Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Paul Bacon]

"-1" is a great moniker for Trump.

[W. Niederhut]

Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barrs-handpicked-prosecutor-tells-inspector-general-he-cant-back-right-wing-theory-that-russia-case-was-us-intelligence-setup/2019/12/04/17e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html

[Douglas Caddy]

Is the world laughing at our President?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/biden-releases-viral-campaign-ad-slamming-trump-a-president-the-world-is-laughing-at/ar-BBXNFFX?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=UE07DHP

 

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Is the world laughing at our President?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/biden-releases-viral-campaign-ad-slamming-trump-a-president-the-world-is-laughing-at/ar-BBXNFFX?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=UE07DHP

 

One of Trump's most bizarre Trumpaganda mantras since 2017 has been, "The world respects us again," (now that the black guy is out of the White House, etc.)

Apparently, his Confederate cult members actually believe this is true.

Yet, Trump's approval rating in parts of Western Europe has fallen to less than 10%, while Obama continues to be held in high esteem, with approval ratings of 80%.

[Dennis Berube]

46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup

He asked us intel if mifsud was theirs and they said no, thats the sum of this story. If we look to the washington post for clear answers and diligent reporting, we will end up agreeing with the Warren report. 

[Cliff Varnell]

34 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

He asked us intel if mifsud was theirs and they said no, thats the sum of this story. If we look to the washington post for clear answers and diligent reporting, we will end up agreeing with the Warren report. 

We don't need the DOJ IG or the WAPO to tell us this theory is bunk.

We're being asked to believe that US intl and Crowdstrike framed Putin and Trump for the DNC hack.  And then this story was covered twice (twice!) during the 2016 election, nothing over the last 70 days. Who executes a false flag attack and then keeps it under wraps?

Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails got heavy blanket coverage until the last 11 days when it was total saturation anti-Hillary on cable news.

And these genius Trumpenlinks think the deep state wanted Clinton!

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Bob, It appears Bolton's playing a teasing sort of "come and get me game",and will respond to a subpoena, so why do you think  the Dems aren't going after him?

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bob, It appears Bolton's playing a teasing sort of "come and get me game",and will respond to a subpoena, so why do you think  the Dems aren't going after him?

I've been torn on this one and the speed they're moving at. On the one hand, if he refused to honor a subpoena, the HSPCI could charge him (and the others) with Contempt of Congress, jail and fine him but that could turn him hostile. Instead they dropped the idea of a subpoena and kept it to an invitation. It's possible I suppose that was intentionally done to keep the contempt charge out of the picture while they await a decision, because his lawyers have let them know he'll give Trump up. I don't know that though. I don't blame his lawyers for throwing it to a Judge because it provides top cover for him with the Attorney General, who has turned out to be nothing but a slithering toadie for the President and could potentially cause problems for him. I think this is good lawyering personally, even though it pisses me off. Plus, there's no guarantee Bolton, watching his Fox retainer vanish (1 million?? 2???), wouldn't turn around and sprinkle holy water on everything and say it's all Trumptastic (!!), yay!

I have to say I'm a little scared by the Dems reaction to all this especially after listening to the constitutional experts at the HJC hearing. Their rush to trial has me worried it's really worse than it appears and we're not getting the full story. Strategically speaking,  it may be better to have some new outrage every news cycle until the election. They seem to think it's a National Security priority to hurry because he's gone so far off the rails we're in actual danger from his craziness. I am concerned about that. We all should be.

Now we see Rudy running around with wingnut TV confirming everything we already knew about Trump's trying to use foreign influence via corrupt Russian/Ukrainian "business people". He's doing so openly, with nary a whimper from the Republicans in Congress.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I don't like to be the one to revive this thread after long hours of dormancy, so Bob, you deserve the blame or credit for keeping it going. I'll give you credit because I find it entertaining. I am sure others will blame you because they find the thread annoying.

Back to Business.

I like to try to separate the Deep State's efforts to reverse the results of the 2016 election into distinct "attempts" and "fails." Like in the formula below;

• Effort(1) = (Attempt-1) + (Fail-1)  
• Effort(2) = (Attempt-2) + (Fail-2)
• (3),(4)... etc.

Like this:

• "Russian Collusion Hoax" = (Attribute the Leak as a Hack) + (Mueller Report), or,
• Effort = Attempt + Fail

The formula distinction is only for clarity. The "Attempts" were often an amalgamation of related, over-lapping operations (in personnel and in time), to remove Trump,  so a nice clean Time Line, with distinct begin and end dates is not possible. The overall Trump Take Down Effort looks more like a Gantt Chart than a Timeline.

To date, there have been a total of 3 primary Efforts, in roughly the time order shown below.

1. "Russian Collusion Hoax" = (Attribute the Leak as a Hack) + (Mueller Report)

2. "Trump is Racist" = (Associate Trump with White Supremacists and Iranian Monarchists*) + (Charlottesville False Flag)

3. "Ukrainegate"  = (Argue Trump should be impeached for (1.) "quid-pro-quo", then (2.) "Bribery", then (3.) whatever polls best, etc.) + (Schiff's Public Impeachment Hearing**)

Since we are now on Effort(3), but many of you are still arguing about Effort(1), the Russian Collusion Hoax, you will be happy to know that some interesting information came out yesterday from Ray McGovern.

The video is only five minutes long. Ray McGovern reminds us that the DNC emails were not "hacked", but "leaked". Ray received a subpoena, which is new news. 

This is a 20 minute video (all audio) that was posted about 4 months ago. An abbreviated version (6 min) was posted about 2 years ago. Even though the longer version is 4 months old, I am pretty confident no one here has heard it.

The long version and the abbreviated one is a discussion between Ed Butowsky and Sy Hersh.

Long Version.

Short Version.

 

 

 

*Iranian Monarchists - a catch all for a supposed activist group that wanted to Trump to overthrow the current Iranian regime and build concentration camps in North Africa to stem the tide of Middle Eastern Refugees looking for passage to Europe. 

**The current Nadler hearing continues, but the Ukrainegate Impeachment Effort died with the Schiff hearing.

 

You may remain willfully ignorant if you want Robert but remember he's not lying to me, he's lying to you.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Well Robert, whether this is a " Forum Deep State 3 Amigo flush." I'd say you probably got Jeff in your back  pocket. And maybe it is juicy enough that maybe Jim can  do a complete  about face with his long held hostility toward Hersh for his Kennedy writings. I don't know. That wound is pretty deep.

But i say, " i don't care what you say Otis,i  still think Hersh is kind of a tramp". (60's song reference)

 

In this Biden confrontation in iowa, the crescendo is when he says indignantly, "You said I set up my son in an oil company. Isn't that your words?"

But isn't that exactly what happened? Is there any dispute about that?

You'd think Biden would have gotten together with his staff and anticipated this a little better by now.

https://youtu.be/cWx8SL0RYRo

************

It's pretty obvious in that, i don't know what you call it, impeachment judicial review that the 3 constitutional lawyers the Dems got were good, but all sort of liberal that Fox news and certain Congessman could make fun of their coming from Harvard and Stanford. They should have gotten one  Conservative with a bit of integrity.Maybe an old guy in a tweed suit and a bow tie. That would have looked better.

************

There's also the case to be made that the Dems should make their case, and just hold on to it, keep quiet and have it looming in the background, and don't submit it to the Senate, Because the way everything's gone up to now, Trump and associates can only be found more guilty in the future. They use it if they have to, though probably not in the last few months before the election because that would look heavy handed. And then they don't have to put up with the prospect of a knock down and drag donnybrook, that could ensue in the Senate.  Even if Trump can overcome his compulsion to make things worse. How bad it could it really boomerang with independent voters?  Not sure it's a good strategy, but it does raise interesting questions!

***************

In the final analysis, if it came down to it. As time goes on, if the Senate races start going astray. I don't think Mitch Mac Connell is going to risk his future job for Donald Trump.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Since we are now on Effort(3), but many of you are still arguing about Effort(1), the Russian Collusion Hoax, you will be happy to know that some interesting information came out yesterday from Ray McGovern.

The video is only five minutes long. Ray McGovern reminds us that the DNC emails were not "hacked", but "leaked". Ray received a subpoena, which is new news. 

 

 

 

This is so hysterical that you post this as something. I doubt the guy knows a mac address from an IRQ but here is someone who does:

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links

"Some former intelligence officials, from a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), backed up the claim. A group, including William Binney, a former technical director at the US National Security Agency (NSA), and former CIA officer Ray McGovern, were persuaded, without checking the file data, to say that the hacking was the work of insiders.

According to former NSA technical manager Tom Drake, “Ray’s determination to publish claims he wanted to believe without checking facts and discarding evidence he didn’t want to hear exactly reproduced the Iraq war intelligence failures which the VIPS group was formed to oppose”. He and other VIPS members refused to sign McGovern’s report.  

But the VIPS endorsement was repeated by American media, from respected left-wing publication The Nation to controversial right-wing site Breitbart News. The ploy succeeded – and made it to the White House. Binney was invited on to Fox News and said allegations that Russia had hacked the DNC were unproven. Trump then told CIA director Mike Pompeo to see Binney to find evidence to support the claims. Pompeo met with Binney on 24 October 2017.

Binney said he told the CIA chief that he had no fresh information. But he said he knew where to look – in the surveillance databases of his former intelligence agency, NSA.  

As a former top NSA insider, Binney was correct, but not in the way he expected. NSA’s top secret records, disclosed in the DoJ indictment earlier this month, lifted the lid on what the Russians did and how they did it.

A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”."

 

This idiotic theory, espoused by a few others here, appears to be an outright deception that has been easily run to ground by a single reporter, much less the entire NSC and the Mueller Investigation.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

22 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

This idiotic theory, espoused by a few others here, appears to be an outright deception that has been easily run to ground by a single reporter, much less the entire NSC and the Mueller Investigation.

A 17 month old Computer Weekly article with an obvious predisposition to proclaiming “case closed” is not, and has not been, the last word. 

As is now known, the entire theory of a “Russian hack” relies  almost entirely on a draft version of  Crowdstrike’s analysis - a decidedly partisan source. VIPS represents a peer review which continues the status of a contested analysis. 

Furthermore, Wikileaks continues to insist their source was not Russia, with strong hints that it was a source inside DNC. Former British diplomat Craig Murray, who has acknowledged integrity, was directly involved in the retrieval of the emails and he adamantly declares the “Russian hack” theory is incorrect.

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

54 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

A 17 month old Computer Weekly article with an obvious predisposition to proclaiming “case closed” is not, and has not been, the last word. 

As is now known, the entire theory of a “Russian hack” relies  almost entirely on a draft version of  Crowdstrike’s analysis - a decidedly partisan source. VIPS represents a peer review which continues the status of a contested analysis. 

Furthermore, Wikileaks continues to insist their source was not Russia, with strong hints that it was a source inside DNC. Former British diplomat Craig Murray, who has acknowledged integrity, was directly involved in the retrieval of the emails and he adamantly declares the “Russian hack” theory is incorrect.

 

Obviously the DNC insider had other plans for the Republican emails he also hacked.

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

A 17 month old Computer Weekly article with an obvious predisposition to proclaiming “case closed” is not, and has not been, the last word. 

As is now known, the entire theory of a “Russian hack” relies  almost entirely on a draft version of  Crowdstrike’s analysis - a decidedly partisan source. VIPS represents a peer review which continues the status of a contested analysis. 

Furthermore, Wikileaks continues to insist their source was not Russia, with strong hints that it was a source inside DNC. Former British diplomat Craig Murray, who has acknowledged integrity, was directly involved in the retrieval of the emails and he adamantly declares the “Russian hack” theory is incorrect.

 

What? Jeff Carter is "the last word"?

Please provide a source for your assertion that it is not the last word. And maybe somebody reputable. You seem to find anyone who agrees with your position as "reputable" and if not they are "biased". It's BS Jeff. Please source that the article is incorrect in it's assertions by someone who actually knows what they're talking about not an 80 year old barricaded in a cabin. Your claim that Crowdstrike is a partisan source is also ridiculous. It's convenient to dispense with them by waving your hand and saying "they're Partisan!"

Wikileaks denials doesn't impress me much Jeff. I suppose the Russians deny it too, correct?

How, in any way, is VIPS a "peer review"? It's a loose group of people who claim to be former intelligence professionals and not necessarily computer forensics experts. One of their self-proclaimed experts (Binney) admitted he was wrong in the article I posted which accused him of skimming over obvious flaws in his original conclusion.

If Craig Murray knows as much as Bill Binney about this stuff then my suspicion is he got conned too. If he knows less then he's useless. Lets look at this:

Even if there were no other scenarios that would create the same metadata, experts note that metadata is among the easiest pieces of forensic evidence to falsify. It would be far more difficult to fabricate other evidence pointing to Russia, including the malware only known to be used by the suspected Russian hackers, and internet and email addresses seen in previous attacks by that group...

...In the end, Fidelis, FireEye, SecureWorks, Threat Connect and other CrowdStrike competitors all confirmed Crowdstike’s results.

The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow, though they have not released their evidence to the public.

“I find it interesting that people are so eager to believe that Dmitri Alperovitch is biased, but willing to accept the forensics of an anonymous blogger, with no reputation, that no one knows anything about,” said Hultquist. That famed left wing source - The Hill

The fact that Gucifer 2.0 communications were compromised after the user forgot to send them through a VPN and then was traced back to Moscow is enough in itself but it's also likely the Five Eyes are actually behind or into many of the proxies used all over the world (and have been since probably 2000). It's one of the reasons the RF is firewalling their internet ala China.

And by the way, the NSA decryption capabilities are so far advanced it would be very difficult keep anything secret running an operation like the 2016 hack. We have seen how Concord is anxious to get as much discovery as possible in their defense against the Mueller indictment and I have no doubt they're fishing for intel on NSA capabilities.

If you don't know what I'm talking about ( I doubt Bill Binney does) see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

46 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Just an observation.

We are getting the closest look ever at the "Deep State" (Power Elite, the Establishment, the Swamp, "The Illuminati" if you are 14 years old.)

I think this is a very cynical observation that has some truth to it. It's very safe to say that "Deep State"interests are swimming around in this pool but I also happen to think that there are very good people with honest motives who are concerned. I even think there are honest people defending Trump and these shenanigans even if they're only saying the effort isn't worth the fruit, like Turley.

Unfortunately, chaos often leads to opportunity for those with lesser intentions. That's true. But it's also true, I believe, that there are many good people who are also aware of that.