Altijd
leuk om weer een bevestiging tegen te komen over de leugen dat
Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS heeft beïnvloed t.g.v.
Donald Trump, de ‘lichtelijk’ imbeciele psychopaat.
Er
kunnen niet genoeg van deze berichten verschijnen, zeker als je dag
in dag uit westerse ‘journalisten’, politici en ‘deskundigen’ de leugen hoort
herhalen dat de Russen wel degelijk deze verkiezingen hebben
gemanipuleerd, iets waarvoor tot op heden geen flinter bewijs is
geleverd….. Zoals er ook geen nanometer bewijs is voor Russische bemoeienis met de Brexit, de roep om onafhankelijkheid in Catalonië of verkiezingen in de EU, terwijl ook dat bijna dagelijks de revue passeert……
Lees
het hieronder opgenomen artikel en verbaas je ook over het gemak
waarmee de wereld werd en nog steeds wordt voorgelogen met een zo
doorzichtig aantal leugens….. In deze geopenbaard door Jack
Matlock, een voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou. Hij stelt o.a. dat de aanname dat de VS inlichtingendiensten achter deze leugens staan, op zich al een leugen van formaat is en dat het zogenaamde inlichtingen rapport vooral politiek gemotiveerd is (o.a. om Hillary Clinton uit de wind te houden en de winst van Trump bij de presidentsverkiezingen ter discussie te stellen, Ap):
Former
US Ambassador: Intel Report on Russian Interference “Politically
Motivated”
July
3, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Written
by Consortium
News
Prominent
journalists and politicians seized upon a shabby, politically
motivated, “intelligence” report as proof of “Russian
interference” in the U.S. election without the pretense of due
diligence, argues Jack Matlock, a former U.S. ambassador in Moscow.
(CN Op-ed) — Did
the U.S. “intelligence community” judge that Russia interfered in
the 2016 presidential election?
Most
commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the
planned meeting of Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to
“Russian interference” as a fact and asks whether the matter will
be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the
election are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S.
“intelligence community” proved Russian interference. In fact,
the U.S. “intelligence community” has not done so. The
intelligence community as a whole has not been tasked to make a
judgment and some key members of that community did not participate
in the report that is routinely cited as “proof” of “Russian
interference.”
I
spent the 35 years of my government service with a “top secret”
clearance. When
I reached the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant
to the President for National Security, I also had clearances for
“codeword” material. At that time, intelligence reports to the
president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through
me for comment. I developed at that time a “feel” for the
strengths and weaknesses of the various American intelligence
agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6,
2017 report of
three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This
report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in
fact it
is not that.
A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the
input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal
whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not
hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to
be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency
was omitted.
The
report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence
agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even
that is misleading in
that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in
these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors,
with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then
Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in
testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so
analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the
contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can
hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have
understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of
his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?
What
should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the
procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to
produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained
stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome
enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The
DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council (NIC) whose
officers can call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to
draft community assessments. It was created by Congress after 9/11
specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC,
which is curious since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the
intelligence and policy communities.”
Unusual
FBI Participation
During
my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would
include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of
the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless
the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United
States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the
other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the
substance of reports.
What
did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of
INR or DIA! The exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its
mandate deals primarily with military forces, except that the report
attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian military
intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S.
intelligence organ most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this
attribution? The report doesn’t say.
The
omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political
activity could not have been that of the U.S. intelligence community
without its participation. After all, when it comes to assessments of
foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department’s intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable
and competent. In my day, it reported accurately on Gorbachev’s
reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev had the
same aims as his predecessors.
This
is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible
journalists and politicians should have asked is “Why is INR not
represented? Does it have a different opinion? If so, what is that
opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
“classified information.” But why should it be classified? If
some agency heads come to a conclusion and choose (or are directed)
to announce it publicly, doesn’t the public deserve to know that
one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The
second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI:
did all their analysts agree with these conclusions or were they
divided in their conclusions? What was the reason behind hand-picking
analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the
issues involved?
State
Department Intel Silenced
As
I was recently informed by a senior official, the
State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact,
have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it.
So the January report was not one of the “intelligence community,”
but rather of three intelligence agencies, two of which have no
responsibility or necessarily any competence to judge foreign
intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of
NSA is to intercept the communications of others and to protect ours.
It is not staffed to assess the content of what is intercepted; that
task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA (if it is
military) or the State Department’s INR (if it is political).
The
second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies
reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not
necessarily a consensus of their analysts’ views. The heads of both
the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a
military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather
than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography
and communications security.
One
striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion
of the January report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and
NSA heads is that questions were never posed regarding the position
of the State Department’s INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let’s
put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report
itself. On the first page of text, the following statement leapt to
my attention:
“We
did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had
on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is
charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities,
and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.”
Now,
how can one judge whether activity “interfered” with an election
without assessing its impact? After all, if the activity had no
impact on the outcome of the election, it could not be properly
termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented
journalists and politicians from citing the report as proof that
“Russia interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As
for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and
description of “capabilities” but largely devoid of any evidence
to substantiate its assertions. This is “explained” by claiming
that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed
without revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with
“high confidence” or occasionally, “moderate confidence.”
Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The
use of the term “high confidence” is what most normal people
would call “our best guess.” “Moderate confidence” means
“some of our analysts think this might be true.”
Guccifer
2.0: A Fabrication
Among
the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0”
is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the
Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer and conveyed them to
Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a
hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In
fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that
has been leaked and published*.
Retired
senior NSA technical experts have examined the “Guccifer 2.0”
data on the web and have concluded that “Guccifer 2.0’s” data
did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded.
Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to
the conclusion that “Guccifer 2.0” is a total fabrication.
The
report’s assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to
Wikileaks are dubious, but its final statement in this regard is
important: “Disclosures
through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.” In
other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So, Russians are
accused of “degrading our democracy” by revealing that the DNC
was trying to fix the nomination of a particular candidate rather
than allowing the primaries and state caucuses to run their course. I
had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade
democracy have a rather bizarre—to put it mildly–concept of
democracy.
Most
people, hearing that it is a “fact” that “Russia” interfered
in our election must think that Russian government agents hacked into
vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a particular
candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most
painful sanctions. But this is the one thing that the “intelligence”
report of January 6, 2017, states did not happen. Here is what it
said: “DHS
[the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of
systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in
vote tallying.”
This
is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess
the impact of foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not
consulted regarding other aspects of the study? Or—was it in fact
consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should
have asked.
Prominent
American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby,
politically motivated, report as proof of “Russian interference”
in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They
have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any
improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with
Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries.
This
is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian
relations have become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the
crick don’t rise, I’ll be musing about other aspects soon.
Op-ed
by Jack
Matlock /
Republished with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo
* De WikiLeaks Vault 7 en 8 documenten.
Zie wat betreft verkiezingen in de VS ook:
‘Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘
‘New York Times ‘bewijzen’ voor Russiagate vallen door de mand……‘
‘Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht)
‘Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘
Zie verder:
‘VS heeft Rusland al 3 keer met oorlog gedreigd, de laatste 2 keer in de afgelopen 1,5 week……‘
‘The Attack on ‘Fake News’ Is Really an Attack on Alternative Media‘
‘The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media “Fake News” Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq‘
‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..‘
‘Mocking Trump Doesn’t Prove Russia’s Guilt‘
‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘
‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘
‘Hillary Clinton en haar oorlog tegen de waarheid…….. Ofwel een potje Rusland en Assange schoppen!‘
‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘
‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘
‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘
‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘
‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘
‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘
‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘
‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘
‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘
‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘
‘Alarm Code Geel: Lara Rense (NOS) voedt Rusland-haat‘
‘‘Russiagate’ een nieuwe ongelooflijke aanklacht van de Democraten…….‘
‘VS demoniseert Russiagate critici als Jill Stein…..‘
‘De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers………‘
‘Britse en VS manipulaties van verkiezingen en stimulatie van conflicten middels psychologische oorlogsvoering‘ (voor VS manipulaties van verkiezingen elders, liggen er ‘metersdikke’ dossiers, o.a. in te zien op WikeLeaks)
Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ‘‘Death Sentence for Local Media’: Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant‘ Met o.a.:“At a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities, we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to the local viewers and listeners they’re supposed to serve.” —Dana Floberg, Free Press. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, dan wel (beursgenoteerde) politiek rechtse organisaties, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben, waarbij deze eigenaren allen grote aanhangers zijn van het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme en grote voorstanders zijn van de VS terreur, waar ter wereld die ook wordt uitgeoefend……..
GRU in Nederlands GROe, label veranderd op 5 oktober 2018.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português