connections Trump has with Russia are going to be based on money. As in "there are people who have lots of money who need some kind of investment vehicle to launder it" and "a tangled web of casinos and real estate holdings is a perfect laundromat for money of dubious origins". This doesn't automatically suggest that Trump's a money launderer for the Russian mob but rather there's no clear cut line between what's clearly criminal and what's clearly totally legal and a lot of businesses operate in the gray between the two.

(Politically, though, the last word on Trump support was spoken to me by a Hungarian/American colleague who intended to vote for him. He lived in Budapest and his interest wasn't in US domestic politics so much as not being caught in WW3. He thought Hilary was going to start a war, Trump would keep us out. I thought he was being a bit naive (and have been proven right) but you couldn't blame him for exercising an abundance of caution.)

[Jul 28, 2019] Washington's Blog, 13 Shocking Facts about Robert Mueller

Jul 28, 2019 | washingtonsblog.com
  1. Paul Merrell July 25, 2019 at 21:10 Washington's Blog, 13 Shocking Facts about Robert Mueller: https://washingtonsblog.com/2017/11/10-shocking-facts-special-prosecutor-robert-mueller.html

[Jul 28, 2019] Dementia or very skillful, convincing acting: Mueller would have looked a lot better if he had only taken the time to read... the Mueller report.

Mueller came across as an old man.... muddling.... confused.... He was out of his depth. One would have to conclude that he is not remotely credible based on his inability to answer questions and apparent ignorance of a report he is supposed to have authored. Embarrassingly inept!
Jul 28, 2019 | www.youtube.com


Hangfire-13 , 2 days ago

Mueller would have looked a lot better if he had only taken the time to read... the Mueller report.

William Jones , 2 days ago

Better to be thought a fool than recognized as an accomplice.

Solgato Blogopogo , 1 day ago

Mueller sold America on the existence of WMDs in Iraq too.

BigWater59 , 1 day ago

This was a dog and pony show with the main act being a dementia patient in poor health. SAD

Steven Trekking , 2 days ago

FFS, I live in the UK and even I have heard the link between Fusion GPS and the dodgy dossier. Has Mueller been working alone in a cave or something? Has he tried Wikipedia?

Ivana Seymore , 2 days ago

I think we should bring Mueller to the stand as a witness for his investigation of nineleven...

George Christiansen , 2 days ago div tabindex="0" role="artic

le"> The had the lesson taught to them, but I seriously doubt that they learned anything. I also think that Mueller was largely playing dumb. His job is to continue to raise doubt, not to bring clarity. He is till doing a great job in that regards. I hope it leads to jail time.

Ron Preece , 3 days ago

$30,000,000 down the toilet. Mueller deserves the Roger Stone Treatment !

Amani jm , 3 days ago

div> Collussion and Obstruction are synonymus? Muller: NO But Your report said so. Muller: I stick with the report. Hahahahaah

Steve Lee , 2 days ago

In all honesty either Muller was lying, unbelievably incompetent or genuinely has some form of dementia and that is meant in a true honest opinion..

dotatough , 1 day ago

"They do not deserve to rule, that much is clear." Love ya Tucc

Eric Sanders , 3 days ago

Did anyone ask Mueller if he actually wrote the report?

Elizabeth Maldonado , 2 days ago (edited)

Mueller's playing dum to cover his own hide and the democraps should be ashamed wasting tax payers money & that bringing the only work they done in 2 years corrupt sorry individuals

Bleyluige , 1 day ago

Like someboday said, the person who learned most about the Mueller report during the hearing was Robert Mueller!

balsawerkz , 2 days ago

When are leaders going to call out Adam Schiff on his extremely obvious cocaine eyes?

Carlos Matos , 1 day ago (edited)

Tucker spitting some hard truth there at 7:30

Edmund007013 , 1 day ago

Mueller obviously has deep dementia and should be in a nursing home. Great Summary Tucker ! Well done !

Chris Wriight , 1 day ago

"Daft old man blinking in the sunlight after his curtain was torn away" hit the nail on the head😂

Ken H , 3 days ago

Recall Nadler and Schiff. Those stuffed, spineless suits.

Joel Martin , 1 day ago

So basically the whole "Russia" investigation was complete sham!

Tad Ulrich , 14 hours ago

Well worth watching this just for Tucker's superb commentary alone! With this Mueller fiasco, a stake has been driven deep into the Deep State's heart.

Jennie Gall , 2 days ago

OR it's a BRILLIANT RUSE in this Political Theater. He was ACTING. This isn't the real Robert Mueller.

Robert Boothby , 3 days ago

Tucker, that was another fine job. "The ruling class did this to us". Well said and spot on! Keep it up for as long as they allow it. Thank you.

[Jul 27, 2019] Mueller Magoo by W. James Antle III

Notable quotes:
"... He demonstrated a thin grasp of his own report's findings, even as he implored lawmakers in both parties to read it. He asked members of Congress to repeat their questions 48 times . ..."
"... That's not to say Mueller did nothing for Democrats. He said President Trump was not "exculpated" by his report. He raised the specter of falsified documents and all but said that he punted on obstruction of justice only because a sitting president cannot be indicted under existing Justice Department guidelines. He gamely testified his investigation was no "witch hunt." And some of his seeming confusion was likely strategic: he was trying to avoid giving partisans easy footage confirming their talking points. ..."
"... While Democrats have not totally given up on "collusion," moving the goalposts away from Hillary Clinton's detailed explanation of how the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the election toward vaguer references to "contacts" and "foreign help," obstruction of justice was the name of the game. Mueller acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with collusion-related crimes, even if he stopped short of calling that an exoneration of the president. Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Roger Stone -- these were not criminal masterminds. In fact, they were all incredibly sloppy. If they had colluded, they all could easily have been charged. ..."
"... No one who could be indicted was charged with aiding the president in obstructing the investigation either. ..."
"... The real answer Mueller declined to give appears to be that his obstruction allegations would have hinged heavily on Trump's use presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution. The Justice Department under Barr's leadership does not believe this amounted to obstruction in theory or practice. Thus the self-evidently never-fired Mueller was reduced to dropping breadcrumbs and hoping congressional Democrats would find them. ..."
"... Mueller's seeming lack of familiarity with his own investigation lessened the GOP's problem because it helps shift the focus to the "angry Democrats" in the special counsel's office -- people like Andrew Weissman, who attended Hillary's election night party -- rather than Mueller himself. The Democrats are still at square one, trying to dial back Manchurian candidate expectations among the base and shift the impeachment rationale to Trump's passive willingness to benefit from Russian interference without expressing a modicum of outrage. ..."
"... With 95 Democrats willing to impeach Trump over mean tweets, anything is possible. But it's going to take a lot more than Mueller to move House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into that camp. ..."
"... The Steele dossier, whether a truthful compilation or a complete fabrication, is itself an attempt by foreign spies to influence our election. "Collusion" staring us in the face right here. ..."
"... The public spectacle was heart-breaking. It was obvious that Mueller had lost some mental faculties. Surely his special investigative team had to know that, having worked with him for 2+ years, and so the Democrat leadership had to know that as well. And yet they insisted he testify, even though he basically begged to not testify and let him just go off into the twilight of retirement. But no, they threatened to subpoena him. ..."
"... Actually, Trump committed a lot of unforced errors, as well as being generally lazy, stupid and unprepared. ..."
"... With this in mind, to believe the RussiaGate conspiracy theories, one must simultaneously believe that the Russians have abilities that border on psychic mind control superpowers, but at the same time, these same evil geniuses cannot be bothered to plan what to do if their nefarious schemes actually worked out. ..."
"... One can easily accept that Trump is a roaring moron, but one also has to believe that his alleged puppetmaster cannot take the time to consult an attorney or a peruse a copy of the United States Code, available for free on the internet to anyone who bothers to take a peek. And that's just the legal requirements. I won't even go into the clownshow that was Trump's appointments and staffing. ..."
"... The testimony was a complete success because it maintained the status quo. Trump is not going anywhere, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Russia tampered with the election rendering even more sanctions and increasing cold war tensions, and the only ones indicted were accused of process crimes. Meanwhile, the business of Goldman Sachs gets done in the halls of power. ..."
"... Robert "Saddam has WMD of Mass Destruction" Mueller has been the bag man for the establishment for a long time. Even his dotage, he still managed to perform his job flawlessly. ..."
"... 12 indictments against often former employees of a Russian clickbait farm for spectacularly laughable memes that will never amount to anything because there will never be a trial. One of the parties showed up in court and demanded actual evidence as part of discovery, causing Mueller to desperately ask for a continuance. The judge called Mueller out by denying it. The judge also called Mueller out by showing that he had no evidence that the defendant at issue had any ties tot he Russian government. ..."
"... A paltry $150k was spent for online ads over two years, by Russians, they tell you. They also tell you that about half those ads didn't run until after the election was over and that most of the ads didn't endorse a specific candidate or policy. Yet, you insist this Russian social media blitz altered the outcome of your election somehow. With well north of $3 billion spent on traditional advertising, leave it to MSM to float a turd of such odious girth. ..."
"... Next, Mueller indicts 13 Russian intelligence journeymen and it will never amount to anything. None of them will ever be extradited. There will never be a trial. Never a legal discovery process. No burden of proof that they actually hacked or colluded. No US intelligence agency has ever examined the servers in question. ..."
"... An impeachment is another word for "indictment", and as the saying goes you can indict a ham sandwich. Or impeach a baloney sandwich. If Trump were to wind up in the dock it would be "anything goes", including subpoenas being issued to Madame Hillary. There won't be any impeachment. Too much of a danger of overflowing sewage. ..."
"... Seth Rich could rise up from the dead and show us all, live on CNN, how he leaked the DNC emails, right after DWS confessed on MSNBC to ordering Seth Rich's murder and HRC admitted under oath that she invented russiagate on a bet with Podesta to see whether people really are that stupid and gullible, and CNN, MSNBC and the entire DNC and their cultists would keep pushing the conspiracy theory, never even missing a beat. ..."
"... I'm glad Mr. Mueller finally admitted publicly that he held the President to an Orwellian standard of "probably guilty, which we can't prove, until proven innocent, which we never do" that no American has ever been held to by law enforcement. ..."
Jul 25, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election in the Rayburn House Office Building July 24, 2019(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) The late Sen. Arlen Specter ended the drive to impeach Bill Clinton by invoking Scottish law and voting "not proven" in the 42rd president's Senate trial. Democrats hope to begin the drive to impeach Donald Trump with a finding by special counsel Robert Mueller that the worst allegations against the 45th president are not proven.

Even this task was made more difficult by the former FBI director and Trump-Russia investigator's unimpressive public congressional testimony. Mueller had trouble identifying questioners. He demonstrated a thin grasp of his own report's findings, even as he implored lawmakers in both parties to read it. He asked members of Congress to repeat their questions 48 times .

The uber-competent G-man about whom liberals sang Christmas carols was not on display Wednesday. "Mueller Time" gave way to Mr. Magoo.

A cursory glance at Politico 's homepage revealed the damage. "'Euphoria': White House, GOP exult after a flat Mueller performance," blared the top headline. Another reads, "Bob Mueller is struggling." And another: "Impeachment drive slowed by Mueller's troubles." Even the New York Times could only manage: "Mueller sticks to script but shows flashes of indignation."

"This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years," fretted Barack Obama's man David Axelrod. "And he does not appear as sharp as he was then."

That's not to say Mueller did nothing for Democrats. He said President Trump was not "exculpated" by his report. He raised the specter of falsified documents and all but said that he punted on obstruction of justice only because a sitting president cannot be indicted under existing Justice Department guidelines. He gamely testified his investigation was no "witch hunt." And some of his seeming confusion was likely strategic: he was trying to avoid giving partisans easy footage confirming their talking points.

But Democrats wanted much more. Ever since Attorney General William Barr released his summary, they have wanted to challenge his framing of the report. His testimony, like that 448-page document, contained plenty of damning information. The bottom line -- that Mueller could not prove a Trump-Russia conspiracy to swing the 2016 presidential election and lacks a convincing explanation for his obstruction equivocation -- remains unchanged.

While Democrats have not totally given up on "collusion," moving the goalposts away from Hillary Clinton's detailed explanation of how the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the election toward vaguer references to "contacts" and "foreign help," obstruction of justice was the name of the game. Mueller acknowledged that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with collusion-related crimes, even if he stopped short of calling that an exoneration of the president. Paul Manafort, George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Roger Stone -- these were not criminal masterminds. In fact, they were all incredibly sloppy. If they had colluded, they all could easily have been charged.

If Justice Department regulations on presidential indictments did not prevent a finding of insufficient evidence to charge conspiracy, why did these guidelines require Congress to make the final determination on obstruction? No one who could be indicted was charged with aiding the president in obstructing the investigation either.

The real answer Mueller declined to give appears to be that his obstruction allegations would have hinged heavily on Trump's use presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution. The Justice Department under Barr's leadership does not believe this amounted to obstruction in theory or practice. Thus the self-evidently never-fired Mueller was reduced to dropping breadcrumbs and hoping congressional Democrats would find them.

Both parties entered the hearings with a fundamental problem. For Republicans, how do you discredit Mueller for his negative findings about the president while also affirming his failure to prove an election-related conspiracy as definitive? The Democrats' dilemma was that they knew Trump had behaved badly in response to Russian election interference and the subsequent investigation, but hoped Mueller would discover something worse. When he merely supplied color and a reliable narrator for what we largely already knew, many Democrats wanted to pivot back to impeaching Trump over that unseemly behavior.

Mueller's seeming lack of familiarity with his own investigation lessened the GOP's problem because it helps shift the focus to the "angry Democrats" in the special counsel's office -- people like Andrew Weissman, who attended Hillary's election night party -- rather than Mueller himself. The Democrats are still at square one, trying to dial back Manchurian candidate expectations among the base and shift the impeachment rationale to Trump's passive willingness to benefit from Russian interference without expressing a modicum of outrage.

You can argue that we should expect more from a president than to simply have refrained from directly conspiring with a hostile foreign power to reach the White House. Yet that case becomes harder to make when that is precisely what you have conditioned rank-and-file Democrats to expect from the Mueller report. No dramatic reading of that report, least of all by a 74-year-old clearly no longer accustomed to congressional testimony, will deliver on those expectations.

With 95 Democrats willing to impeach Trump over mean tweets, anything is possible. But it's going to take a lot more than Mueller to move House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into that camp.


stevek9 • 3 days ago

I would say this is by far the most charitable interpretation of Mueller's testimony I've seen. He didn't want to talk about the 'Steele Dossier' ... the whole basis for the Russiagate farce, and then claimed he didn't know who GPS Fusion was ... the outfit hired by Clinton to write the dossier in the first place. That this whole pile of rubbish was not laughed out of existence is a tribute to the ability of the media (who hated Trump), to convince a large number of people of a preposterous fantasy.

He reminds me a little bit of my dad, and a little bit of Cato the Younger. But to his fellow Republicans--he's Mr. Magoo.

Wilfred • 3 days ago
The Steele dossier, whether a truthful compilation or a complete fabrication, is itself an attempt by foreign spies to influence our election. "Collusion" staring us in the face right here.

Why haven't the Democrats been investigated for it?

rick allen Wilfred • 2 days ago
Maybe because there's a little difference between hiring a private firm to do opposition research, and Russian military intelligence stealing and releasing tens of thousands of private documents from one political party to help the other win the Presidency?
Fabian Wilfred • a day ago
The dossier is not an attempt by foreign spies. It's an attempt by the Democrats to use foreign spies.
WorkingClass • 3 days ago
The majority of House Democrats voted against impeachment. I would say this was a good day for Democrats.
KevinS • 3 days ago
"You can argue that we should expect more from a president than to simply have refrained from directly conspiring with a hostile foreign power to reach the White House."

Ya think?

tweets21 • 2 days ago
Even after the spectacle, and the grueling two years of media hype, nothing has moved the dial from those who hate Trump, and those who are Trump supporters. The 2020 election may again come down to the electoral college system. We already know where voters on the upper east coast and California stand. Major populations.
gdpbull • 2 days ago
The public spectacle was heart-breaking. It was obvious that Mueller had lost some mental faculties. Surely his special investigative team had to know that, having worked with him for 2+ years, and so the Democrat leadership had to know that as well. And yet they insisted he testify, even though he basically begged to not testify and let him just go off into the twilight of retirement. But no, they threatened to subpoena him.

By all accounts, Mueller had a long a admirable career. Its disgusting that most people's memory of him and his legacy will be of this last public embarrassing spectacle.

The Democratic Party has shown its complete lack of moral compass. When it comes to politics, anything goes, including the destruction of people's lives. They even eat their own when its considered politically expedient. The Anita Hill hearings, Kavannah hearings, me too movement, show me the man and the people around him, we'll find the crimes mentality. What's next? Murder? It would not surprise me in the least.

Its clear now that the entire Russian collusion narrative was a set-up by the Democratic party. It was all about entrapment, perjury traps, and selective media leaking.

Connecticut Farmer gdpbull • 2 days ago
The bottom line was, is, and always will be as follows: The Democrat Party expected their candidate to win in a cakewalk over Trump. If she won we wouldn't have heard one word about these Russians (Oh, and by the way, do these "Russians" have names?). It was Clinton's election to lose and she promptly went out and lost it! Period! End of story! In their eyes the candidate of "The Deplorables" won and the Democrats are enraged--so enraged that since Election Day 2016 they have been doing all they can do to delegitimize the election and Trump's status as POTUS. And all the while-- thanks to BOTH parties--the nation's infrastructure steadily crumbles and the immigration crisis remains unresolved (to cite just two examples).
interguru • 2 days ago
On impeachment: Just imagine that Barak Obama had illegally spent $120,000 of his campaign cash for hush money to his prostitute. What would happen?
Micha_Elyi interguru • 2 days ago • edited
"On impeachment: Just imagine that Barak Obama had illegally spent $120,000 of his campaign cash for hush money to his prostitute. What would happen?"--interguru

Democrats would rise in unison and begin shouting "It's only about sex!" And that time, they'd be correct.

Admit it, interguru, all the covering for Clinton that the Democrats conducted in order to yank his lying-under-oath balls out of the fire rendered impotent their usual tactics of denigrate and defame.

JeffK from PA interguru • a day ago
Then Republicans might actually like him. Hold him up as a 'real man'.
Sid Finster interguru • a day ago
Fine, but that has nothing to do with the russiagate conspiracy theory.

In fact, if Trump were really a puppet of Russia, they'd never let him commit an unforced error that pointless. Some money could be funneled from any of a million sources, and nobody would be any the wiser.

Actually, Trump committed a lot of unforced errors, as well as being generally lazy, stupid and unprepared.

https://www.theguardian.com...

With this in mind, to believe the RussiaGate conspiracy theories, one must simultaneously believe that the Russians have abilities that border on psychic mind control superpowers, but at the same time, these same evil geniuses cannot be bothered to plan what to do if their nefarious schemes actually worked out.

Orwell wept.

One can easily accept that Trump is a roaring moron, but one also has to believe that his alleged puppetmaster cannot take the time to consult an attorney or a peruse a copy of the United States Code, available for free on the internet to anyone who bothers to take a peek. And that's just the legal requirements. I won't even go into the clownshow that was Trump's appointments and staffing.

Salt Lick • 2 days ago
The testimony was a complete success because it maintained the status quo. Trump is not going anywhere, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Russia tampered with the election rendering even more sanctions and increasing cold war tensions, and the only ones indicted were accused of process crimes. Meanwhile, the business of Goldman Sachs gets done in the halls of power.

Robert "Saddam has WMD of Mass Destruction" Mueller has been the bag man for the establishment for a long time. Even his dotage, he still managed to perform his job flawlessly.

Paddywagon • 2 days ago
*42nd president's Senate trial
Sid Finster jimrussell • 2 days ago
What utter nonsense, unless you believe that "Russia" wrote the DNC emails, or that a clickbait troll farm (see paragraph 95 of the IRA indictment if you don't believe me) that has no discernable connection tot he Russian government has some amazing influence over gullible American voters.
Sid Finster jimrussell • a day ago
12 indictments against often former employees of a Russian clickbait farm for spectacularly laughable memes that will never amount to anything because there will never be a trial. One of the parties showed up in court and demanded actual evidence as part of discovery, causing Mueller to desperately ask for a continuance. The judge called Mueller out by denying it. The judge also called Mueller out by showing that he had no evidence that the defendant at issue had any ties tot he Russian government.

https://www.courthousenews....

A paltry $150k was spent for online ads over two years, by Russians, they tell you. They also tell you that about half those ads didn't run until after the election was over and that most of the ads didn't endorse a specific candidate or policy. Yet, you insist this Russian social media blitz altered the outcome of your election somehow. With well north of $3 billion spent on traditional advertising, leave it to MSM to float a turd of such odious girth.

Next, Mueller indicts 13 Russian intelligence journeymen and it will never amount to anything. None of them will ever be extradited. There will never be a trial. Never a legal discovery process. No burden of proof that they actually hacked or colluded. No US intelligence agency has ever examined the servers in question.

Russians didn't write the emails and Julian Assange is emphatic that Russia had nothing to do with them. Yet, no one in our vast and vaunted intelligence community has bothered to interview him. As they say, a smart lawyer never asks a question if he might not want to hear the answer.

Everything, all of it, is based on intel supplied by a cyber security firm on the DNC payroll. You can't make this shit up.

The other indictments are thoroughly unrelated to hacking or collusion by anybody, much less Russia.

W Porter • 2 days ago • edited
Sen Specter did NOT "end the drive to impeach Bill Clinton", as the opening sentence of this article declares. The drive to impeach Bill Clinton ended when the House passed articles of impeachment. That's right: Bill Clinton was actually impeached. No, he wasn't "convicted" in his senate trial (thanks to Specter) and so wasn't removed from office. But he was, actually, impeached.

Good question for trivia buffs: Only one of these presidents was impeached: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Which one was it? (Hint: Nixon resigned before the House impeached him.)

Connecticut Farmer W Porter • 2 days ago
An impeachment is another word for "indictment", and as the saying goes you can indict a ham sandwich. Or impeach a baloney sandwich. If Trump were to wind up in the dock it would be "anything goes", including subpoenas being issued to Madame Hillary. There won't be any impeachment. Too much of a danger of overflowing sewage.
Sid Finster • 2 days ago
Seth Rich could rise up from the dead and show us all, live on CNN, how he leaked the DNC emails, right after DWS confessed on MSNBC to ordering Seth Rich's murder and HRC admitted under oath that she invented russiagate on a bet with Podesta to see whether people really are that stupid and gullible, and CNN, MSNBC and the entire DNC and their cultists would keep pushing the conspiracy theory, never even missing a beat.
Amanda Powell Sid Finster • 2 days ago
I see the fever swamp is well represented today.
𝙆𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙐𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙚 • 2 days ago
I'm thinking the Democrats just wanted Mueller to give them the go ahead on impeachment... that way they could always blame it on him if the ploy failed... Too bad they are such cowards that none of the want to sign their name to impeachment proceedings...
MM • 2 days ago
I'm glad Mr. Mueller finally admitted publicly that he held the President to an Orwellian standard of "probably guilty, which we can't prove, until proven innocent, which we never do" that no American has ever been held to by law enforcement.

I'll illustrate:

Can anybody tell me the legal difference between those two statements? I really don't see any. Also, what was fascinating about Mr. Mueller's press conference was when he said this:

He actually paid indicted Russian nationals who will never stand trial in this country more constitutional lip service than Trump. Absolutely gorgeous...

Bag Man • 2 days ago
If the Democrats were using Mueller as their smoking gun to nail Trump it failed miserably. If they still want to impeach go ahead. It guarantees Trump's reelection.
Rossbach • a day ago
Mueller's investigation ended after all the subpoenas had been served, all the witnesses had been deposed, and all the evidence analyzed. If, after that, he could not determine that the president had committed a crime, then, according to established jurisprudential practice, the decision is that he is not guilty. It is singular that the 2 accusations, collusion and obstruction, were evaluated differently.

In the case of conspiracy ("collusion") the final report says, "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." In the case of obstruction of justice, the final report says, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

So, in the case of conspiracy, the prosecutor had to prove that the President was guilty ("did not establish" conspiracy); in the case of obstruction, they had to prove that he was innocent ("did not commit obstruction"). Why did different standards apply to the two accusations?

Mueller said he didn't recommend that the grand jury indict the President for obstruction because one cannot indict a sitting President. But the President either obstructed justice or he didn't. If he did, why didn't Mueller say so? He didn't have to recommend as indictment in order to state a conclusion based on facts revealed in the investigation. What he appears to be saying is that because he couldn't prove that the President did not commit obstruction, he would recommend that congress play impeachment politics with the issue.

So, instead of a resolution of this matter, Mueller decided to bequeath to the nation a festering sore that, with that aid of congressional Democrats, would continue to undermine the President's administration.

[Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Evidence accumulates that Obama was the real leader of this color revolution against Trump with Brannan as his chief lieutenant and Comey as a willing accomplice.
Now that the dust has settled, one must ask why the Deep State wanted Trump gone. Why does the Obama-Clinton mafia hates him so much? Is this due to Trump committed an unforgivable sin in suggesting we “get along with Russia” and thus potentially cut the revenues of military-industrial complex ? This is not true -- Trump inflated the Pentagon budget to astronomical height. Then why ?
Notable quotes:
"... The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page : ..."
"... We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents. ..."
"... Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane? ..."
"... On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump? ..."
"... Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide. ..."
Jul 27, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama.

As I have written previously , the claim that Russia tried to hijack our election is a damn lie. But you do not have to take my word for it. Just listen to Barack Obama speaking in October 2016 in response to Donald Trump's expressed concerns about election meddling :

"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time," the president said to the future president in October 2016.

"Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force," Obama said.

"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert regardless of political party... who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials."

It is important to remember what had transpired in the Trump/Russia collusion case by this point. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page :

Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: " the White House is running this. " My answer, "well, maybe for you they are." And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we've got an hour, but with Bill [Priestap] there, I've got no control .

Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We've got the emails that say otherwise.

The White House clearly knew. But Strzok's text is not the only evidence. We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents.

There are only two possibilities:

  1. Obama was being briefed by Susan Rice and DNI James Clapper and CIA Director about the project to take out Trump, or
  2. Obama was kept in the dark.

Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?

On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump?


turcopolier , 26 July 2019 at 04:19 PM

All

My wife was for many years an election official in Virginia. IMO Obama was right in saying that a US presidential election is impossible to "rig." The US Constitution requires that federal elections be run by the states WITHOUT federal supervision. As a result the methods and equipment in the states and the various parts of the states vary widely and the state systems are not tied together with a national electronic network as, for example, the system is in France where the result of a national election is reported on TeeVee immediately when the polls close.

Bill H , 26 July 2019 at 04:51 PM
Asking the question, "Can you cite one specific case where a single vote was definitively changed by Russian meddling?" causes panic in a person who is declaiming about the evils of Russian meddling in our elections.
Alexandria , 26 July 2019 at 07:02 PM
Bill H,

When you ask that question, the invariable retort is that the Russians are so clever that you wouldn't know that you were being gulled; or, when I say that I have never seen a Russian produced facebook ad, the rejoinder is that the Russians concentrated on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and, of course, I would have been privy to the bot-sent emails and facebook ads generated by the Internet Research Agency.

Jack said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 27 July 2019 at 12:41 AM
TTG

You've maintained all along that the Russians interfered in the election, yet I believe it is your position that the Russians did not change a single vote. Is that correct or do you believe the Russians changed the votes before tabulation?

What did the Russians do that the Trump and Hillary campaigns did not do? Did they also turnout the tens of thousands who showed up for Trump rallies that Hillary could never muster? Are they still turning out thousands at recent Trump rallies? I'm curious how come Brennan and Clapper could not turn out thousands to Hillary's rallies when according to our German friend "b", the omnipotent US Intel services just turned out a quarter of the population of Hong Kong to protest CCP authoritarianism?

Did the Israeli, Saudi and Chinese governments interfere in the election? How would you compare what they did to what you believe the Russians did?

uieter about it. All that is very different from the absolute covert nature of the Russian IO in the 2016 election. I have no idea what China did or is doing.

Larry Johnson -> The Twisted Genius ... , 27 July 2019 at 11:36 AM
You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication. The lies on this are enormous. If the FBI really had detected GRU hacking of the DNC in 2015, which is claimed in the fabricated meme, then you would expect the FBI and the other counter intel elements of the USG to take action. THEY DID NOTHING.

The issue of Russian hacking only emerged when Hillary and the DNC learned that DNC emails were going to be put out by WIKILEAKS. Again, not one shred of actual evidence that the Russians did it, but blaming the Russians became a convenient excuse in a bid to divert attention from the real story--i.e,. Hillary and the DNC colluded to defeat Bernie Sanders.

The only real solid evidence of colluding with foreigners, in this case the Ukraine, comes courtesy of Hillary and her campaign. Hiring a foreign intel officer (ie. Steele) who then takes info from Russians of questionable background and spread it around as "truth". That was not a Russian IO. Pure Clinton IO.

blue peacock said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 27 July 2019 at 12:29 PM
"What the Russians did was insert misattributed information and disinformation into the election cycle...That is what separates the Russian IO from anything Clinton, Trump or any of their supporters did."

I believe supporters of both candidates did exactly what you say the Russians did - insert misattributed information & disinformation into the media stream. If you watch MSNBC or Fox on any given day there is much assertion & opinion masquerading as news. And the Twitter & Facebook and blog universe are teeming with stories and innuendo that are more fiction than fact all from anonymous accounts.

The Russia Collusion hysteria is replete with examples of "misattributed information and disinformation". It seems that yellow journalism is as American as apple pie.

The whole opaque PAC structure with names like "Americans for Democracy" funded by chain structures hiding the real financiers and calling up down is something that we see growing in every election cycle and is already of significant scale both in terms of financing and dubiousness.

It is also rather common that "experts" who are called upon to opine on issues routinely never disclose their conflicts of interest. Jeffrey Sachs and so many others on the payroll of CCP entities never disclose those payments as they extoll the virtues of offshoring our industrial base to China and are apologists for CCP espionage.

The Twisted Genius -> blue peacock... , 27 July 2019 at 01:42 PM
Blue peacock, supporters of Clinton and Trump did not put out misattributed info. They both put out truth, innuendo, exaggerations, misleading info and even outright lies, but they put it out as themselves. They didn't represent themselves as someone other than who they were. The PAC structure comes close to skirting this requirement for truthful attribution, but a quick internet search blows away the facades of these PACs. What the Russians did was pure black propaganda.
Fred -> The Twisted Genius ... , 27 July 2019 at 09:23 AM
TTG,

You mean the kindly grandmother, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, did not inform President Obama that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Republican candidate for the presidency and members of his staff becasue he was working with Russians? Or do you mean that James Comey failed to tell his boss, Loretta Lynch; or do you mean John Brennan failed to tell Obama about that Steele dossier from Fusion GPS that Mueller know anything about; or do you mean that James Clapper failed to tell Jeh Johnson about that too? The Russians made them do all those things as part of an interference campaign, right? It couldn't have been they were corrupt and incompetant.

"Instead, Obama...." made an "If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor" statement that he knew was completely false. Trump didn't win, Russians influenced Americans to vote for Trump, just ask the losers of the election, their paid sources and their colleagues in Congress. In fact Americans love Hilary so much she's just where in the polls right now?

catherine , 27 July 2019 at 12:20 AM
I continue to be astounded by the outrage at "Russian meddling". So some Russians used the internet to post true or false information on candidates in a election.... so what?...millions of American partisan trolls were doing the same thing for or against a candidate. We had tons of fake info written by American bloggers and posters all over the net, Facebook, twitter etc..

Its not like Putin came to the US and gave a speech to congress in favor of Trump ...as Netanyahu did in appearing before the US congress and urging them to go against President Obama's Syria policy for heaven's sake.
It is so ridiculous I have given up hope of finding enough IQs above that of a cabbage to form a sane government.

LondonBob , 27 July 2019 at 06:57 AM
Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide.
J , 27 July 2019 at 12:27 PM
This has shown two things IMO

1. The FBI cannot be trusted to uphold defend and protect our Constitution, as they sought actively to overturn a duly elected POTUS.; and

2 - Mueller's incompetence is astounding.

Is the only entity of the Defense Department called the U.S. Army the only ones left actually upholding, defending, and protecting our Constitution and our Constitution processes? I don't see the other entities of the DOD called Navy and Air Force doing their jobs upholding our Constitution!

Thumbs up to the Army, thumbs down to the Navy and Air Force!

Mark Logan said in reply to J... , 27 July 2019 at 02:14 PM
J,

I'm a little more charitable to the FBI. The Trumps lied their asses off to the FBI about their foreign contacts. Which IMO, wrong or right, left the FBI all but no recourse but to investigate those lies. Even if the lies were simply based in long-seated personal habits, it takes investigation to prove that is the case.

plantman , 27 July 2019 at 12:55 PM
I believe Larry Johnson is right when he says:

"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing....

My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of "Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA and NSA???

Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???

rg , 27 July 2019 at 01:46 PM
Larry, sorry to nitpick, but I have such regard for your work that it pains me to see the typographical error in your second sentence, where you say "his error" shortly after referring to Trump. I'm guessing that you meant to say "this error", but it reads as if it means "Trump's error".

And while I'm at it, your last sentence has "it" instead of "if".

Keep up your great work for this excellent website.

turcopolier , 27 July 2019 at 03:35 PM
Mark Logan

Sadly naive in that you think the conspirators were actually acting in good faith. You think they were right when they used the Steele Dossier in applying for a FISA warrant in Colyyer's Star Chamber? Steele was a paid informant for the FBI as was Page.

turcopolier , 27 July 2019 at 03:35 PM
Mark Logan

How do you know "they lied their asses off?" Mueller's report stated that no American had conspired with the Russians,

[Jul 22, 2019] Comey Under DOJ Investigation For Misleading Trump While Targeting Him In FBI Probe

Notable quotes:
"... Former FBI Director James Comey has been under investigation for misleading President Trump - telling him in private that he wasn't the target of an ongoing FBI probe, while refusing to admit to this in public. ..."
"... Comey was essentially "running a covert operation" against Trump - which began with a private "defensive briefing" shortly after the inauguration. RCI 's sources say that Horowitz has pored over text messages between the FBI's former top-brass and other communications suggesting that Comey was in fact conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of the president during their January 2017 meeting in New York. ..."
"... What's more, the FBI couldn't treat Trump as a suspect - formally, as they didn't have the legal grounds to do so according to former FBI counterintelligence lawyer Mark Wauck. " They had no probable cause against Trump himself for 'collusion' or espionage ," he said, adding "They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing." ..."
"... According to House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Comey and the rest of the FBI's top team (including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) were attempting to "stop" Trump's presidency for political reasons. ..."
"... "You have the culmination of the ultimate spying, where you have the FBI director spying on the president, taking notes [and] illegally leaking those notes of classified information" to the MSM, said Nunes in a recent interview. ..."
"... Comey is just the political class operative who they brought in to save Scooter Libby's butt in the Valerie Flame leak. Then he got a seven figure job as a reward at a hedge fund (with no prior experience in the financial industry). Then, they took him off the bench to be FBI director. ..."
"... The larger problem is that the "five eyes" system is broken in favor of British surveillance and interference in our elections, and, the Patriot Act practice of "masking" is a complete violation of the fourth amendment and a fraud. From a fourth amendment analysis, it's like letting the police search everyone's house every day as long as they don't look at the name on the address. ..."
"... This investigation would explain why Comey, Brennan, and other members of Barry Obama's regime are very quiet, while Congressional Democrats are freaking out. ..."
"... Does the DOJ investigate British agents? Serious question. ..."
Jul 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Former FBI Director James Comey has been under investigation for misleading President Trump - telling him in private that he wasn't the target of an ongoing FBI probe, while refusing to admit to this in public.

According to RealClearInvestigations ' Paul Sperry, "Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will file a report in September which contains evidence that Comey was misleading the president " while conducting an active investigation against him.

Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent . - RCI

According to two US officials familiar with Horowitz's upcoming report on FBI misconduct, Comey was essentially "running a covert operation" against Trump - which began with a private "defensive briefing" shortly after the inauguration. RCI 's sources say that Horowitz has pored over text messages between the FBI's former top-brass and other communications suggesting that Comey was in fact conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of the president during their January 2017 meeting in New York.

What's more, Comey had an FBI agent in the White House who reported the activities of Trump and his aides, according to 'other officials familiar with the matter.'

The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site's efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit. -RCI

According to the report, Horowitz and his team have examined over 1 million documents and conducted over 100 interviews - including sit-downs with Comey and other current and former FBI and DOJ employees. "The period covering Comey's activities is believed to run from early January 2017 to early May 2017, when Comey was fired and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as the acting FBI director, formally opened full counterintelligence and obstruction investigations of the president."

McCabe's deputy, Lisa Page, appeared to dissemble last year when asked in closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee if Comey and other FBI brass discussed opening an obstruction case against Trump prior to his firing in May 2017. Initially, she flatly denied it , swearing: "Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the time frame you have described." But then, after conferring with her FBI-assigned lawyer, she announced: " I need to take back my prior statement ." Page later conceded that there could have been at least "discussions about potential criminal activity" involving the president . -RCI

Comey coordination

Sperry notes that Comey wasn't working in isolation on the Trump effort. In particular, Horowitz has looked at the January 6, 2017 briefing on the infamous 'Steele Dossier' - a meeting which was used by BuzzFeed, CNN and others to legitimize reporting on the dossier's salacious and unsubstantiated claims .

Comey's meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump -- a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN. -RCI

While Comey claims in his book, "A Higher Loyalty" that he didn't have "a counterintelligence case file open on [Trump]," former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy notes that just because Trump's name wasn't on a formal file or surveillance warrant doesn't mean that he wasn't under investigation.

"They were hoping to surveil him incidentally, and they were trying to make a case on him," said McCarthy. " The real reason Comey did not want to repeat publicly the assurances he made to Trump privately is that these assurances were misleading . The FBI strung Trump along, telling him he was not a suspect while structuring the investigation in accordance with the reality that Trump was the main subject ."

What's more, the FBI couldn't treat Trump as a suspect - formally, as they didn't have the legal grounds to do so according to former FBI counterintelligence lawyer Mark Wauck. " They had no probable cause against Trump himself for 'collusion' or espionage ," he said, adding "They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing."

What remains unclear is why Comey would take such extraordinary steps against a sitting president . The Mueller report concluded there was no basis for the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theories. Comey himself was an early skeptic of the Steele dossier -- the opposition research memos paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign that were the road map of collusion theories -- which he dismissed as "salacious and unverified." -RCI

According to House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Comey and the rest of the FBI's top team (including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) were attempting to "stop" Trump's presidency for political reasons.

"You have the culmination of the ultimate spying, where you have the FBI director spying on the president, taking notes [and] illegally leaking those notes of classified information" to the MSM, said Nunes in a recent interview.

Read the rest of Sperry's report here .


AI Agent , 4 minutes ago link

They will whitewash Comey. The deep state is alive and well, the DoJ and the FBI are as corrupt as they were the day before Trump took office.

Why do I say this? Well, the canary hasn't fallen off her perch yet. Hillary Clinton is still singing her song, and even making noises like she's going to run again, and she's not in prison. They have her solid on over a hundred felony counts of mishandling classified documents and they've not touched her. Proof of life that the Deep State is still in power.

MoreFreedom , 8 minutes ago link

So, was the Steele dossier the ex post facto excuse for illegally spying on Trump, or was it the ex post facto diversion for ALL of Obama's spying on politically powerful people, which we know included spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee, spying on reporters, and spying on Trump. I'll bet Obama hopes the investigation doesn't get into all of his spying activities, and I wouldn't be surprised government officials in charge of the spying equipment are keeping it covered up because they don't want to lose their jobs (for either allowing such to happen, or because they fear the spying apparatus will be eliminated).

Did Obama also spy on SCOTUS justices, Congressmen, other Senators and other rich and powerful people? I'll bet he did, because we haven't seen all the unmasking documentation, and Obama took it to his library so no one can see it (at least so he thinks). Further, look at the way Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Rice are disparaging Trump (they protest too much). And look at how all the allegations about Trump are blowing right back into the faces of the Democrats who've shown their MO is to accuse their political opponents, of the illegal activity in which the Democrats are engaged.

They need to go to jail, for a long time, if not be executed for treason.

SgtShaftoe , 4 minutes ago link

Did Obama spy on SCOTUS justices, et al? - Yes. Look up project HAMR or "Hammer". MI5/6 was spying on all Americans comms to circumvent legal frameworks (5 eyes). Google is now fully Chinese intelligence - TREASON. It's coming and it's gonna blow most people's minds.

dcmbuffy , 10 minutes ago link

Just the minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo.

J. Edgar Hoover

i at least agree with him on this one thought.

peippe , 9 minutes ago link

you realize J.Edgar probably said the above with a smile on his face.

Playtime's Over , 8 minutes ago link

been going on for longer than Obongo, but he put an inner cooled turbo on it.

radar99 , 13 minutes ago link

it all started with Obama. Time to investigate him and hang him for treason

SgtShaftoe , 8 minutes ago link

It started a very long time ago. 1913 was a notable date, so was JFK's assassination. So was 9/11. So was Operation Paperclip. These monsters have been slithering around a while. Now it's time for them to go bye-bye. Dark to Light. Execute.

Indelible Scars , 13 minutes ago link

B-B-But Nadler said...

JaxPavan , 14 minutes ago link

This goes back to Obama asking MI6 to surveil Trump and his campaign, and to continue it past the inauguration.

JaxPavan , 13 minutes ago link

correction: GCHQ

JaxPavan , 6 minutes ago link

Comey is just the political class operative who they brought in to save Scooter Libby's butt in the Valerie Flame leak. Then he got a seven figure job as a reward at a hedge fund (with no prior experience in the financial industry). Then, they took him off the bench to be FBI director.

The larger problem is that the "five eyes" system is broken in favor of British surveillance and interference in our elections, and, the Patriot Act practice of "masking" is a complete violation of the fourth amendment and a fraud. From a fourth amendment analysis, it's like letting the police search everyone's house every day as long as they don't look at the name on the address.

That our broken secrecy system effectively legalized Watergate under Obama and the "five eyes" is the real problem that needs fixing.

Stainless Steel Rat , 1 hour ago link

Three Things We Know For Sure

1. Trump did not collude with Russia

2. Mueller was sent on a witch hunt

3. Somebody's going under the bus

If not Comey, then who?

StiffLittleFinger , 39 minutes ago link

“I executed the session exactly as planned,”* Comey reported back to his “sensitive matter team.”

*in the meeting with Obama the day before

Equinox7 , 45 minutes ago link

This investigation would explain why Comey, Brennan, and other members of Barry Obama's regime are very quiet, while Congressional Democrats are freaking out. The end of the Deep State is starting.

valerie24 , 21 minutes ago link

Let’s hope so. The clock is ticking and this needs to happen by early 2020 or it won’t happen at all.

carbonmutant , 1 hour ago link

Are Comey's phones being bugged?

punchasocialist , 43 minutes ago link

Does the DOJ investigate British agents? Serious question.

[Jul 22, 2019] Report on evidence of felonies violating Civil Rights, and bribery by foreign agents, implicating United States Special Counsel Robert S Mueller III as a criminally-tainted agent of foreign racketeering interests

Notable quotes:
"... File talks about Mueller indulging big crimes as FBI director, helping Mueller's own eventual law firm to defraud millions out of a Hillary donor, with bribery of two USA federal judges, & threats to kill an ex-DOJ employee, with Mueller getting a big payday after he indulged it all as FBI chief, Mueller getting funds channeled from a criminal outfit based in the UK. ..."
Jul 22, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Brabantian says: May 6, 2019 at 2:39 am

Another item here, is the file which the US Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz acknowledged receiving a few months back, a file detailing alleged criminal acts of Robert Mueller himself.

The file was referenced in President Trump's tweets, a photo meme of Mueller in jail, and the President saying, "Heroes will come of this, and it won't be Mueller"

File talks about Mueller indulging big crimes as FBI director, helping Mueller's own eventual law firm to defraud millions out of a Hillary donor, with bribery of two USA federal judges, & threats to kill an ex-DOJ employee, with Mueller getting a big payday after he indulged it all as FBI chief, Mueller getting funds channeled from a criminal outfit based in the UK.

'Report on evidence of felonies violating Civil Rights, and bribery by foreign agents, implicating United States Special Counsel Robert S Mueller III as a criminally-tainted agent of foreign & racketeering interests'

https://www.docdroid.net/eVAAjIq/doj-ig-memo-mueller-bribery-extortion.pdf

[Jul 20, 2019] FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier

Jul 20, 2019 | thehill.com

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele's 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump's possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

The over-under isn't flattering to Steele.

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele's claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier's claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.

In other words, it was mostly useless.

"The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn't be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele's intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims," one source told me.

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.

The FBI's final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent's interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.

The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.

The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir Putin Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin -- as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.

Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele's dossier spun.

Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder's fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: "a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return."

That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.

The inaccuracy of Steele's intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.

Steele's theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

Again, Steele's intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.

The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them. Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake," according to a footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze's lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller's characterizations.

Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails. Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.

But even then, his dossier's theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.

Even State officials, who listened to Steele's theories in October 2016 -- less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request -- instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.

Any effort to use Steele's belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI's reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. "Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele's dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations," Meadows told me.

The FBI's own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as " salacious and unverified " and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, " There's no big there there ." FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele's dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.

Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele's intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified.

The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele's dossier is credible or that the FBI's reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.

They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .

[Jul 09, 2019] Crowdstrike - Cashing in on a scam

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe you saw this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably remember that, but you've probably forgotten this ..."
"... Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation? ..."
"... Ignoring that for a moment, look at how competent Crowdstrike is since the DNC hack ..."
"... So in the past three years Crowdstrike: ..."
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
"... CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one ..."
"... Wonder if they were worried they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something ..."
"... It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." ..."
"... If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 12:09am

Maybe you saw this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably remember that, but you've probably forgotten this .

TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's "period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server breach -- which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor Megyn Kelly -- were issued in June 2016, when the contract was still active.

OK. Nothing suspicious here. Just a harmless coincidence. NOT! Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation?

Ignoring that for a moment, look at how competent Crowdstrike is since the DNC hack.

The National Republican Congressional Committee was hacked during the 2018 election after hiring CrowdStrike, the cyber-firm that the Democratic National Committee employed that allowed DNC emails to be stolen even after the 2016 hack was detected.

The emails of four top NRCC officials were stolen in a major hack that was detected in April -- eight months ago, Politico reported Tuesday.

So in the past three years Crowdstrike:

a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired

In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million.

So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO .

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

Alligator Ed on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:23am
CS neither got it right nor did a good job

CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one.

gj, with your trove of sources, why do you think CS redacted their own report--it's all fiction anyway?

Inquiring gators want to know.

Dalum Woulu on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:47am
Wonder if they were worried they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something.
Alligator Ed on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:49am
Good point

@Dalum Woulu Now if only Adam Schiff would subpoena CS and make them testify as to this...and then unicorns will graze on the grass in my back lawn.

Dr. John Carpenter on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 7:06am
I think this is most of the IT biz right here

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job."

If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring them they don't need to waste their beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

[Jul 09, 2019] So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO

Notable quotes:
"... So in the past three years Crowdstrike: ..."
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

So in the past three years Crowdstrike:

a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired

In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million.

So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an IPO .

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

[Jul 09, 2019] CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia Meddling Claims.

Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Which brings me to the newest piece to drop, CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller's Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia Meddling Claims .

Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:

I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of critical events in the flawed investigation.

[Jul 09, 2019] Crowdstrike mode of operation:

Jul 09, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

I think this is most of the IT biz right here

It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job."

If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.

It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring them they don't need to waste their beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.

Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!

[Jun 30, 2019] Barak and CIA

Jun 30, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org

You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.

When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company, Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman, Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.

Like Obama and at about the same time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.

Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.

As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford Foundation.

Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto government.

Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.

[Jun 30, 2019] USG's Bizarre Change of Position in the Roger Stone Case by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Given these facts you would think it would be easy for Robert Mueller to explain how the Russians got their hands on the DNC emails and then passed them on to Wikileaks. But it is not easy because the foundation of the case against the Russians rests on assumptions and beliefs. No solid facts. ..."
"... To reiterate a point I have raised in previous posts, the only entity to have forensic access to the DNC computers, i.e. CrowdStrike, is on the record in the person of the CrowdStrike CEO, Dimitri Alperovitch admitting they don't know how the Russians got access. ..."
"... CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate -- often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted -- but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. " But we don't have hard evidence ," Alperovitch said. ..."
"... If CrowdStrike actually had conducted a legitimate forensic examination of the DNC server/servers then they absolutely would have had "hard evidence." ..."
"... The government produced the CrowdStrike reports because the Indictment in this case referenced, as background, CrowdStrike's statements about the DNC hack. Stone's statement that the government has no other evidence is not only irrelevant to this proceeding but is also mistaken. ..."
"... It is a horrible irony that Stone is being persecuted with prosecution based on an even bigger lie -- i.e., the Russians hacked the DNC. Russia did not hack the DNC. Let's hope that Stone's lawyers get a chance to demand the US Government put up the evidence or shut up. ..."
Jun 30, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There is zero forensic evidence in the public arena that supports the US Government's assertion that the Russian Government hacked the DNC. In fact, the forensic computer evidence that is available indicates that the emails from the DNC were downloaded onto something like a thumb drive.

There also is zero forensic evidence in the public arena that the Russians passed/delivered the DNC emails to Julian Assange/Wikileaks. There are only two ways to get DNC emails into the hands of Wiki people--an electronic transfer or a physical/human transfer. That's it.

And here is what we know for certain. First, since Edward Snowden absconded with the NSA's family jewels with the help of Wikileaks, U.S. and British intelligence assets have been monitoring every single electronic communication to and from Wikileaks/Julian Assange. They also have been conducting surveillance on all personal contacts with Assange and other key members of the Wikileaks staff.

Given these facts you would think it would be easy for Robert Mueller to explain how the Russians got their hands on the DNC emails and then passed them on to Wikileaks. But it is not easy because the foundation of the case against the Russians rests on assumptions and beliefs. No solid facts.

To reiterate a point I have raised in previous posts, the only entity to have forensic access to the DNC computers, i.e. CrowdStrike, is on the record in the person of the CrowdStrike CEO, Dimitri Alperovitch admitting they don't know how the Russians got access. Alperovitch told Washington Post Reporter Ellen Nakashima on June 14, 2016 the following :

CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate -- often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted -- but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. " But we don't have hard evidence ," Alperovitch said.

If CrowdStrike actually had conducted a legitimate forensic examination of the DNC server/servers then they absolutely would have had "hard evidence."

Then, 13 months later, we have FBI Director Jim Comey admitting that the FBI relied on CrowdStrike for its "evidence." Jim Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017 and stated the following :

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

Now take a look at a very significant reversal of the US Government's position in the case against Roger Stone. On 20 June 2019, US Attorney Jessie Liu filed a motion attempting to rebut the argument presented by Stone's attorneys that there was no supporting evidence for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. Here are the key snippets from her filing:

As the government has argued (Doc. 122, at 6, 9, 14), Russia's role in the DNC hack is not material to the eighteen findings of probable cause that Stone appears to be challenging. . . . The government produced the CrowdStrike reports because the Indictment in this case referenced, as background, CrowdStrike's statements about the DNC hack. Stone's statement that the government has no other evidence is not only irrelevant to this proceeding but is also mistaken.

Yet, when you read the original indictment, Roger Stone was put in the cross hairs because he was allegedly communicating with Wikileaks/Julian Assange about the DNC emails. And those emails are identified in the indictment as "stolen." The Government is hoping to nail Stone on the charge of "lying" to Congress. Good luck with that.

It is a horrible irony that Stone is being persecuted with prosecution based on an even bigger lie -- i.e., the Russians hacked the DNC. Russia did not hack the DNC. Let's hope that Stone's lawyers get a chance to demand the US Government put up the evidence or shut up.

[Jun 28, 2019] Joining Some Dots on the Skripal Case Part 6

It is possible that Skripal was a source of some information in Steele dossier
Notable quotes:
"... Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump linked Araz Agalarov could verify the piss taking allegations. It's well worth revisiting the Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media article for background on this meeting set up Mifsud et al: who are linked to London – not Moscow. ..."
"... "Genuine" in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged was true. The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would have been a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller's "investigation" out of the water. ..."
"... As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. The report includes Putin's inner circle – Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted compatriots" who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to tell him. ..."
"... Sergei Skripal could fit the description of the "Russian" referred to in the third paragraph. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | off-guardian.org

BigB

The main corroboration for the Steele Dossier was Christopher Steele: briefing the press at the Tabard Inn, Washington – to set up a collaboration loop. Julian Assange tweeted that one of the journalists was Paul Wood who looks like a spook or an asset himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/976943588394323973

Another journalists was Michael Isikoff. His planted story war used to collaborate the Dossier as the basis of the FBI's FISA warrant to surveill Carter Page.

The Nunes Memo also states that Steele back-chanelled additional allegations into the DOJ via Bruce Ohr.

Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump linked Araz Agalarov could verify the piss taking allegations. It's well worth revisiting the Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media article for background on this meeting set up Mifsud et al: who are linked to London – not Moscow.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/04/all-russiagate-roads-lead-to-london-as-evidence-emerges-of-joseph-mifsuds-links-to-uk-intelligence/

Anyway, all these "experts" – and Wikipedia – seem to have got their information from one source – Steele: who both wrote and then corroborated his own dossier. With a little help from his intel friends

Einstein
"Genuine" in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged was true. The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would have been a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller's "investigation" out of the water.

But I'll not engage with you any further on this, since there's none so blind as those who will not see.

Thomas Peterson
why exactly does it seem likely Skripal was one of Steele's sources? did Steele even need any sources to write his ludicrous 'dossier'?
Jen
Paul Roderick Gregory who has followed Soviet and Russian politics professionally for several decades has this to say about the Steele dossier:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#5a2c34e06867

The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous "trusted compatriots," "knowledgeable sources," "former intelligence officers," and "ministry of foreign affairs officials." The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump's Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin's inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information).

There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin outsider with enough "reliable" contacts to explain what is really going within Putin's office.

As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. The report includes Putin's inner circle – Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted compatriots" who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to tell him.

The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of sexual escapades with prostitutes in St. Petersburg and Moscow (the famous "golden shower" incident). Despite his reluctance to enter into lucrative business deals, Trump "and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals," according to the Orbis report.

This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.

Sergei Skripal could fit the description of the "Russian" referred to in the third paragraph.

[Jun 26, 2019] Guardian Working for UK Intel Services MI6 Tool Publishes Black Propaganda

Notable quotes:
"... Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. ..."
Jun 24, 2018 | sputniknews.com

On September 21, The Guardian ran an absolutely sensational exclusive, based on disclosures made by "multiple" anonymous sources to Luke Harding, one of the paper's leading journalists - in 2017, Russian diplomats allegedly held secret talks in London with associates of Assange, in an attempt to assist in the Wikileaks founder's escape from the UK.

The dastardly conspiracy would've entailed Assange being smuggled out of the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge under cover of Christmas Eve in a diplomatic vehicle and transported to Russia, where he'd be safe from extradition to the US, ending his eight-years of effective arbitrary detention in the process.

In any event, the audacious plot was eventually aborted after being deemed "too risky" -- even for the reckless daredevils of Moscow -- mere days before its planned execution date.

Rommy Vallejo, head of Ecuador's intelligence agency, is said to have travelled to the UK around December 15 to supervise the operation, and left when it was called off.

'Extraordinary, Deliberate Lies'

The Russian Embassy in London was quick to condemn the article on Twitter, calling the claims "another example of disinformation and fake news" in the UK mainstream media, and noting the paper violated national media standards by failing to ask the Russian side for a comment prior to the report's release. "This publication has nothing to do with the reality. The Embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorian colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions of any kind on Russia's participation in ending Assange's stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.

We're puzzled by the sensational attitude of the authors. As recently as September 18, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright called for increased efforts to combat media and online disinformation. [The] Guardian piece is a brilliant example of the kind of journalism British reader should be protected from," a spokesperson added in an official statement. In a subsequent statement , the Russian Foreign Ministry slammed the article for containing a "whole series of similar anti-Russia innuendos, and once again made clear Russian diplomats did not contact staff of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London or Assange's associates in order to assist in his escape from the UK.

However, a far more damning indictment of the article's extraordinary, evidence-free claims was provided by Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who denounced the "quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies" in a September 23 blog post. In doing so, he revealed he and Fidel Narvaez -- a close confidant of Assange fingered as the key point of contact between the Ecuadorian embassy and Moscow in the article -- had engaged in discussions with Assange in 2017 regarding a possible departure from the UK capital, and debated possible future destinations for the embattled Wikileaks founder.

As of today -- start of the 73rd UN General Assembly -- 957 days have passed since the UN ruled Julian Assange is unlawfully & arbitrarily detained by the UK authorities and must be released & compensated. https://t.co/zZGUOhNDvH #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/i08Ji9WF1g -- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 18, 2018
​"It's not only the case Russia didn't figure in those plans, Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia. I know 100% for certain the entire story is a complete and utter fabrication. I cannot find words enough to express the depth of my contempt for Harding and [Editor] Katherine Viner, who've betrayed completely the values of journalism. The aim of the piece is evidently to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks' non-existent relationship to Russia as part of the "Hillary didn't really lose" narrative. I am, frankly, rather shocked," Murray wrote .

Friends in Spooky Places

The identities of Harding's alleged anonymous sources aren't even hinted at in the article, but Murray made a striking suggestion -- he "strongly suspect[ed]" that "MI6 tool" Harding's informants were the UK security services. If true, this would make the article "entirely black propaganda" produced by British spies. Whether MI6 agents are the source of the story or not, it's certainly true Harding enjoys a very close relationship indeed with British intelligence services -- a bond he has frequently, openly and proudly advertised in articles and books.

For instance, in his highly controversial 2017 book Collusion, Harding argued Donald Trump had a relationship with the Russian 'deep state' dating back to the 1980s, and colluded with the Kremlin to subvert US democracy. To support this conclusion, he frequently cited claims fed to him directly by Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy turned 'business intelligence' professional, who authored the utterly discredited 'Trump-Russia' dossier for Fusion GPS.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Ikf1uZli4g

When challenged to provide any evidence whatsoever for his book's assertions by Aaron Mate of The Real News, Harding was left mumbling and stuttering -- he was also unable to defend his claim that an individual's use of an emoji was proof they were working for Russian intelligence, and terminated the interview prematurely.

Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. Individuals who conducted internet searches for Miller afterwards quickly found his LinkedIn profile, which identified him as a 'Senior Analyst' at Orbis Intelligence -- Steele's corporate espionage company.-

It is true, or was. As I say, this 2017 forum thread, which links to Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile, states Orbis is listed on Miller's CV -- https://t.co/Fx0vu1qorJ . Stop regurgitating anonymous claims by your spook pals and do some research, Luke -- Kit Klarenberg (@KitKlarenberg) March 12, 2018
​Miller's page was quickly deleted though, and Harding took to Twitter to issue firm denials of a connection between Miller and the firm, going so far as to suggest "someone" was using search engine optimization techniques to dishonestly associate Miller and Orbis. However, enterprising Sputnik journalist Kit Klarenberg quickly and easily found an online forum thread dating from 2017 clearly identifying Miller as an Orbis employee -- as of September, Harding is yet to respond, or retract his claims.
Related:
Freudian Slip: Did Guardian Urge Two Tech Giants to 'Promote Hate and Division'?
Russian Embassy on The Guardian Article: 'Great Foreign Policy Planning'
The Guardian's Attempt to Save the White Helmets
UK Broadcasters to Be Urged to Face Up to 'Russian Propaganda' - Reports

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

Jun 20, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Why won't Obama live in Chicago?

JD Rock , 2 hours ago link

too much diversity...

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

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

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 16:04

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 20:21

Thank you for this:

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

Bill , June 19, 2019 at 02:59

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:57

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

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 08:30

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

CitizenOne , June 19, 2019 at 01:11

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maxwell Quest , June 19, 2019 at 13:28

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

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

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:38

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

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

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

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

hetro , June 18, 2019 at 15:36

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

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

http://g-2.space/

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

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

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

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

Mark McCarty , June 18, 2019 at 18:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:42

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

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:32

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

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:04

You're citing debunked bullshit invented by Duncan Campbell.

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

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

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 15:39

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

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

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

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:36

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

hetro , June 19, 2019 at 12:33

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

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

Again the site is:

http://g-2.space/

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:15

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

geeyp , June 20, 2019 at 00:19

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 15:15

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

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:15

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

Ray McGovern , June 18, 2019 at 21:06

Thanks, DW Bartoo.

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

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

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

Let's address this key challenge like right here.

Ray

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 08:03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless.

I see few give up or knuckle under.

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

Yet we still are, overall, a few.

So, what shall we do?

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

What, specifically, is our goal?

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

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

Is it both these things and more?

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

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

What do we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we simply TALK LOUDER?

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

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

I agree, let us not curse our stars.

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

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

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

Do I have answers?

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

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

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

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

Those who await saviors, wait in vain.

Our future is very iffy.

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

Do not prattle on about "hope".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do so many believe absolute nonsense?

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

What do you think?

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:01

You write well. A rarity.

Mark McCarty , June 19, 2019 at 17:20

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

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

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

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

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:54

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

Carolyn , June 18, 2019 at 09:24

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:51

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

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:41

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:50

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:22

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

Stygg , June 19, 2019 at 15:15

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

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:20

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

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

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

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

Fazsha , June 18, 2019 at 13:56

Two words: Seth Rich.

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 16:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 13:24

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

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

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

Yes, it is that serious.

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

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

OlyaPola , June 18, 2019 at 01:24

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

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

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

John Drake , June 17, 2019 at 21:03

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

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:51

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

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

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:46

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:16

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

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

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:06

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

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

David G , June 18, 2019 at 12:42

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

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

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

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 23:46

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

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 00:00

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

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 11:40

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

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

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

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

Now, you can argue an number of things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 12:49

Nice cherry picking and misrepresentation, DW Bartoo.

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 19, 2019 at 14:01

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

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

That is the essential aspect which 2016 revealed.

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

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 14:24

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

philnc , June 19, 2019 at 18:31

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

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:35

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

tom , June 19, 2019 at 16:24

Wasnt that a crime scene?

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 17:28

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

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:48

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

geeyp , June 18, 2019 at 19:43

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

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:08

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

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

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

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

Pissedoffalese , June 20, 2019 at 03:44

FIRED???

Firing SQUAD more like.

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

Jim Glover , June 17, 2019 at 16:54

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

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:53

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

jeffmontanye , June 17, 2019 at 22:50

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

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 16:29

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

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

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

jaycee , June 17, 2019 at 16:26

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

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

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 01:53

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

But her supporters don't have any problem with that

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 16:18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 23:53

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

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

michael , June 18, 2019 at 07:17

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

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

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 15:58

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

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

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

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

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 07:29

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

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

Realist , June 18, 2019 at 16:25

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

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

John Hawk , June 17, 2019 at 15:06

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

Abe , June 17, 2019 at 15:02

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

Can't Say Why:

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

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

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

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

The Sanders campaign won primaries and caucuses in 22 states.

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

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

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

Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford described the debacle:

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

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

"Real Fascist vs. Trump Cartoon Version

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

https://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie_endorses_greatest_evil

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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

Put that in your vape and smoke it, kids.

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

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

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:01

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

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:14

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

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

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

Maxwell Quest , June 18, 2019 at 23:03

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

EchoDelta , June 17, 2019 at 14:55

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

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

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

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

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

certainquirk , June 17, 2019 at 15:28

Troll. Starve.

nwwoods , June 17, 2019 at 17:32

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

Andrew Thomas , June 17, 2019 at 18:34

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

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 18:58

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

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

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

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

Robbin Milne , June 17, 2019 at 19:37

Empty wheel Marcy wheeler isn't a credible source.

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

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

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:39

No such claim dimwit.

Abby , June 18, 2019 at 02:17

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 18:14

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

This will be very interesting to observe.

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

Vera Gottlieb , June 17, 2019 at 14:28

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

jmg , June 17, 2019 at 17:07

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

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:21

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

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:33

Go away and be an obedient believer then.

jb , June 17, 2019 at 13:33

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

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:23

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

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:30

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

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 00:06

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

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:05

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

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

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:04

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

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

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:32

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

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

Eric32 , June 18, 2019 at 13:53

You're not very good at this.

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

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

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 01:22

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

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

Eric32 , June 19, 2019 at 12:51

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curious , June 19, 2019 at 00:48

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

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:20

Seth Rich

Lorri Strawser , June 17, 2019 at 13:18

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

LJ , June 17, 2019 at 19:22

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

Pablo Diablo , June 17, 2019 at 11:45

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

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 12:34

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

Pancho Vanilla , June 17, 2019 at 13:21

Amen!

Ruth , June 17, 2019 at 14:04

That is so true.

David G , June 17, 2019 at 20:16

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

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:56

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

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

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

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

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

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

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

Linda Wood , June 18, 2019 at 15:03

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 19, 2019 at 06:55

John-

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

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

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:38

HEY JOHN .. HEY JOHN .. Crickets.

John , June 17, 2019 at 11:06

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

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

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

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

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

michael , June 17, 2019 at 13:43

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 14:37

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

John , June 17, 2019 at 14:12

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

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

Eric32 , June 17, 2019 at 17:11

LOL. From the FBI's site:

Computer Forensic Science

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

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

Piotr Berman , June 17, 2019 at 17:23

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

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

Anne Jaclard , June 17, 2019 at 19:00

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

John , June 17, 2019 at 23:01

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

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:57

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 09:21

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

Will , June 17, 2019 at 20:47

stop making sense John.

Andy W , June 17, 2019 at 21:10

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

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

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

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

John , June 17, 2019 at 22:40

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

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

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:49

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

"12 Years of Disruption:
A WikiLeaks Timeline".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, John, my question for you is this.

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

DW Bartoo , June 18, 2019 at 14:51

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

Andy W , June 18, 2019 at 17:32

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

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

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

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

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:41

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

John , June 18, 2019 at 10:59

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

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

LJ , June 18, 2019 at 15:53

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

Deniz , June 18, 2019 at 19:19

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

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 18:43

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

John , June 19, 2019 at 14:51

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

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

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:08

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

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:48

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

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

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

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

Norumbega , June 17, 2019 at 16:12

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

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

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

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

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

"JCS email hack was 7/25/15 – 8/6/15"

"Not much room for plausible deniability there."

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

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

Mark McCarty , June 17, 2019 at 18:45

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

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

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

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

http://g-2.space/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 08:06

Norumbega and Mark-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 21:46

These are interesting speculations, worth thinking about.

Two quick thoughts:

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

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

Skip Scott , June 20, 2019 at 05:47

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

Adam Carter , June 20, 2019 at 08:48

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

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

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

Adam Carter , June 18, 2019 at 13:52

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

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

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

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

Brian James , June 17, 2019 at 10:49

May 26, 2019 Trump Scares Swamp with Declassification Move

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

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

Jeff Harrison , June 17, 2019 at 10:12

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

dag , June 17, 2019 at 09:45

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

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

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

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

worldblee , June 17, 2019 at 13:22

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

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

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

John A , June 17, 2019 at 14:11

You call yourself a noncomunist. What is a comunist?

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 15:52

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

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

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

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:14

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

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

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

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

David Otness , June 18, 2019 at 21:12

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

AnneR , June 17, 2019 at 16:04

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

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

Your proof that Russia is "our greatest enemy"?

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

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

Paul Merrell , June 17, 2019 at 17:54

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Keenan , June 17, 2019 at 19:30

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

Matt , June 17, 2019 at 23:40

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

Cambridge Analytica Bannon Mercer

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

David G , June 17, 2019 at 19:46

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

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

bjd , June 18, 2019 at 06:49

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

David Otness , June 17, 2019 at 19:50

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

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

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

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

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

hetro , June 17, 2019 at 09:18

Also take a look at:

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

And:

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

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

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 09:01

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

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

Ron , June 17, 2019 at 10:33

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

Skip Scott , June 17, 2019 at 11:44

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

Norumbega , June 18, 2019 at 06:39

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

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

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

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

Skip Scott , June 18, 2019 at 12:52

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

Norumbega , June 19, 2019 at 07:22

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

Sally Snyder , June 17, 2019 at 07:44

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

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

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

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

Apr 12, 2019 | counterpunch.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russiagate is Dead! Long Live Russiagate!

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

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

This is delusional lunacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eternal Witch-hunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russiagate Forever

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

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

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

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

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

Place your bets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comey Can't Say Why

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

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

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

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

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

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

CrowdStrike's Early Role

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

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

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

Preferring CrowdStrike; ' Splaining to Congress

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

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

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

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

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

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

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

COMEY: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

Comey Spikes Deal With Assange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Were They Thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

Additional reporting by Joe Lauria

Background Reading on Deep State-Gate

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

Author: Ray McGovern

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

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

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

freedommusic , 23 minutes ago link

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

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

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

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

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

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

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

AGENT: No.

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

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

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

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

(silence)

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

AGENT: Uh .. no.

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

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

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

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

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

DEF ATT: What?

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

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

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

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.

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

AGENT: I don't know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: No, I cannot.

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

AGENT: No.

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

AGENT: No.

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

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

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

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

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

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

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

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

AGENT: No.

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

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

( source )

hooligan2009 , 14 minutes ago link

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

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

Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

me title=

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

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

and used the claim therein as an official position .

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

Think about that for a few minutes. - Conservative Treehouse

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

Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down

General Titus , 10 seconds ago link

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

4medicinalpurposesonly , 17 seconds ago link

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

Helg Saracen , 1 minute ago link

Oy wey! Do not make my **** laugh (I myself have long been unable to laugh from all this circus). Guys - not tired yet?

:)

Catullus , 5 minutes ago link

Remember that one time Hillary Clinton said on national television during a presidential debate that Russia needed to be held accountable for this? That 17 intelligence agreed they did it. And that we should take action to provoke a nuclear power. On TV.

All because we got to see how corrupt the DNC nomination process is.

brokebackbuck , 23 seconds ago link

its a very simple scheme. its what any child would do hide that they cheated and get out of trouble:

1) stop trumpo
2) fabricate the foreign meddling narrative to implicate trump as LONG as possible, so long it makes people sick to hear foreign meddling, even though it was the DNC that actually paid british people to fabricate compromat.
3) blame russia for everything

Mike Rotsch , 8 minutes ago link

Anyone remember that very brief news story about a California Senator returning from London with "bombshell" information that he had to get to the POTUS immediately? I waited to see if anything would ever come of that. Instead . . .

. . . scrubbed from the internet.

pHObuk0wrEHob71Suwr2 , 10 minutes ago link

Hooty Hoo

https://twitter.com/JakeWharton/status/1092425961361022976

MrBoompi , 12 minutes ago link

If it says Factual Background, it must be true. We are dealing with super trustworthy folks here, remember. How many more "factual reports" will we see that don't mention Seth Rich? The murderers are still running free.

yerfej , 13 minutes ago link

The bureaucracy owns the media, courts, and academia so naturally they can shape the law to meet their personal needs. The average taxpayer is just a tool to allow the bureaucrats to consolidate and maintain their ownership of everyone and everything.

RussianSniper , 13 minutes ago link

Trump enjoys drama and treats this entire treasonous coup as a television drama.

The issue is that ordinary American citizens are sick and tired of the powerful and wealthy having two sets of rules, theirs and those for everyone else.

I stopped watching television except for local sports and NHL.

I rarely look at ZH anymore.

Never watch Fox anymore

Would not consider any paper

My point is that the people who once were concerned, are losing interest.

Those who treat politics as religion will continue to treat those who disagree as criminals and cast offs.

What used to be a great country that a availed opportunity to all who tried, is now a kleptocracy and a club for leftist religious fanatics.

lisa.roy39 , 14 minutes ago link

𝐈'𝐦 ­­­­­­­­­ 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫­­­­­­­­­ $𝟏𝟑𝐤­­­­­­­­­ 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡­­­­­­­­­ 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠­­­­­­­­­ 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 ­­­­­­­­­𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 ­­­­­­­­­𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐜𝐚𝐧 ­­­­­­­­­𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐈 ­­­­­­­­­𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤­­­­­­­­­ 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭. ­­­­­­­­­𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞.­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡­­­­­­­­­ 𝐦𝐲 ­­­­­­­­­𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐜­­­­­­­­­𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐬 ­­­­­­­­­$𝟏𝟐𝟕𝟏𝟐 ­­­­­­­­­𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 ­­­­­­­­­𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ­­­­­­­­­𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫­­­­­­­­­ 𝐚 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤.....

click this link════►►► http://www.todaysfox.com

Bricker , 18 minutes ago link

#Resist will guarantee Trumps re-election, unless the 15 states who are going to use their pact to send their votes towards popular vote.

The United States of America is turning into a shithole Banana Republic with the ******* democrats.

This should be headline news on conservative stations, not including the new liberal news station, Fox News.

glenlloyd , 6 minutes ago link

I don't think states can arbitrarily decide to ignore the electoral college if they want to. Something tells me federal law governs national elections and they can whine and cry and act like triggered embiciles all they want but it doesn't change the law.

The Carbonator , 3 minutes ago link

It would end up going to SCOTUS. Lets hope that Trump gets the honor of replacing that treasonous bitch with a real constitutional judge. Lets keep hope alive!

Pussy Biscuit , 19 minutes ago link

That disgusting *** should be liquidated.

scaleindependent , 21 minutes ago link

Whatever we blame Russia for doing, we are in fact doing.

For example, we blame them for hacking our electrical grid. No proof was given, yet this morning we have evidence we have been messing and hacking Russia's electrical grid.

We blame them for interfering in our elections, when in fact we have been interfering in the world's elections and sovereign governments.


The ultimate hypocrites.

freedommusic , 21 minutes ago link

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

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

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

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

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

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

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

AGENT: No.

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

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

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

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

(silence)

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

AGENT: Uh .. no.

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

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

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

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

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

DEF ATT: What?

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

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

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

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.

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

AGENT: I don't know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: No, I cannot.

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

AGENT: No.

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

AGENT: No.

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

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

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

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

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

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

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

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

AGENT: No.

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

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

AGENT: That is correct.

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

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

( source )

hooligan2009 , 14 minutes ago link

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

GALLGE , 1 minute ago link

There's no way to sweep it under the official rug at this point. Even kicking off WWIII as a distraction will flop.

Thebighouse , 22 minutes ago link

Lying demon-rats........liars liars liars.........just like cnn, and their affiliates...nbc, cbs abc msnbc...........all weaponized propaganda outlets........should lose fcc licenses and HANG THEIR LYING COLLUDING ANCHORS....hang 'em high........liars

DEDA CVETKO , 23 minutes ago link

As the ring of known Russiagate conspirators gets narrower and narrower, this anti-russian (which also happens to be anti-american and anti-world) clique's collective characteristics and traits are getting easier and easier to discern and quantify because their contours - previously carefully concealed by multiple layers of opaque veils and drapes - are now fully visible.

These people are all (A) privileged elites and dynastic social castes (B) share, more or less, the same social and divine cosmology (no, not Buddhist) (C) do not recognize ethics and morals as having any meaning or significance except on a purely nominal and declarative level, which - of course - applies to others, but not to themselves (D) firmly believe in survival of the fittest, law of the jungle and might-makes-right (E) are all members of the secret frats (F) performed important state functions and aspire to perform some more because, after all, greed is good and so is unlimited ambition (they also seem to enjoy very much their hard-earned social status and prominence) (G) belong to the same "liberal interventionist" war club (H) believe in Keynesian economics, but - absurdly, and in the same breath - in Ayn Rand's right-wing ideological nonsense, depending on what suits them the best at any given moment, (I) typically have background in banking or finance, corporate management or government lobbying (J) prefer to remain anonymous at any cost (K) have a very fluid and elastic perception of human sexuality and libidinal urges (L) Own Panama-or Cayman Islands- chartered tax havens (M) do not mingle with the non-elites or unwashed masses (N) firmly believe in their divine chosenness and messianic role (O) show pronounced, sustained propensity to Groupthink and consistent absence of any creative and constructive thought; (P) are always "centrists", "middle of the road" and "bipartisan" and never tend to stick out in any social milieu, preferring instead to dictate from the opaque deep end, (Q) maintain extremely high fake media visibility (R) do not believe in forgiveness, penitence or remorse - only in never-ending, bloody revenge.

This profile of humans cannot be properly socialized or resocialized, because the social ethos that created them made amply sure that they cannot be adjusted, bettered, improved or otherwise socially tweaked at any point in their lives: in essence, their characters and personalities are cast in stone, cemented unto all eternity and permanently immutable.. The best that we, the normal people, can do is kindly and gently quarantine them to a place where they can't inflict any significant damage and prevent them from rising to the top, which may turn out to be very different because they control (and have every intention of controlling in the future) every road that leads to the top.

hooligan2009 , 11 minutes ago link

well put sir/madam/it!!!

Amy G. Dala , 23 minutes ago link

So, the FBI "asked" the DNC for the servers, and the DNC said they never heard from the FBI.

Guess James Comey musta got Seth Rich on the line.

charliebrown , 24 minutes ago link

Treason including a coup against democracy

ATM , 22 minutes ago link

against the Republic.

Democracy is pure evil.

Government needs you to pay taxes , 24 minutes ago link

Rule of law in Murrika is kaput.

DirtySanchez , 26 minutes ago link

The entirety of the USA government, including the intel agencies, the judiciary, state dept, justice dept, congress, and the growing bureaucracy has been hijacked by a treacherous tribe of people, intent on destroying the nation from within.

Kill the tyrants before they kill you!

Thebighouse , 20 minutes ago link

Punish the tyrants and look at that well organized community...........if you don't think leggo-obummer didn't have a huge hand in this, you are very mis-informed.

ACMeCorporations , 27 minutes ago link

Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie, Perkins Coie. Follow the money. Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS and CrowdStrike. Raid them like Michael Cohen was raided.

hooligan2009 , 26 minutes ago link

bang on!

SummerSausage , 20 minutes ago link

Raid them like Roger Stone was raided!

BIWEEE , 28 minutes ago link

Wasserman-Schultz = Khazar!!!

hooligan2009 , 25 minutes ago link

= futt bugly mowler honkey

Black Dog 32 , 30 minutes ago link

Crowdstrike just ipo'd this week. Cashing in. I think it was up 100% first day.

natxlaw , 30 minutes ago link

I'm bored, when is someone going to jail. I won't be sharing this information with blue pill normies they would not get it. Trump, you listening?

Joebloinvestor , 32 minutes ago link

The FBI was so "in the bag" with the DNC it is laughable.

Now you know why they wanted the Smollet investigation handed off to the FBI.

Bunch of ******* dirty corrupt cops.

hooligan2009 , 34 minutes ago link

just remember that, aside from the weaponization of federal agencies for political purposes by obama, biden and clinton (which merits waterboarding in guantanamo) - there are hundreds if not thousands of INNOCENTS who have been prosecuted and GUILTY still walking the streets.

the prosecution of the innocent and the releaseof the guilty may have been going on for decades, but, but now, it should be apparet, that in true KGB style, it ballooned to extreme proportions under Obama/Biden and Clinton.

and this is what the howler moneys in the clown car want to inflict on the US in 2020. after all, it's their turn right?

honk honk.

schroedingersrat , 32 minutes ago link

And it got much worse under Trump hiring all the war criminals form yesteryears back into office.

hooligan2009 , 23 minutes ago link

truth is a good way of triggering howler monkeys

Creative_Destruct , 35 minutes ago link

"....based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party"

Hey, when you (the FBI, the entire executive branch) are partisan Never Trumpers and it's your party what else should we expect? After all, gotta concoct all the propaganda possible under the guise of an "objective" investigation for that "insurance policy."

novictim , 37 minutes ago link

Totally believable. The corruption is just as bad as the most pessimistic analysis has suggested.

We live in a time of universal lies and a press that supports illegal activities by treasonous elements of the US Government.

How do we turn this around without an honest Press rallying the public?

Amy G. Dala , 27 minutes ago link

Easy. Apply responsibilities that are commensurate with their constitutional right to publish. It's been three years of ******** and unsourced stories.

At a minimum, when a confidential source provides information that is demonstrated to be false, then that reporter is legally bound to identify them. Fuckers should be in jail.

Look at Assange. He publishes truth, and he's in jail. Tapper/Seltzer/et. al. are millionaire celebrities.

Thordoom , 38 minutes ago link

Why Russians who were sanctioned by US over this hoax are not suing US and asking for huge reparations is beyond me.

schroedingersrat , 37 minutes ago link

Most Russian sanctions are based on lies. Have a look at the Magnitsky Act :)

Thordoom , 36 minutes ago link

I know i follow Lee Stranahan's work about that hoax too for years.

Bill Browder blocked me on twater.

Ruff_Roll , 18 minutes ago link

Maybe they're blocked by sovereign immunity.

pparalegal , 39 minutes ago link

Another day another Hillary crowd-strikes.

[Jun 14, 2019] Our old acquaintance Crowdstrike has gone public, and in its IPO debut, the stock surged to a market cap of over $12 Billion

Notable quotes:
"... Surprisingly, Crowdstrike's CEO – George Kurtz – does not have a background in the national intelligence services, or none that is immediately apparent. He seems to have worked mostly in private security, having gotten into it fairly early on, and is an accountant by trade; he seems to be the public face of the firm, and to be mostly involved in marketing. ..."
"... However, their president of services, Shawn Henry, is a former executive assistant director of the FBI, and I imagine its employees include quite a few former government spooks and ideologues. ..."
"... The other co-founder, though, is Dmitry Alperovitch. ..."
"... He's a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, a direct adviser to the US Department of Defense, connected to Hillary Clinton and runs a new corporation whose startup cash came from Google. There's something even bigger than Google – corporations now seem more and more to be merging into what are essentially mini-states within the state itself – and it is called Alphabet Capital, Google's parent company. The Chairman of Alphabet Capital is Eric Schmidt, and he was actively working for Hillary Clinton during the last election when she spectacularly failed to make the cut. ..."
"... Google, allegedly, is becoming more and more an arm of the Democratic Party in the USA. ..."
"... Wheels within wheels, and connections seen and unseen. Several security professionals and software developers have alluded to Crowdstrike's reports on international hacking as being full of shit – but the American enforcement and intelligence services seem content to outsource their cyber work more or less exclusively to Crowdstrike. And the results of its IPO suggest high confidence on the part of investors that it is going to become ever-more-closely allied to the US government, font of government grants and funding which can be hard to trace. ..."
"... For what it's worth, the Crowdstrike story that Russian cyber-meddling had knocked out 80% of Ukrainian artillery systems was deemed bogus by several other sources, including the Ukrainian Army. At it