The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Since you're so interested in the "law" Jeff why don't the Russians under indictment come to prove their innocense? Let me get this straight. You think the IC should provide "proof" of their guilt regardless of the consequences to possible sources or methods but do not have to respond to an indictment or even accusations that have been leveled against them. Is that correct? 

What you claim to be "evidence free" is ridiculous and I suppose is based on the assertions of a former analyst that hasn't worked in the field since 2001. 

In the world of the Anti-anti-Trump Left there are two perfect people who never do wrong or ever get it wrong — Vladimir Putin and Bill Binney.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Since you're so interested in the "law" Jeff why don't the Russians under indictment come to prove their innocense? Let me get this straight. You think the IC should provide "proof" of their guilt regardless of the consequences to possible sources or methods but do not have to respond to an indictment or even accusations that have been leveled against them. Is that correct? 

What you claim to be "evidence free" is ridiculous and I suppose is based on the assertions of a former analyst that hasn't worked in the field since 2001. 

Bob, you already know the answers to your questions - and present them again as some sort of lame “gotcha” reflex. No sane individual would voluntarily surrender themselves to the caprices of the US justice system. The foolishness of doing such was well-described by Julian Assange some years ago when similar questions were being posed to him:

“It is not possible for a national security whistleblower now in the United States to have a fair trial. It’s not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury pool is comprised of the highest density of military and government employees in all of the United States. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because the U.S. government has a precedent of applying state secret privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because as a defendant in a national security case, you are held under special administrative measures, which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case, to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. So, this is — it’s just simply not a fair system.”  (Democracy Now interview 2014)

And that’s leaving aside the sadistic SuperMax prisons where all the political prisoners are sent these days. I am baffled by the fealty to the vicious Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-National Security Complex on display for four full years in this Forum.

William Binney's service and contributions have long been acknowledged and celebrated - that is, until he voiced the wrong conclusions to a matter of controversy and suddenly began to be trashed. These sorts of rapid conversions from hero to heretic are purely political constructions, and generally try to obscure weak foundations to assertive positions. I strongly doubt Cliff has spent anytime at all researching Binney's work to develop a thesis that he has "done wrong" or "got it wrong" on anything. 

[Cliff Varnell]

28 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I strongly doubt Cliff has spent anytime at all researching Binney's work to develop a thesis that he has "done wrong" or "got it wrong" on anything. 

Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

Marcy Wheeler:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/31/without-integrity-the-debunking-of-the-metadata-debunkers/

Did Crowdstrike conspire with elements of US intelligence to frame Russia for the DNC hack...and then keep it out of the news cycle for 70 days prior to the election?

I don’t think Jeff Carter has thought this thru.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

53 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don’t think Jeff Carter has thought this thru.

The story has developed quite a bit since 2017/18, not least the once classified admission by the Crowdstrike guy that there was no direct evidence of exfiltration.

[Cliff Varnell]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The story has developed quite a bit since 2017/18, not least the once classified admission by the Crowdstrike guy that there was no direct evidence of exfiltration.

Your misrepresentation of the Crowdstrike Guy’s testimony is egregious.

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple followup questions. Then l,m going to turn it over to Mr. Castro. Welcome, and thank you for coming to testify. My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier. Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?

MR.HENRY: I do. l have to just think about it. I do know.  I mean, it’s in our report that I think the committee has.

MR. SCHIFF: And, to the best of your recollection, when would that have been?

MR. HENRY:  Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.

MR. SCHIFF: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place?

MR. HENRY: Again, it's in the report. I believe -- I believe it was April of 2016. l’m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it's in the report.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.

<quote off>

Edited January 4, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

MR SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

Who likely gave the data to “non-state actor“ Roger Stone who gave it to Assange.

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob, you already know the answers to your questions - and present them again as some sort of lame “gotcha” reflex. No sane individual would voluntarily surrender themselves to the caprices of the US justice system. The foolishness of doing such was well-described by Julian Assange some years ago when similar questions were being posed to him:

“It is not possible for a national security whistleblower now in the United States to have a fair trial. It’s not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury pool is comprised of the highest density of military and government employees in all of the United States. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because the U.S. government has a precedent of applying state secret privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because as a defendant in a national security case, you are held under special administrative measures, which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case, to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. So, this is — it’s just simply not a fair system.”  (Democracy Now interview 2014)

Jeff I have my own experiences with this stuff but I'll give you some examples that I know can be shared and I have intimate knowledge of.

In a CI investigation the purpose of that investigation is not to develop a criminal case to prosecute. As an example, the Purple Japanese code was a closely guarded secret whose product was not allowed to be even public knowledge until the seventies. There were many potential prosecutions that weren't pursued because the cost of revealing that information was deemed too steep. It's just common sense. I realize that makes for an unfair argument and those claims should be looked at skeptically but I suspect you don't look at these things like a National Security official would.

Venona information was kept even longer, even though it was compromised by Philby, because the relevant agencies involved in the decryption effort knew that Russia had no idea what we were able to decrypt nor the extent. Keep in mind these were 40-50 year old decryptions (I think they revealed them in 1995).

Binney's revelation of the NSAs copying of domestic communications wasn't anything surprising to anyone who knows about their likely interests but I can safely assume it's dwarfed by the accumulated data regarding Russia, China, Iran and so on. There are huge data centers in several places world wide churning through that information I'm sure. And they will continue to do so as intel doesn't have an expiration date.

What you seemed to be asking for is proof in a legal sense that what the IC is asserting is true (they've provided plenty) that satisfies your strict requirements but have no interest or skepticism regarding Russia and their actions and motives. Like they're lilly-white roses which is why I have questioned whether you have a relationship with RT or somebody you haven't disclosed. In your world there is nobody more deserving of defending than Russia, Putin et al.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Bob Ness

[Jeff Carter]

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your misrepresentation of the Crowdstrike Guy’s testimony is egregious.

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple followup questions. Then l,m going to turn it over to Mr. Castro. Welcome, and thank you for coming to testify. My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier. Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?

MR.HENRY: I do. l have to just think about it. I do know.  I mean, it’s in our report that I think the committee has.

MR. SCHIFF: And, to the best of your recollection, when would that have been?

MR. HENRY:  Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.

MR. SCHIFF: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place?

MR. HENRY: Again, it's in the report. I believe -- I believe it was April of 2016. l’m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it's in the report.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.

<quote off>

You have done this at least a half-dozen times now - with Crowdstrike and the Mueller Report conclusions - where you describe my position as “egregious” “misrepresentation” followed by a block quote which essentially corresponds to my representation.

I said “there was no direct evidence of exfiltration”.

Your quoted text confirms:  “We did not have concrete evidence…it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.”

You are just trolling on these issues.

[Cliff Varnell]

23 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

23 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

You have done this at least a half-dozen times now - with Crowdstrike and the Mueller Report conclusions - where you describe my position as “egregious” “misrepresentation” followed by a block quote which essentially corresponds to my representation.

I said “there was no direct evidence of exfiltration”.

Your quoted text confirms:  “We did not have concrete evidence…it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.”

You are just trolling on these issues.

You’re just presenting that out of context, as usual.  You keep ignoring the fact Fancy Bear staged an exfiltration of the DNC data.  We’re supposed to think that’s a coincidence in light of all the Trump campaign lying about extensive contact with Russians?

You didn’t grasp the meaning of this passage?

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

 

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Jeff Carter]

5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Jeff I have my own experiences with this stuff but I'll give you some examples that I know can be shared and I have intimate knowledge of.

In a CI investigation the purpose of that investigation is not to develop a criminal case to prosecute. As an example, the Purple Japanese code was a closely guarded secret whose product was not allowed to be even public knowledge until the seventies. There were many potential prosecutions that weren't pursued because the cost of revealing that information was deemed too steep. It's just common sense. I realize that makes for an unfair argument and those claims should be looked at skeptically but I suspect you don't look at these things like a National Security official would.

Venona information was kept even longer, even though it was compromised by Philby, because the relevant agencies involved in the decryption effort knew that Russia had no idea what we were able to decrypt nor the extent. Keep in mind these were 40-50 year old decryptions (I think they revealed them in 1995).

Binney's revelation of the NSAs copying of domestic communications wasn't anything surprising to anyone who knows about their likely interests but I can safely assume it's dwarfed by the accumulated data regarding Russia, China, Iran and so on. There are huge data centers in several places world wide churning through that information I'm sure. And they will continue to do so as intel doesn't have an expiration date.

What you seemed to be asking for is proof in a legal sense that what the IC is asserting is true (they've provided plenty) that satisfies your strict requirements but have no interest or skepticism regarding Russia and their actions and motives. Like they're lilly-white roses which is why I have questioned whether you have a relationship with RT or somebody you haven't disclosed. In your world there is nobody more deserving of defending than Russia, Putin et al.

But the cases you refer did not result in publicized indictments. And the concept of “proof in a legal sense” is the foundation of your country’s justice system. You instead transfer these requirements onto me  - “what you seem to be asking for…”. “your strict requirements…”

Situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis featured exactly directed exposure of “sources and methods” because the United States was making serious accusations against an adversary and had to back such allegations with evidence for the international community. It is notable in the contemporary situation that serious allegations of direct manipulation of internal politics were not expressed through international bodies as previously, but were largely publicized solely domestically. I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

[Jeff Carter]

15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re just presenting that out of context, as usual.  You keep ignoring the fact Fancy Bear staged an exfiltration of the DNC data.  We’re supposed to think that’s a coincidence in light of all the Trump campaign lying about extensive contact with Russians?

You didn’t grasp the meaning of this passage?

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

 

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was. 

" it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was."

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

" it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was."

Unfamiliar with circumstantial evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

Emphasis mine.

There was no extensive media coverage  of either the Russia/DNC hack or the Steele Dossier prior to the 2016 election.

As usual Jeff Carter can’t square that with his conspiracy theories, so he’ll continue to ignore it.

[Jeff Carter]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There was no extensive media coverage  of either the Russia/DNC hack or the Steele Dossier prior to the 2016 election.

 

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Unfamiliar with circumstantial evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

But I wasn't referring to media coverage of the 2016 election.

And a reliance on "circumstantial evidence" is not punk rock. Very disappointing Cliff, particularly your Assange smear on this day.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

But the cases you refer did not result in publicized indictments. And the concept of “proof in a legal sense” is the foundation of your country’s justice system. You instead transfer these requirements onto me  - “what you seem to be asking for…”. “your strict requirements…”

Situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis featured exactly directed exposure of “sources and methods” because the United States was making serious accusations against an adversary and had to back such allegations with evidence for the international community. It is notable in the contemporary situation that serious allegations of direct manipulation of internal politics were not expressed through international bodies as previously, but were largely publicized solely domestically. I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

Jeff it's useless to present evidence to you of anything. The Cuban Missle Crisis sources and methods for confirming the assertions were RB 47s flying over the country. Wasn't a big secret. Even when I pointed out to you the Dutch compromised the IRA and tapped their cameras in the facility and videos them you still denied it.

The reason why I transfer them onto you is because you're the one demanding a full confession from Putin himself, in writing and notarized, as proof. You refuse to accept any possibility whatsoever that the IC assessments, congressional investigations, SSCI and several foreign government sources could amount to anything other than political shenanigans based on the claims of a former NSA official who has been out of the game for almost twenty years.