Benjamin Cole Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: You sure do have me pegged wrong. You see, I agree with most of what you claim about Donald Trump, except for the Russiagate flavored McCarthyism that is. I tracked Trump's 300% increase in Drone assassinations, his huge increases in the military industrial complex budget, and his enabling of the Saudis in Yemen and of the military buildup in Ukraine in real time. Trump was poison, but the CIA would not forgive him for taking the anticipated war in Syria away from them. And by the way, your Russiagate hoax explanation for Trump's motives on shutting down Timber Sycamore strikes me as profoundly absurd. The truth is you are carrying water for a group of neocon criminals that are no better than the Trump criminals, and that the Russiagate hoopla has been thoroughly debunked now for a good long time. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter when Hillary Clinton first unleashed the Russiagate hoax against Sanders in 2016, and then I was one of the few people who actually read the much-heralded and overblown report of the 27 intelligence agencies entitled 'Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.' https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3254229/ICA-2017-01.pdf That report was supposed to be about "Russian interference" in the 2016 election, but actually reading it revealed it to be just a silly pro-censorship attack on RT (Russian television). The notion of "Russian interference" was no more than a Hillary Clinton inspired diversionary tactic intended to discredit the profoundly embarrassing DNC email scandal. Emails which Seymour Hersch later confirmed were downloaded directly from the DNC's server by Seth Rich, a DNC IT Tech, who was mysteriously murdered very soon thereafter. According to Seymour Hersh's high level FBI sources, the DNC emails, and evidence that Seth Rich transmitted said emails to Wikileaks were found on Rich's laptop which was confiscated by the FBI from his home on the night of his murder. The FBI denied all of this of course, but more recently, in the context of civil litigation, it has come to light that the FBI does indeed possess Seth Rich's laptop, and instead of obeying the Court's order to turn over all of the laptop files to the plaintiff's attorney, the FBI has disobeyed the order, asking instead for an order that the files not be released for SIXTY-SIX YEARS! I could go on and on about this for many more posts, providing documentation about everything from the fraudulent FBI applications the FBI made to the FISA Court for surveillance authorizations on Trump and associates based upon the Steele Dossier and other fraudulent materials, to the more recent disclosures that the Hillary Clinton campaign -- and not Russian hacking -- initially inspired and was behind all of this. The following is a video from just last month by Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Matte going over the history of the Russiagate hoax, including the more recent disclosures: What most surprises me is that you seem to be unaware that this has all been exposed as a hoax, and/or that you have somehow compartmentalized and rationalized away all of the disclosures that have debunked your Rachel Maddowesk belief system. The saddest part about all of this is the McCarthyism type environment it has imposed upon U.S. Russian relations. It is as if you are unaware of the lessons about this that JFK lived for at the end of his life, and then was murdered for, back when the USSR was truly a monolithic power, rather than the current country it is with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of the State of California. JFK would be highly ashamed and disappointed in this state of affairs, and you should be too... Here is an interesting if lengthy interview with a lawyer who worked in the Nixon White House, Geoff Shepard. Mark Groubert, the co-host has run a series on the JFKA, some pretty good. Shepard was for decades (IMHO) simply a Nixon loyalist, but in his winter he seems more detached, less defensive of Nixon, and more curious who was really behind the Watergate break-in (the entire Watergate team was CIA, with the possible exception of G. Gordon Liddy), and the CIA-major party collusion to remove Nixon from office. The since departed author James Hougan wrote a book on the topic, "Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA." I enjoy your commentary in the EF-JFKA very much. You will likely face rude, even self-righteous accusations from some participants in the EF-JFKA for your views on Deep State putsches. That's OK, goes with the territory. A forum is for expressing and appreciating views, and I look forward to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 9 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: You sure do have me pegged wrong. You see, I agree with most of what you claim about Donald Trump, except for the Russiagate flavored McCarthyism that is. I tracked Trump's 300% increase in Drone assassinations, his huge increases in the military industrial complex budget, and his enabling of the Saudis in Yemen and of the military buildup in Ukraine in real time. Trump was poison, but the CIA would not forgive him for taking the anticipated war in Syria away from them. And by the way, your Russiagate hoax explanation for Trump's motives on shutting down Timber Sycamore strikes me as profoundly absurd. Kevin, Geez. A little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. You, frankly, lose all credibility here by repeating the bogus Donald Trump/Fox News propaganda trope about the "Russiagate hoax." Russiagate was never a hoax. Like Ben Cole, you need to do some remedial reading about Putin's broad-based interference in the 2016 U.S. election on Trump's behalf. It happened. Did you study the U.S. Senate Intel Report on the subject? Among other aspects of Russiagate, Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was a long-term Kremlin employee who shared sensitive polling data with his Russian colleague, GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 Trump campaign. And Kremlin asset, Natalia Veselnitskaya, met with numerous Trump campaign staffers in 2016 to discuss Russian intel on Hillary Clinton. Manafort's partner, Roger Stone, also conferred with Julian Assange about hacked Russian "dirt" on Clinton, which was used to launch the 2016 Trump/Russian "Email-gate" psy-op. Manafort even committed perjury by lying about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik-- even after he had agreed to cooperate with Mueller's half-hearted, aborted investigation of Russiagate. Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, also lied to the FBI about his December 2016 phone calls with Sergei Kisylak. We've been around and around this Trump/Russiagate mulberry bush with your fellow MAGA media fan, Ben Cole, in recent years. And, unfortunately, the facts always tend to go into one MAGA ear and out the other in these discussions. Then the bogus MAGA narratives about history get re-posted, ad infinitum. As for my comments about Putin, Trump, and Operation Timber Sycamore, this is now the second time that you have misrepresented my comments. What I said (above) is that an alternative explanation for Trump de-funding Timber Sycamore in the summer of 2017 is that Putin may have instructed him to do so. It's an hypothesis, not an assertion of fact. Your claim is that Trump de-funded Timber Sycamore because he wanted to pursue peace-- as an heroic adversary of the Deep State, etc. But Trump's history of allegedly pursuing peace was checkered, at best, as I described above. Trump is not an idealist, nor a foreign policy wonk, like JFK. He's more analogous to an ass who responds to carrots and sticks-- bribes, and possible blackmail. He kowtowed to the Saudis in Yemen, and he has consistently kowtowed to Putin. John LeCarre probably said it best, after Trump's humiliating press conference with Putin in Helsinki. LeCarre said, "Putin, obviously, has Trump by the short hairs." Edited March 20 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) At the 1:04 mark in this interview Assange states: "We do not comment on who our sources are." Assange has the highest journalistic ethics -- Seth Rich was NOT his source. Assange said in another interview that his source was "a non-State actor" -- disputing the claim that he received the DNC e-mails from Russian operatives. A non-State actor might fear getting murdered in the streets by other non-State actors for whom they worked. The House testimony of Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the hack of DNC e-mails in 2016, in regard to the Russian hacker Fancy Bear: <q> 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. </q> Russians did indeed hack the DNC in order to “set up” the e-mail exfiltration by non-State actors. Edited March 20 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 16 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: The structure of your post contains the suppressed premise that I have falsely attributed something to you which, if so, I cannot imagine what it could be. I can't imagine either. A "Suppressed premise?" Kevin it sounds like a paranoid imagining. Look at my post that you first responded to. Again, I merely mentioned that I generally liked the interview you posted. As far as the files. 16 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Seriously, why do you think so much effort has been invested in withholding them, even in contravention of the plain language of the JFK Records Release Act? Regretfully I think the effort is because they do because they can. And because I trust them less, and I respect any enemy that's fooled us for 60 years. I'd ask why in the world , after 60 years would anybody leave a smoking gun left in the files? Though I do think they'd produce some good leads to some good researchers. JMO It sounds like you have infinite hours of time and links to convince me otherwise. Kevin:Back when the USSR was truly a monolithic power, rather than the current country it is with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of the State of California. What? did you make that up Kevin?.Russia's entire economy the size of California.? California's economy (3.9 trillion) is almost twice as big as Russia. (around 2 trillion.) Russia's economy isn't as big as Italy. it's the greatest under performing economic basket case in the world, a point the Putin apologists never have thought significant, (or that there is actually an economic reason Ukraine would want to align more with the West ) but the everyday Russian feels it, Although only those who are well off enough to leave the country know that!. And the only reason the mass of Russians haven't rebelled probably has partly to do with their Serf ancestry's paltry expectations. It's economy is largely based on fossil fuels.. Russia and China basically started their economic transformation around the same time, and look at the the difference! I think maybe you're confusing nuclear weapon arsenals with economic prosperity. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/the-top-10-economies-in-the-world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: At the 1:04 mark in this interview Assange states: "We do not comment on who our sources are." Assange has the highest journalistic ethics -- Seth Rich was NOT his source. Assange said in another interview that his source was "a non-State actor" -- disputing the claim that he received the DNC e-mails from Russian operatives. A non-State actor might fear getting murdered in the streets by other non-State actors for whom they worked. The House testimony of Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the hack of DNC e-mails in 2016, in regard to the Russian hacker Fancy Bear: <q> 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. </q> Russians did indeed hack the DNC in order to “set up” the e-mail exfiltration by non-State actors. It would appear, Mr. Varnell, that you are unaware of the true significance of the evidence you have proffered in your post in your misplaced effort to prove the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers: Cliff Varnell wrote: Quote At the 1:04 mark in this interview Assange states: "We do not comment on who our sources are." Assange has the highest journalistic ethics -- Seth Rich was NOT his source. Assange said in another interview that his source was "a non-State actor" -- disputing the claim that he received the DNC e-mails from Russian operatives. A non-State actor might fear getting murdered in the streets by other non-State actors for whom they worked. You have posted the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur and claimed that it stands for the proposition that Assange was denying that Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the DNC emails. I don't know if you were simply not paying attention to these events as they were happening, but in 2016 it was universally recognized that Assange was deeply distressed by the murder of his source for the DNC emails, and was stretching the boundaries of the Wikileaks policy of not commenting on its sources by going public in this manner. Whatmore, Nieuwsuur was fully aware of the significance of this and provided in the caption of the very video you posted for the opposite proposition that "Julian Assange seems to suggest on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered." Thus, as Mr. Varnell appears to be completely unaware of the significance of the sources he is providing, I suggest to the readers of this post that you watch the video itself starting at the beginning in order to gain an appreciation of what the now imprisoned journalist, Julian Assange, was trying to communicate in 2016 about his source, Seth Rich, without explicitly designating him as the source: Cliff Varnell wrote: Quote The House testimony of Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike, the company that investigated the hack of DNC e-mails in 2016, in regard to the Russian hacker Fancy Bear: <q> 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. </q> Russians did indeed hack the DNC in order to “set up” the e-mail exfiltration by non-State actors. And again, you don't appear to understand that the December 2017 interview of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry before the House Intelligence Committee that was declassified in 2020 demonstrates not that there was evidence of Russian hacking but that all along there had been NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN HACKING. "...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..." See in particular the following for a deep dive on the 2020 declassification of the testimony, and the historical context within which it took place: "HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC" By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html Do you really not understand that if there had actually been any reason to believe that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers that the FBI -- and not the Hillary Clinton campaign retained Crowdstrike -- would have conducted an investigation and forensic analysis of the DNC servers? "THE FBI NEVER ASKED FOR ACCESS TO HACKED COMPUTER SERVERS" By Ali Watkins | BuzzFeed News Reporter | Posted on January 4, 2017 at 4:13 pm | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-hacked-computer-servers#.rp19Dg3Z2r "JAMES COMEY: DNC DENIED FBI DIRECT ACCESS TO SERVERS DURING RUSSIA HACKING PROBE" By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 | https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/ "CYBERSECURITY FIRM THAT ATTRIBUTED DNC HACKS TO RUSSIA MAY HAVE FABRICATED RUSSIA HACKING IN UKRAINE" | BY MICHAEL J. SAINATO | MARCH 23, 2017 | https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/ And do you really not understand what it means that when the FBI seized Seth Rich's laptop on the night of his murder, the DNC email files were found on it as well as evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks? Moreover, are you oblivious to the fact that the FBI has now been busted for being in possession of Seth Rich's laptop -- after previously denying having it -- and is in contempt of a Court order to turn over the files to a plaintiff in civil litigation, which the FBI is trying to avoid BY HAVING THE FILES CLASSIFIED FOR SIXTY-SIX YEARS! I would think that as a JFK assassination researcher you would have an understanding of government corruption, falsification of evidence and CIA Operation Mockingbird propaganda. Or are you for some reason under the impression that all of that is isolated to the JFK assassination exclusively? Or is it that you are so hypnotized by the false two-party system dichotomy that you are blinded by the notion of red MAGA hats, and lose your wits and mind whenever that red flag is waived before you? Well I've got news for you partner: None of the information above that I have cited has anything to do with Donald Trump or the right-wing media echo chamber. We don't play your silly two-party dichotomy game, recognizing that BOTH wings belong to the SAME corrupt bird. The sad sordid truth is that you've been suckered by all of that divide and conquer nonsense. Edited March 20 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: It would appear, Mr. Varnell, that you are unaware of the true significance of the evidence you have proffered in your post in your misplaced effort to prove the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers: Cliff Varnell wrote: You have posted the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur and claimed that it stands for the proposition that Assange was denying that Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the DNC emails. I don't know if you were simply not paying attention to these events as they were happening, but in 2016 it was universally recognized that Assange was deeply distressed by the murder of his source for the DNC emails, I'm sure he was, but his statement -- "we don't comment on who our sources are" -- discounts the possibility it was Seth Rich. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a smear. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: and was stretching the boundaries of the Wikileaks policy of not commenting on its sources by going public in this manner. "Stretching the boundaries"? No, that would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics. That you insist on impugning the integrity of Julian Assange is disgraceful. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Whatmore, Nieuwsuur was fully aware of the significance of this and provided in the caption of the very video you posted for the opposite proposition that "Julian Assange seems to suggest on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered. " Click bait isn't evidence. When Nieuwsuur pressed him on it Assange said it was a matter of concern but he in no way verified it. Assange wasn't revealing his source, he was protecting his source. Classic misdirection. A brilliant play by Assange. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Thus, as Mr. Varnell appears to be completely unaware of the significance of the sources he is providing, I suggest to the readers of this post that you watch the video itself starting at the beginning in order to gain an appreciation of what the now imprisoned journalist, Julian Assange, was trying to communicate in 2016 about his source, Seth Rich, without explicitly designating him as the source: But the interviewer (mis)understood him to explicitly designate his source -- even though Assange explicitly said he would not comment on who his sources were. You're flat out accusing Assange of lying. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Cliff Varnell wrote: And again, you don't appear to understand that the December 2017 interview of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry before the House Intelligence Committee that was declassified in 2020 demonstrates not that there was evidence of Russian hacking but that all along there had been NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN HACKING. " Factually incorrect. In order to "set up" the e-mails for exfiltration the Russian actor Fancy Bear had to hack into the DNC computer. He left the same cyber fingerprints found on an earlier hack of Ukrainian defense computers. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: 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..." Yes, that's because the Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. It was a "non-State actor". I guess you missed this part, spoken by Schiff and agreed to by Henry: data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: See in particular the following for a deep dive on the 2020 declassification of the testimony, and the historical context within which it took place: "HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC" By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html I guess Mate couldn't grasp this either: "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" "Yes, sir." 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Do you really not understand that if there had actually been any reason to believe that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers that the FBI -- and not the Hillary Clinton campaign retained Crowdstrike -- would have conducted an investigation and forensic analysis of the DNC servers? Do you really not understand that it was the FBI who opened a phony investigation into Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election which turned the tide decisively in Trump's favor? 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: "THE FBI NEVER ASKED FOR ACCESS TO HACKED COMPUTER SERVERS" By Ali Watkins | BuzzFeed News Reporter | Posted on January 4, 2017 at 4:13 pm | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-hacked-computer-servers#.rp19Dg3Z2r "JAMES COMEY: DNC DENIED FBI DIRECT ACCESS TO SERVERS DURING RUSSIA HACKING PROBE" By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 | https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/ "CYBERSECURITY FIRM THAT ATTRIBUTED DNC HACKS TO RUSSIA MAY HAVE FABRICATED RUSSIA HACKING IN UKRAINE" | BY MICHAEL J. SAINATO | MARCH 23, 2017 | https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/ I don't see any rebuttal to Henry's claim that Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers to "stage" exfiltration. Why is that? 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: And do you really not understand what it means that when the FBI seized Seth Rich's laptop on the night of his murder, the DNC email files were found on it as well as evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks? So Seymour Hersh is quoting an FBI official? 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Moreover, are you oblivious to the fact that the FBI has now been busted for being in possession of Seth Rich's laptop -- after previously denying having it -- and is in contempt of a Court order to turn over the files to a plaintiff in civil litigation, which the FBI is trying to avoid BY HAVING THE FILES CLASSIFIED FOR SIXTY-SIX YEARS! And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop? That's your basis for smearing Assange's ethics? 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: I would think that as a JFK assassination researcher you would have an understanding of government corruption, falsification of evidence and CIA Operation Mockingbird propaganda. Or are you for some reason under the impression that all of that is isolated to the JFK assassination exclusively? I have an understanding that what's called "the Deep State" is deeply factional. It was a faction of the FBI who pushed to re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation on the basis of e-mails they knew were duplicates. Edward Snowden said at the time that it would have taken a half hour to determine the e-mails were duplicates, but the FBI took 8 days. As a JFKA researcher I would think you'd have more skepticism toward the claims of the FBI. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Or is it that you are so hypnotized by the false two-party system dichotomy that you are blinded by the notion of red MAGA hats, and lose your wits and mind whenever that red flag is waived before you? Projection. Your smear of Assange is egregious; your reliance on the FBI reflects gullibility, as does your inability to process "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor." 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Well I've got news for you partner: None of the information above that I have cited has anything to do with Donald Trump or the right-wing media echo chamber. We don't play your silly two-party dichotomy game, recognizing that the BOTH wings belong to the SAME corrupt bird. I know all about the left-Russiagate Deniers. You don't support Trump you just repeat some of his talking points and ignore his lust for autocracy. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: The sad sordid truth is that you've been suckered by all of that divide and conquer nonsense. Your smear of Assange shows who got suckered. 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Edited March 20 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) On 3/20/2024 at 5:02 PM, Cliff Varnell said: I'm sure he was, but his statement -- "we don't comment on who our sources are" -- discounts the possibility it was Seth Rich. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a smear. "Stretching the boundaries"? No, that would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics. That you insist on impugning the integrity of Julian Assange is disgraceful. Click bait isn't evidence. When Nieuwsuur pressed him on it Assange said it was a matter of concern but he in no way verified it. Assange wasn't revealing his source, he was protecting his source. Classic misdirection. A brilliant play by Assange. But the interviewer (mis)understood him to explicitly designate his source -- even though Assange explicitly said he would not comment on who his sources were. You're flat out accusing Assange of lying. Factually incorrect. In order to "set up" the e-mails for exfiltration the Russian actor Fancy Bear had to hack into the DNC computer. He left the same cyber fingerprints found on an earlier hack of Ukrainian defense computers. Yes, that's because the Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. It was a "non-State actor". I guess you missed this part, spoken by Schiff and agreed to by Henry: data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor I guess Mate couldn't grasp this either: "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" "Yes, sir." Do you really not understand that it was the FBI who opened a phony investigation into Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election which turned the tide decisively in Trump's favor? I don't see any rebuttal to Henry's claim that Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers to "stage" exfiltration. Why is that? So Seymour Hersh is quoting an FBI official? And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop? That's your basis for smearing Assange's ethics? I have an understanding that what's called "the Deep State" is deeply factional. It was a faction of the FBI who pushed to re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation on the basis of e-mails they knew were duplicates. Edward Snowden said at the time that it would have taken a half hour to determine the e-mails were duplicates, but the FBI took 8 days. As a JFKA researcher I would think you'd have more skepticism toward the claims of the FBI. Projection. Your smear of Assange is egregious; your reliance on the FBI reflects gullibility, as does your inability to process "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor." I know all about the left-Russiagate Deniers. You don't support Trump you just repeat some of his talking points and ignore his lust for autocracy. Your smear of Assange shows who got suckered. Quote I'm sure he was, but his statement -- "we don't comment on who our sources are" -- discounts the possibility it was Seth Rich. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a smear. "Stretching the boundaries"? No, that would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics. That you insist on impugning the integrity of Julian Assange is disgraceful. Click bait isn't evidence. When Nieuwsuur pressed him on it Assange said it was a matter of concern but he in no way verified it. Assange wasn't revealing his source, he was protecting his source. Classic misdirection. A brilliant play by Assange. But the interviewer (mis)understood him to explicitly designate his source -- even though Assange explicitly said he would not comment on who his sources were. You're flat out accusing Assange of lying. It's not rocket science. This really is very simple. Anyone capable of a minimum level of objectivity upon watching the following two-minute excerpt of the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur can see that there was no reason for Assange to even bring Seth Rich up in the first place other than to register his concern that a Wikileaks source had been murdered; and MOST NOTABLY Assange does not even once deny that Seth Rich was the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails. Julian Assange did not explicitly violate the Wikileaks policy not to identify sources, but he did make a value judgment that it was more important to call attention to the murder than it was not to mention Seth Rich at all. This is the behavior of an individual who can hold two competing principles in his mind at once, and who recognizes that truth comes in various shades of gray rather than being black and white, which evidently is beyond your own abilities. And your expressions of concern for Julian Assange's reputation rings hollow, given your adherence to the political cult which first wanted to assassinate him, and now keeps him imprisoned on trumped up charges that no other journalist would be subjected to. Quote Factually incorrect. In order to "set up" the e-mails for exfiltration the Russian actor Fancy Bear had to hack into the DNC computer. He left the same cyber fingerprints found on an earlier hack of Ukrainian defense computers. Yes, that's because the Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. It was a "non-State actor". I guess you missed this part, spoken by Schiff and agreed to by Henry: data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor I guess Mate couldn't grasp this either: "data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" "Yes, sir." You just don't get it, do you? If there had been any actual espionage involved in the purloining of the DNC emails, it would have been the FBI conducting the investigation and performing a forensic analysis of the DNC servers. Instead, the private IT firm, Crowdstrike, which was retained by counsel for the Hillary Clinton Campaign shipped the server to Ukraine and then for mere public consumption claimed its private analysis had confirmed Russian hacking. That's just not how real espionage investigations are conducted. Given your blindness to the implications of the Julian Assange interview, I also do not expect your armchair lay-legal analysis to be capable of detecting such blatant nuances as presented by the repeated explicit denials of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry in his December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee (that was declassified in 2020): "...Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said. Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: "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 left." "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made." "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw." Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." "HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC" By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html Instead of understanding Henry's explicit denials however, you are instead bedazzled by notions of "fancy bear" extrications, which constitute further indications that you have again just been suckered by the imaginings one would find in a cheap spy novel; in this case specifically, the corrupt Ukrainian military intelligence organization: Quote Do you really not understand that it was the FBI who opened a phony investigation into Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election which turned the tide decisively in Trump's favor? Quote So Seymour Hersh is quoting an FBI official? And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop? That's your basis for smearing Assange's ethics? "...The website also included audio of famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stating that he had confirmed that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking the DNC emails. According to Mr. Hersh, who was by no means a Republican or a Trump supporter, he could not find a media outlet willing to publish the Seth Rich story. In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained his information about Seth Rich from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director...." https://caucus99percent.com/comment/430613 "And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop?" The FBI is desperately seeking to classify that laptop "top secret" for SIXTY-SIX YEARS! I have a sneaking feeling that you have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, have you Mr. Varnell? Quote I have an understanding that what's called "the Deep State" is deeply factional. It was a faction of the FBI who pushed to re-open the Clinton e-mail investigation on the basis of e-mails they knew were duplicates. Edward Snowden said at the time that it would have taken a half hour to determine the e-mails were duplicates, but the FBI took 8 days. Duplicates?" LOL! That's why Hillary Clinton used BleachBit on her illicit home server and had her Blackberry phones destroyed with hammers, isn't it Mr. Varnell? Edited March 22 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: It's not rocket science. This really is very simple. Anyone capable of a minimum level of objectivity upon watching the following two-minute excerpt of the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur can see that there was no reason for Assange to even bring Seth Rich up in the first place other than to register his concern that a Wikileaks source had been murdered; and MOST NOTABLY Assange does not even once deny that Seth Rich was the Wikileaks source for the DNC emails. Assange had an excellent reason to bring up Seth Rich -- to divert attention away from his actual source. Assange does not even once verify that Seth Rich was the source. You are unaware of the grave violation of journalistic ethics by revealing a source. Here's an article about almost 50 journalists or news organizations jailed and/or fined for refusing to reveal sources, up to 2019. https://www.rcfp.org/jailed-fined-journalists-confidential-sources/ 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Julian Assange did not explicitly violate the Wikileaks policy not to identify sources, but he did make a value judgment that it was more important to call attention to the murder than it was not to mention Seth Rich at all. This is the behavior of an individual who can hold two competing principles in his mind at once, and who recognizes that truth comes in various shades of gray rather than being black and white, which evidently is beyond your own abilities. It's a violation of accepted journalistic ethics to reveal a source, and Assange properly said he would not comment on his sources -- like any good journalist. Because you cannot grasp the idea he would protect his sources by bringing up Rich, you assume he was holding "two competing principles in his mind at once," which is nothing more than the product of your own imagination. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: .And your expressions of concern for Julian Assange's reputation rings hollow, given your adherence to the political cult which first wanted to assassinate him, and now keeps him imprisoned on trumped up charges that no other journalist would be subjected to. You smear people readily. You don't know me or my politics. You might think about taking medication for your over-active imagination. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: You just don't get it, do you? If there had been any actual espionage involved in the purloining of the DNC emails, it would have been the FBI conducting the investigation and performing a forensic analysis of the DNC servers. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html <q> The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrIke. </q> Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Instead, the private IT firm, Crowdstrike, which was retained by counsel for the Hillary Clinton Campaign shipped the server to Ukraine and then for mere public consumption claimed its private analysis had confirmed Russian hacking. That's just not how real espionage investigations are conducted. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/danger-close-fancy-bear-tracking-ukrainian-field-artillery-units/ <q> In June CrowdStrike identified and attributed a series of targeted intrusions at the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and other political organizations that utilized a well known implant commonly called X-Agent. X-Agent is a cross platform remote access toolkit, variants have been identified for various Windows operating systems, Apple’s iOS, and likely the MacOS. Also known as Sofacy, X-Agent has been tracked by the security community for almost a decade, CrowdStrike associates the use of X-Agent with an actor we call FANCY BEAR. This actor to date is the exclusive operator of the malware, and has continuously developed the platform for ongoing operations which CrowdStrike assesses is likely tied to Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). The source code to this malware has not been observed in the public domain and appears to have been developed uniquely by FANCY BEAR. Late in the summer of 2016, CrowdStrike Intelligence analysts began investigating a curious Android Package (APK) named ‘Попр-Д30.apk’ (MD5: 6f7523d3019fa190499f327211e01fcb) which contained a number of Russian language artifacts that were military in nature. Initial research identified that the filename suggested a relationship to the D-30 122mm towed howitzer, an artillery weapon first manufactured in the Soviet Union in the 1960s but still in use today. In-depth reverse engineering revealed the APK contained an Android variant of X-Agent, the command and control protocol was closely linked to observed Windows variants of X-Agent, and utilized a cryptographic algorithm called RC4 with a very similar 50 byte base key. </q> 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Given your blindness to the implications of the Julian Assange interview, I also do not expect your armchair lay-legal analysis to be capable of detecting such blatant nuances as presented by the repeated explicit denials of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry in his December 2017 deposition by the House Intelligence Committee (that was declassified in 2020): "...Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said. I already cited this. The Russians did not exfiltrate the e-mails. They hacked the DNC computer to set up the exfiltration by a non-State actor. Probably Roger Stone's IT guy, who would no doubt live in fear of getting whacked. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: "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 left." "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made." "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw." Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." You left this part out: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: "HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC" By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html Instead of understanding Henry's explicit denials however, you are instead bedazzled by notions of "fancy bear" extrications, which constitute further indications that you have again just been suckered by the imaginings one would find in a cheap spy novel; in this case specifically, the corrupt Ukrainian military intelligence organization: If you grasped what Henry actually said -- which you disingenuously left out -- you would know that there were no "Fancy Bear extrications." 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: What does the have to do with Crowdstrike's analysis of the Ukrainian military computer cited above? Guilt by amorphous association? 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: "...The website also included audio of famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stating that he had confirmed that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking the DNC emails. According to Mr. Hersh, who was by no means a Republican or a Trump supporter, he could not find a media outlet willing to publish the Seth Rich story. In a separate phone call with Mr. Butowsky, Mr. Hersh said he obtained his information about Seth Rich from Mr. McCabe, the deputy FBI director...." https://caucus99percent.com/comment/430613 Andrew McCabe! There's a real beauty. A couple days after James Comey re-opened the bogus Hillary e-mail investigation McCabe leaked to the Wall Street Journal the on-going FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. His excuse was absurd... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/internal-investigation-hits-mccabe-misleading-statements-n865811 <q> The report says McCabe authorized the discussion of the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal in an effort to “rebut a narrative” about McCabe’s impartiality in the investigation. The reporter had previously written about McCabe’s wife, who took campaign donations from Hillary Clinton’s close political ally Terry McAuliffe for her run in a state election in Virginia. The IG found that while McCabe was authorized to release such information to news reporters, he did so to “advance his personal interest” and “violated” the FBI’s and the DOJ’s media policy, and therefore his actions “constituted misconduct.” The report found that McCabe also contradicted his previous statements. During an interview under oath on Nov. 29, 2017, McCabe finally acknowledged that he had authorized the disclosure to the Journal. He then denied having said that he had not authorized the disclosure. The government watchdog found this contradiction to be in violation of the FBI’s offense code. </q> Your star witness is a proven liar not above acting in his own interest. 3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: "And we are supposed to believe the FBI what's on that laptop?" The FBI is desperately seeking to classify that laptop "top secret" for SIXTY-SIX YEARS! I have a sneaking feeling that you have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, have you Mr. Varnell? You appear to project a lot. The FBI had no problem sticking a couple of shivs into Hillary in 2016, so why would they protect the Democratic Party now? Edited March 21 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 14 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: It would appear, Mr. Varnell, that you are unaware of the true significance of the evidence you have proffered in your post in your misplaced effort to prove the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers: Cliff Varnell wrote: You have posted the August 9, 2016 interview of Julian Assange by the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur and claimed that it stands for the proposition that Assange was denying that Seth Rich was Wikileaks's source for the DNC emails. I don't know if you were simply not paying attention to these events as they were happening, but in 2016 it was universally recognized that Assange was deeply distressed by the murder of his source for the DNC emails, and was stretching the boundaries of the Wikileaks policy of not commenting on its sources by going public in this manner. Whatmore, Nieuwsuur was fully aware of the significance of this and provided in the caption of the very video you posted for the opposite proposition that "Julian Assange seems to suggest on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered." Thus, as Mr. Varnell appears to be completely unaware of the significance of the sources he is providing, I suggest to the readers of this post that you watch the video itself starting at the beginning in order to gain an appreciation of what the now imprisoned journalist, Julian Assange, was trying to communicate in 2016 about his source, Seth Rich, without explicitly designating him as the source: Cliff Varnell wrote: And again, you don't appear to understand that the December 2017 interview of Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry before the House Intelligence Committee that was declassified in 2020 demonstrates not that there was evidence of Russian hacking but that all along there had been NO EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN HACKING. "...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..." See in particular the following for a deep dive on the 2020 declassification of the testimony, and the historical context within which it took place: "HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC" By Aaron Mate, RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html Do you really not understand that if there had actually been any reason to believe that the Russians had hacked the DNC servers that the FBI -- and not the Hillary Clinton campaign retained Crowdstrike -- would have conducted an investigation and forensic analysis of the DNC servers? "THE FBI NEVER ASKED FOR ACCESS TO HACKED COMPUTER SERVERS" By Ali Watkins | BuzzFeed News Reporter | Posted on January 4, 2017 at 4:13 pm | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-hacked-computer-servers#.rp19Dg3Z2r "JAMES COMEY: DNC DENIED FBI DIRECT ACCESS TO SERVERS DURING RUSSIA HACKING PROBE" By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 10, 2017 | https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d/ "CYBERSECURITY FIRM THAT ATTRIBUTED DNC HACKS TO RUSSIA MAY HAVE FABRICATED RUSSIA HACKING IN UKRAINE" | BY MICHAEL J. SAINATO | MARCH 23, 2017 | https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/ And do you really not understand what it means that when the FBI seized Seth Rich's laptop on the night of his murder, the DNC email files were found on it as well as evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks? Moreover, are you oblivious to the fact that the FBI has now been busted for being in possession of Seth Rich's laptop -- after previously denying having it -- and is in contempt of a Court order to turn over the files to a plaintiff in civil litigation, which the FBI is trying to avoid BY HAVING THE FILES CLASSIFIED FOR SIXTY-SIX YEARS! I would think that as a JFK assassination researcher you would have an understanding of government corruption, falsification of evidence and CIA Operation Mockingbird propaganda. Or are you for some reason under the impression that all of that is isolated to the JFK assassination exclusively? Or is it that you are so hypnotized by the false two-party system dichotomy that you are blinded by the notion of red MAGA hats, and lose your wits and mind whenever that red flag is waived before you? Well I've got news for you partner: None of the information above that I have cited has anything to do with Donald Trump or the right-wing media echo chamber. We don't play your silly two-party dichotomy game, recognizing that BOTH wings belong to the SAME corrupt bird. The sad sordid truth is that you've been suckered by all of that divide and conquer nonsense. KE-- I admire your apolitical, non-partisan approach to modern politics. Fresh thinking is needed, although maybe the US is going down anyway. The major parties are crapulent and feculent, but like the NY sewer system, deeply entrenched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. RO: The DNC was lying, Cliff. In fact, the FBI said it had more than once asked to examine the servers and were rebuffed by the DNC. Ask yourself why did the FBI take no for an answer. Instead, Clinton hired Crowdstrike to tell her what she wanted to hear. When pressed at the House hearing in 2017, Crowdstrike's Henry had to admit he had no evidence of a hack from the outside, by the Russians or anyone else. His claim that he still believed that is what happened is worthless. The information was instead downloaded by someone at the DNC who leaked it to Assange. As Ray McGovern has repeatedly asserted (and he would know) had the information been hacked by anyone from the outside, NASA would have known about it because they monitor everything domestic. That would have been definitive proof of an outside hack. NASA, you'll notice, has been silent. Apparently there was no way they could lie about that. Henry's testimony was buried by Adam Schiff--it was classified--for almost 3 three years until he was forced to release it after being told others would make it public if he didn't. The media, of course, ignored the release and it's only through the tireless efforts of McGovern, Bill Binney, and Mate that word has gotten out at all about it. Let's try an experiment. Watch Assange's Dutch interview again. At one point he is asked directly if Rich was his source. Watch Assange's reaction closely. Before he says we don't reveal our sources his head bobs up and down. Yes. He was not going to directly confirm it verbally. He has said many times protecting is sources is crucial to their whole operation. It was the most he could do, and I'm surprised he took the chance. What do you see, Cliff? I've now given you license to ignore the other points and rant the obtuseness of that claim. It is subtle to be sure, and I don't want to make too much of it, given all of the other evidence. But it leads me to what I'm curious about in this case. There is now a civil case in the courts seeking Rich's laptops, which the FBI first denied having before admitting that was a lie (thanks, Keven, for posting up to date info on that). Alleged in that case is the claim that Rich's laptops contain the email Rich sent to Wikileaks offering the DNC emails. It's going to be difficult for the plaintiffs to get that material and even if they get that far, there is probably no assurance that email is still there. But Wikileaks could shortcut all of that. It presumably has the email and the info about the DNC emails in its files. Rich is dead. If he did it he was a hero. That has been obscured so far. Does the injunction about revealing sources--absolutely necessary in most circumstances--really extend to the source of the leaking this case? Would revealing Rich as the source of the leak, sticking another pin in the already flaccid Russiagate balloon, really make future sources more reluctant to come forward? My guess is it would raise Wikileaks' stature again, with Assange silenced and being slowly murdered in jail. It would have the opposite effect. Keven, do you know if the plaintiffs have considered this obvious path to get the info they are seeking? Have they contacted Wikileaks to ask for their help? If so, I'd be very interested in Wikileaks' answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 22 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: I can't imagine either. A "Suppressed premise?" Kevin it sounds like a paranoid imagining. Look at my post that you first responded to. Again, I merely mentioned that I generally liked the interview you posted. As far as the files. Regretfully I think the effort is because they do because they can. And because I trust them less, and I respect any enemy that's fooled us for 60 years. I'd ask why in the world , after 60 years would anybody leave a smoking gun left in the files? Though I do think they'd produce some good leads to some good researchers. JMO It sounds like you have infinite hours of time and links to convince me otherwise. Kevin:Back when the USSR was truly a monolithic power, rather than the current country it is with a GDP roughly equivalent to that of the State of California. What? did you make that up Kevin?.Russia's entire economy the size of California.? California's economy (3.9 trillion) is almost twice as big as Russia. (around 2 trillion.) Russia's economy isn't as big as Italy. it's the greatest under performing economic basket case in the world, a point the Putin apologists never have thought significant, (or that there is actually an economic reason Ukraine would want to align more with the West ) but the everyday Russian feels it, Although only those who are well off enough to leave the country know that!. And the only reason the mass of Russians haven't rebelled probably has partly to do with their Serf ancestry's paltry expectations. It's economy is largely based on fossil fuels.. Russia and China basically started their economic transformation around the same time, and look at the the difference! I think maybe you're confusing nuclear weapon arsenals with economic prosperity. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/the-top-10-economies-in-the-world Oliver Stone at the beginning of Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine said something to the effect that the "U.S. left Putin no choice!" One thing Stone, living in Hollywood , being worth 70 million , and Glenn Greenwald who you'd think would know better , living in Brazil and Aaron Mate, of course just being a Canadian will never understand., as well as the Putinistas here. Is that if a fledgling country like Ukraine, a breadbasket region that has some natural resources as well, is offered a choice to go with Putin and have a 4 economy always in the doldrums but at least steady, or go with the West and have a more dynamic 6 economy with a shot at 7. If given the choice, which one do you think they'll pick? But no, it had to be that the all powerful CIA that subverted the will of the Ukrainians, or the EU or Victoria Nuland , who literally turned the balance of power as if Ukraine was Guatemala in 1953! And never is it conceded that a brutal crackdown and repression had anything to do with creating a situation later by which everyday Ukrainians were eventually mindblown when they visited in masse their former President, now in exile's opulent estate and discovered for themselves, how he had been living in at the expense of the Ukrainian people. The Putinistas can't see it, but when Putin invaded, the choices were clear. Putin 's relationship to Ukraine is sort of like LHO to Marina, where Putin eventually laid down the law and said "don't learn English and stop being so materialistic" or there will be consequences! heh heh *Mate always focuses on one thing , America's International relationships but is completely clueless about any U.S. domestic policies, so he has no idea of the range of issues say, confronting American voters. Edited March 21 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) RO quoted my cite: The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. RO edited out my comment to KH: Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI. RO: The DNC was lying, Cliff. How do you know? It's he said/she said. In fact, the FBI said it had more than once asked to examine the servers and were rebuffed by the DNC. Ask yourself why did the FBI take no for an answer. It amazes me that JFKA researchers conveniently hold the FBI as a model of honesty. Instead, Clinton hired Crowdstrike to tell her what she wanted to hear. That's not what CrowdStrike said. In their blog, quoted in my last post, they detailed the methodology they used to determine Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers and "staged" the e-mails for exfiltration. When pressed at the House hearing in 2017, Crowdstrike's Henry had to admit he had no evidence of a hack from the outside, by the Russians or anyone else. His claim that he still believed that is what happened is worthless. Amazing how reading comprehension eludes RussiaGate Deniers when they read this part of Henry's testimony: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. The information was instead downloaded by someone at the DNC who leaked it to Assange. You have no proof of that. As Ray McGovern has repeatedly asserted (and he would know) had the information been hacked by anyone from the outside, NASA would have known about it because they monitor everything domestic. That would have been definitive proof of an outside hack. NASA, you'll notice, has been silent. Apparently there was no way they could lie about that. I think you mean NSA. Their silence proves nothing. Henry's testimony was buried by Adam Schiff--it was classified--for almost 3 three years until he was forced to release it after being told others would make it public if he didn't. The media, of course, ignored the release and it's only through the tireless efforts of McGovern, Bill Binney, and Mate that word has gotten out at all about it. None of these worthies comprehend the plain language here: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. Let's try an experiment. Watch Assange's Dutch interview again. At one point he is asked directly if Rich was his source. Watch Assange's reaction closely. Before he says we don't reveal our sources his head bobs up and down. Yes. He was not going to directly confirm it verbally. He has said many times protecting is sources is crucial to their whole operation. It was the most he could do, and I'm surprised he took the chance. It makes more sense he brought up Seth Rich to protect the actual source -- probably Roger Stone, since he was convicted of perjury when he denied under oath he had contact with Wikileaks. What do you see, Cliff? I've now given you license to ignore the other points and rant the obtuseness of that claim. It is subtle to be sure, and I don't want to make too much of it, given all of the other evidence. I haven't ignored anything. I've made point by point rebuttals to everything you and KH have posted. You guys, on the other hand, stubbornly ignore this: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. But it leads me to what I'm curious about in this case. There is now a civil case in the courts seeking Rich's laptops, which the FBI first denied having before admitting that was a lie (thanks, Keven, for posting up to date info on that). Alleged in that case is the claim that Rich's laptops contain the email Rich sent to Wikileaks offering the DNC emails. When the laptop is turned over and it proves Rich provided the e-mails I will publicly declare -- "I stand corrected." It's going to be difficult for the plaintiffs to get that material and even if they get that far, there is probably no assurance that email is still there. But Wikileaks could shortcut all of that. It presumably has the email and the info about the DNC emails in its files. Assange is not going to violate source confidentiality, no matter how you spin it. Rich is dead. If he did it he was a hero. That has been obscured so far. Does the injunction about revealing sources--absolutely necessary in most circumstances--really extend to the source of the leaking this case? Yes! Absolutely! That's why Assange said -- "We don't comment on who our sources are." You guys are implying he's a liar with no integrity. Would revealing Rich as the source of the leak, sticking another pin in the already flaccid Russiagate balloon, really make future sources more reluctant to come forward? My guess is it would raise Wikileaks' stature again, with Assange silenced and being slowly murdered in jail. It would have the opposite effect. Spin. Keven, do you know if the plaintiffs have considered this obvious path to get the info they are seeking? Have they contacted Wikileaks to ask for their help? If so, I'd be very interested in Wikileaks' answer. Assange will never reveal his sources. <cue Joe Pesci> Don't you get it?? Edited March 21 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 On 3/20/2024 at 11:29 AM, W. Niederhut said: Kevin, Geez. A little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. You, frankly, lose all credibility here by repeating the bogus Donald Trump/Fox News propaganda trope about the "Russiagate hoax." Russiagate was never a hoax. Like Ben Cole, you need to do some remedial reading about Putin's broad-based interference in the 2016 U.S. election on Trump's behalf. It happened. Did you study the U.S. Senate Intel Report on the subject? Among other aspects of Russiagate, Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was a long-term Kremlin employee who shared sensitive polling data with his Russian colleague, GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 Trump campaign. And Kremlin asset, Natalia Veselnitskaya, met with numerous Trump campaign staffers in 2016 to discuss Russian intel on Hillary Clinton. Manafort's partner, Roger Stone, also conferred with Julian Assange about hacked Russian "dirt" on Clinton, which was used to launch the 2016 Trump/Russian "Email-gate" psy-op. Manafort even committed perjury by lying about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik-- even after he had agreed to cooperate with Mueller's half-hearted, aborted investigation of Russiagate. Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, also lied to the FBI about his December 2016 phone calls with Sergei Kisylak. We've been around and around this Trump/Russiagate mulberry bush with your fellow MAGA media fan, Ben Cole, in recent years. And, unfortunately, the facts always tend to go into one MAGA ear and out the other in these discussions. Then the bogus MAGA narratives about history get re-posted, ad infinitum. W: Geez. A little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing. You, frankly, lose all credibility here by repeating the bogus Donald Trump/Fox News propaganda trope about the "Russiagate hoax." Russiagate was never a hoax. RO: If nothing else, let's get one thing straight. You don't speak for the group on Russiagate and certainly not for me. It is you, not Keven, who lost credibility in this thread. Keven has detailed a bunch of points about why Russiagate was a false claim, even while acknowledging there is more to be said. You have answered none of them. Instead you trotted out some moth eaten claims, long since discarded. Like Manafort gave "sensitive polling data " to Klimnick, a Russian! Hillary was vulnerable in the Rust Belt! As if the Russians you imagine to have a powerful ability to affect the outcome, needed to be told that. Or this American talked to that Russian. Let me offer a brief chronology of the birth of Russiagate, to put the discussion in perspective.. On June 12, 2016 in an interview on ITV, Assange said he would be releasing some DNC emails involving Hillary Clinton, that he said were quite important. Clinton took notice. She knew what was in those emails. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10. The emails were released on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention was to begin. Assange timed it that way to get maximum exposure. The weekend before the convention Hillary huddled with her staff to decide what to do about the emails. She knew she would be asked about them. I happened to be watching convention coverage when Robbie Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, was trotted out with their answer. He refused to discuss the substance contained in them. He simply dismissed them. No, he said the emails were hacked by the Russians and given to Assange. The implication was they were unreliable. Move on. We of course know that was false, but it was all Clinton had. The emails were legitimate and showed, for one thing, Hillary cheated Bernie on her way to the nomination. Clinton had an army of compliant press poised to focus on the Russian hack claim and help divert attention from what was in the emails. When Clinton lost the election, Russiagate became the go to reason for her defeat. In the 8 years since its invention, Russiagate has spawned a whole new McCartyite red scare that JFK was trying to get away from in his peace speech. The Russian people, he said, were heroic in defeating the Nazis during WWII and lost more than 20 million in the process. We all breathe the same air. It's time to find a way to peaceful coexistence. All that was lost when he was murdered and it has been buried again today by the false story of Russiagate, whose major purpose now is stoking fear and hatred toward Russia. The main result of the false Russiagate story today is that the antipathy it created now provides the basis for the warmongers to go after Russia. To quote Assange: People don't want wars. They have to be lied into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Odisio Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: RO quoted my cite: The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. RO quoted my cite: The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. RO edited out my comment to KH: Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI. RO: The DNC was lying, Cliff. How do you know? It's he said/she said. In fact, the FBI said it had more than once asked to examine the servers and were rebuffed by the DNC. Ask yourself why did the FBI take no for an answer. It amazes me that JFKA researchers conveniently hold the FBI as a model of honesty. RO: It was the FBI's job to examine the servers. They said they asked and were rebuffed by the Clinton DNC, who knew they didn't want a real investigation of what happened. Just like the killers didn't want a real autopsy of JFK. This is not he said/she said. Instead, Clinton hired Crowdstrike to tell her what she wanted to hear. That's not what CrowdStrike said. In their blog, quoted in my last post, they detailed the methodology they used to determine Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers and "staged" the e-mails for exfiltration. When pressed at the House hearing in 2017, Crowdstrike's Henry had to admit he had no evidence of a hack from the outside, by the Russians or anyone else. His claim that he still believed that is what happened is worthless. Amazing how reading comprehension eludes RussiaGate Deniers when they read this part of Henry's testimony: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. RO: What does exfiltration mean, Cliff? It's a fancy word (so fancy it's not even in my American Heritage dictionary) meaning removal that can be applied to *either* a hack or leak. Henry acknowledged CS found no proof of a hack. That is his finding that matters, that Schiff tried to bury. Which you keep trying to ignore. He also gave his opinion the hack could still have happened. So what. That doesn't matter. He was paid by Hillary. The information was instead downloaded by someone at the DNC who leaked it to Assange. You have no proof of that. RO: I could cite the study by Bill Binney saying a hack could not have happened.to that effect. I did say if there was a hack the NSA would have known about out it. Which you have ignored. But the burden isn't on me. It's on those like you who claim the Russians did hack the server without proof. As Ray McGovern has repeatedly asserted (and he would know) had the information been hacked by anyone from the outside, NASA would have known about it because they monitor everything domestic. That would have been definitive proof of an outside hack. NASA, you'll notice, has been silent. Apparently there was no way they could lie about that. I think you mean NSA. Their silence proves nothing. RO: If NSA had evidence of a hack, particularly by the Russians, you can bet Russigaters like you and Hillary would not be relying on paid for buffoons like CS. And would not have had to try to bury the findings when CS came up with no proof. Henry's testimony was buried by Adam Schiff--it was classified--for almost 3 three years until he was forced to release it after being told others would make it public if he didn't. The media, of course, ignored the release and it's only through the tireless efforts of McGovern, Bill Binney, and Mate that word has gotten out at all about it. None of these worthies comprehend the plain language here: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. RO: Never tire of repeating Henry's paid for *opinion* rather than the CS findings, huh, Cliff? Let's try an experiment. Watch Assange's Dutch interview again. At one point he is asked directly if Rich was his source. Watch Assange's reaction closely. Before he says we don't reveal our sources his head bobs up and down. Yes. He was not going to directly confirm it verbally. He has said many times protecting is sources is crucial to their whole operation. It was the most he could do, and I'm surprised he took the chance. It makes more sense he brought up Seth Rich to protect the actual source -- probably Roger Stone, since he was convicted of perjury when he denied under oath he had contact with Wikileaks. What do you see, Cliff? I've now given you license to ignore the other points and rant the obtuseness of that claim. It is subtle to be sure, and I don't want to make too much of it, given all of the other evidence. I haven't ignored anything. I've made point by point rebuttals to everything you and KH have posted. You guys, on the other hand, stubbornly ignore this: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. RO: My God, there it is again for the third time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: RO quoted my cite: The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers. “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News. RO edited out my comment to KH: Somebody was performing CYA -- you automatically assume it wasn't the FBI. RO: The DNC was lying, Cliff. How do you know? It's he said/she said. In fact, the FBI said it had more than once asked to examine the servers and were rebuffed by the DNC. Ask yourself why did the FBI take no for an answer. It amazes me that JFKA researchers conveniently hold the FBI as a model of honesty. Instead, Clinton hired Crowdstrike to tell her what she wanted to hear. That's not what CrowdStrike said. In their blog, quoted in my last post, they detailed the methodology they used to determine Fancy Bear hacked the DNC computers and "staged" the e-mails for exfiltration. When pressed at the House hearing in 2017, Crowdstrike's Henry had to admit he had no evidence of a hack from the outside, by the Russians or anyone else. His claim that he still believed that is what happened is worthless. Amazing how reading comprehension eludes RussiaGate Deniers when they read this part of Henry's testimony: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. The information was instead downloaded by someone at the DNC who leaked it to Assange. You have no proof of that. As Ray McGovern has repeatedly asserted (and he would know) had the information been hacked by anyone from the outside, NASA would have known about it because they monitor everything domestic. That would have been definitive proof of an outside hack. NASA, you'll notice, has been silent. Apparently there was no way they could lie about that. I think you mean NSA. Their silence proves nothing. Henry's testimony was buried by Adam Schiff--it was classified--for almost 3 three years until he was forced to release it after being told others would make it public if he didn't. The media, of course, ignored the release and it's only through the tireless efforts of McGovern, Bill Binney, and Mate that word has gotten out at all about it. None of these worthies comprehend the plain language here: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. Let's try an experiment. Watch Assange's Dutch interview again. At one point he is asked directly if Rich was his source. Watch Assange's reaction closely. Before he says we don't reveal our sources his head bobs up and down. Yes. He was not going to directly confirm it verbally. He has said many times protecting is sources is crucial to their whole operation. It was the most he could do, and I'm surprised he took the chance. It makes more sense he brought up Seth Rich to protect the actual source -- probably Roger Stone, since he was convicted of perjury when he denied under oath he had contact with Wikileaks. What do you see, Cliff? I've now given you license to ignore the other points and rant the obtuseness of that claim. It is subtle to be sure, and I don't want to make too much of it, given all of the other evidence. I haven't ignored anything. I've made point by point rebuttals to everything you and KH have posted. You guys, on the other hand, stubbornly ignore this: MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor. MR.HENRY: Yes, sir. But it leads me to what I'm curious about in this case. There is now a civil case in the courts seeking Rich's laptops, which the FBI first denied having before admitting that was a lie (thanks, Keven, for posting up to date info on that). Alleged in that case is the claim that Rich's laptops contain the email Rich sent to Wikileaks offering the DNC emails. When the laptop is turned over and it proves Rich provided the e-mails I will publicly declare -- "I stand corrected." It's going to be difficult for the plaintiffs to get that material and even if they get that far, there is probably no assurance that email is still there. But Wikileaks could shortcut all of that. It presumably has the email and the info about the DNC emails in its files. Assange is not going to violate source confidentiality, no matter how you spin it. Rich is dead. If he did it he was a hero. That has been obscured so far. Does the injunction about revealing sources--absolutely necessary in most circumstances--really extend to the source of the leaking this case? Yes! Absolutely! That's why Assange said -- "We don't comment on who our sources are." You guys are implying he's a liar with no integrity. Would revealing Rich as the source of the leak, sticking another pin in the already flaccid Russiagate balloon, really make future sources more reluctant to come forward? My guess is it would raise Wikileaks' stature again, with Assange silenced and being slowly murdered in jail. It would have the opposite effect. Spin. Keven, do you know if the plaintiffs have considered this obvious path to get the info they are seeking? Have they contacted Wikileaks to ask for their help? If so, I'd be very interested in Wikileaks' answer. Assange will never reveal his sources. <cue Joe Pesci> Don't you get it?? Julian Assange preserved his journalistic integrity, but it remains OBVIOUS what Wikileaks was concerned about, and Assange communicated it in several ways without explicitly revealing that Seth Rich was the source. If Seth Rich was not the source, and Wikileaks did not want there to be false attribution to Seth Rich, then Julian Assange wouldn't be bringing Seth Rich up in interviews AND offering $20,000 rewards for information about Rich's killers. "...The editor of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, said in a statement issued through an intermediary that he would not confirm or deny whether Rich or any person was a source for the organization, which over the years has obtained and released massive amounts of internal emails and other documents from the military, the State Department and other agencies. The statement says that policy “also covers alleged sources who were deceased.” “We treat threats towards any suspected WikiLeaks sources with extreme gravity,” the statement says. “This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications. We hope our efforts will contribute to the family’s calls for information and to the separate reward issued by police. We have a history of obtaining information that has significantly contributed to many legal proceedings, including successful prosecutions.”..." 'WIKILEAKS OFFERS REWARD FOR HELP FINDING DNC STAFFER'S KILLER' By Peter Hermann and Clarence Williams | The Washington Post | August 9, 2016 at 7:13 p.m. EDT | https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html In fact Wikileaks and Julian Assange did everything they could do without actually revealing Seth Rich was their source for the DNC emails: Then in 2017 Wikileaks increased the reward for information to $130,000: As for your nonsense about "fancy bear": What fancy bear is really about are the allegations that Gucifer 2.0 was the hacker of the DNC server as declared by Robert Mueller in his report. "Fancy bear" is a term made up by Crowdstrike: - Crowdstrike prejudicially renamed the APT28 and APT29 malware to the now infamous “Fancy Bear”, “Cozy Bear” and “Grizzly Steppe”. There was absolutely no reason to do that, other than for propaganda. - Joint intelligence reports used the Crowdstrike report as a basis and extensively quoted from it, incorporating their bureaucratic language: “we assess” with “high [moderate in the case of NSA] confidence”. William Binney highlighted that phrases like these indicate a lack of evidence — if there was evidence, they would have stated “we have direct evidence that…” - Joint intelligence reports repeated the Crowdstrike material in 2-3 pages without introducing any new evidence. Subsequently, the content was expanded to 12-13 pages by including criticisms of RT's exercise of their First Amendment rights, along with verbose explanations on the detection of malware. - Which led to the discovery of malware on a non-connected laptop at Burlington Electric Co. (Bernie Sanders’ town — huh?) and the media erupts with claims about attempts to hack the power grid. APT28 and APT29 are everywhere, loose in the wild. There are Aaron Mate documents (plus tweets) (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html, https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html) and other documents that bring up very important points which I will list below: Under oath (https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf) Shawn Henry said that on 04/22/16 DNC data was staged for exfiltraiton but there was no evidence that it left. Yet, Robert Mueller said that on 04/22/16 GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU controlled computers. Mueller claims that Guccifer 2.0 stole the documents. Julian Assange (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country) a guy that knows quite a bit about hacking, remarked about this in a 2017 New Yorker interview: In public, Assange tried several things. He asserted that he was the only one who knew the source. He implied that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were likely not what they seemed, and were instead the manifestation of a crafty double game—possibly orchestrated by Ukrainian state hackers. (“Those look very much like the Russians, but in some ways they look very amateur, and they look too much like it.”) He also promoted a theory that Guccifer 2.0 was exactly what it seemed, an entity run by Eastern European hackers. By the time I met Assange in the Embassy, the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and the F.B.I. had jointly assessed that Russian military intelligence was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. When I asked him what he thought of this, he said, “The whole thing is extremely lame,” as if he were talking about the ramblings of a crazy uncle. Assange also pursued a simpler rhetorical tactic. He argued that any attempt to associate WikiLeaks with Guccifer 2.0 was pernicious spin—trying to turn a coincidence into a conspiracy. Unlike documents that Guccifer 2.0 had published, none of the campaign e-mails that appeared on WikiLeaks contained traces of Russian metadata; therefore, he said, any links one could find binding the persona to Russia did not extend to his work. “There’s no forensic traces on our publications at all tying them to Russia—at all! It’s clearly completely different material, and there’s been a very sneaky attempt to conflate various hacks that have occurred with our publications.” Crowdstrike is not the neutral party it tries to appear (and brags about on that explanation page). Its co-founder is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. ---- the think tank that always has an extreme, hawkish, negative view of Russia. Shawn Henry used to work for Robert Mueller. James Comey was interviewed about why the FBI did not directly do the investigation and allowed Crowdstrike to provide some reports. Comey said he had confidence in Crowdstrike, which however, Comey said he had made multiple requests to Crowdstrike for the FBI to get direct access to the servers, but Crowdstrike says they never asked. Someone is lying. Mate says, "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 reports the FBI received from Crowdstrike were redacted: "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 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." (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html) Crowdstrike has been wrong before: "But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had claimed to identify inside the DNC server." (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html) https://hackernoon.com/the-big-fat-compendium-of-russiagate-debunkery-4278a753a3af 'LISTEN TO BILL BINNEY. RUSSIAGATE IS A LOT WORSE HOAX THAN YOU THOUGHT' LaRouchePAC Videos | Published on Mar 4, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9TyASfZV0c In this interview, former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney demonstrates that the most important premise for Russiagate, that Russian military intelligence conducted an internet hack of the DNC and then provided the purloined files to WikiLeaks for publication, is a fraud. If the Russians hacked the DNC, the NSA would be able to provide specific and detailed information tracing that attack as to times, dates, places, but no such proof has been provided. Binney created or supervised the NSA programs that provide this capability. Binney has now conducted two independent forensic studies of the DNC files: those released by Guccifer 2.0 and those published by WikiLeaks. Both studies, based on insights gleaned from file metadata and internet transfer speeds, point to the files' having been downloaded to a thumb drive or a storage device rather than transmitted over the internet in a Russian cyber attack. Binney’s findings support the WikiLeaks account of how the files were delivered to them. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray has stated that he met with someone who was not a Russian state actor at American University in Washington, D.C. and received a thumb drive of files. In this interview, Bill Binney also discusses his 32-year career at the NSA where he was known as this nation’s premier codebreaker. Binney invented the NSA program that automates collection of internet based data world-wide and invented a program, Thin Thread, which used targeted acquisition methods for analysis while protecting the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and the privacy rights of others. When it became apparent that the Agency was engaged in bulk acquisition and massive constitutional violations following September 11, 2001, Binney left the NSA. After he left, Binney and his fellow whistleblowers proved that Binney’s program, Thin Thread, could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. When Binney and others blew the whistle on the NSA corruption and Constitutional violations by going through appropriate government channels, they were subjected to a years-long FBI investigation based on bogus and fabricated information. "GUCIFER 2.0 IS TOTALLY A FABRICATION." Bill Binney 'MUELLER'S INDICTMENTS DEBUNKED BY NSA WHISTLE-BLOWER. W/BILL BINNEY' The Jimmy Dore Show | Published on Aug 13, 2018 | https://youtu.be/JHZXVWUxxDU?si=jiazxTG8kLz7nT_U VIPS Professional Bill Binney sets the record straight on Guccifer 2.0 and Mueller’s latest indictments. Edited March 21 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now