Het hele
Russiagate verhaal, al een paar jaar door de reguliere media gebruikt
als zijnde een voldongen feit, is als een kaartenhuis in elkaar
gestort, nadat Mueller zijn onderzoek had afgerond. Echter de
reguliere media geven niet toe dat ze een paar jaar lang fake news
hebben gebracht en gebruikt als zijnde de waarheid, nee men doet net of de neus
bloedt en stelt als de Democratische Partij en haar achterban dat er
nog steeds een ‘smoking gun’ verstopt zit in het rapport van
Mueller…..
Deze
figuren vergeten voor het gemak dat Mueller Trump maar al te graag
gepakt had voor vuil spel met de Russen…… Het feit dat Mueller
expres bewijzen van het tegendeel heeft achtergehouden, interesseert
die media niet eens, barbertje zal hangen…….
Waarom
dan, vraag je je wellicht af, wel simpel: de democraten moesten hun
zwaar misdadig gedrag verbergen, het stelen van de democratische
voorverkiezingen van Bernie Sanders in 2016 door Clinton en haar team, Sanders destijds de andere democratische kandidaat voor het VS
presidentschap……
Overigens
was er nog een netelige kwestie voor hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton,
die men liever uit de pers hield en dat was het telkens weer
opduikende feit dat ze haar privé mail heeft gebruikt voor
staatszaken, toen ze minister van BuZa was onder Obama, een periode
waarin ze tevens ‘opklom’ tot volwaardig oorlogsmisdadiger……..
Wat
beter om e.e.a te bereiken, dus misdaden uit de pers houden, dan de
Russen te beschuldigen van het hacken van de servers van het DNC, het
campagneteam van Clinton……. Uiteraard zou de reguliere media van
dit soort verhalen onmiddellijk in de alarmstand gaan staan en zou
dat weken, zo niet maandenlang de voorpagina’s van de kranten en de
talkshows op tv beheersen……
Lees het
volgende artikel van Kevin Gosztola, waarin hij verder ingaat op de
smerige spellen die het Clinton team, de FBI, de CIA en zelfs de NSA hebben
gespeeld. Verder noemt Gosztola de Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS) die met een paar deskundigen e.e.a. hebben
onderzocht waar de tijdschaal van een aantal gegevens niet kloppen, wat
er op duit dat men (in de VS) heeft gerommeld met de computers…..
Uitermate
vreemd ook dat de FBI de servers niet in beslag heeft genomen voor
onderzoek, standaard in dergelijk onderzoek, maar zich op de hoogte heeft laten brengen door een door
de Democratische Partij ingehuurd onderzoeksbureau….. ha! ha! ha!
ha! ha! Ja mensen ik geloofde m’n ogen niet toen ik dat onder ogen
kreeg, ongelofelijk!!
Lees het
volgende uitstekende artikel van Gosztola, waarin hij de zaken veel
beter uit de doeken doet, dan ik hierboven heb getracht.
Veiligheidgordels vast?
On
WikiLeaks, Mueller Ignored Findings of Former US Intelligence
Officials
April
20, 2019 at 10:38 am
Written
by Kevin
Gosztola
(SP) — Special
Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on an investigation into alleged
Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election does not
confirm, without a doubt, that Russian intelligence agents or
individuals tied to Russian intelligence agencies passed on emails
from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to WikiLeaks.
Mueller’s
team highlighted statements from WikiLeaks on Twitter about former
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff member Seth Rich, which
seemed to relate to the alleged source of emails and documents the
organization published. Yet, more explicit claims from WikiLeaks
editor-in-chief Julian Assange on the source of emails from Clinton
campaign chairman John Podesta were not addressed in the report.
A
group of former military and intelligence officials, Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), conducted their own
forensic tests that received a bit of attention in the United States
press because they were some of the first people with prior
backgrounds in government to question the central allegations of
hacking into DNC servers. They asserted their examinations of the
files showed DNC emails published by WikiLeaks were leaked, not
hacked.
However,
the Mueller report makes no mention of the claims made by VIPS over
the past two to three years—not even to debunk them.
The
report stated, “Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands
of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in
July 2016.” But “appear to have” indicates the team did not
have incontrovertible proof. They could only speculate.
“The
Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to
WikiLeaks through intermediaries, who visited during the summer of
2016,” the report acknowledged. “For example, public reporting
identified Andrew Müller-Maguhn as a WikiLeaks associate who may
have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to
WikiLeaks.”
Yet,
this is wildly misleading. The source for this example is a
2018 profile of
Müller-Maguhn by journalist Ellen Nakashima that was published by
the Washington Post. Müller-Maguhn told Nakashima it “would be
insane” for him to hand deliver sensitive files, especially when
the CIA has labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence
service.”
“How
many of you wouldn’t be scared shitless by the head of the CIA
declaring you the next target?,” he said.
Müller-Maguhn,
who met Assange through the Chaos Computer Club in 2007 and sits on
the board of the Wau Holland foundation, characterized this
allegation as a “lame attempt” by U.S. intelligence agencies to
hurt the foundation so they cut off their tax-free donations to
WikiLeaks in Europe.
Assange
held a press
conference in
January 2017, where he responded to the intelligence community
assessment on alleged Russian hacking. The media organization urged
skepticism toward the assertion that publications of DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign emails were connected to alleged hacking operations.
“Even
if you accept that the Russian intelligence services hacked
Democratic Party institutions, as it is normal for the major
intelligence services to hack each others’ major political parties
on a constant basis to obtain intelligence,” you have to ask, “what
was the intent of those Russian hacks? And do they connect to our
publications? Or is it simply incidental?” Assange said.
Assange
accused U.S. intelligence agencies of deliberately obscuring the
timeline. He said they did not know when the DNC was hacked.
“The
U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained
its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how
we obtained our material directly. So there seems to be a great fog
in the connection to WikiLeaks,” Assange declared.
He
added, “As we have already stated, WikiLeaks sources in relation to
the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any
government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the
Russian government.”
“The
[Clinton campaign] emails that we released during the election dated
up to March [2016]. U.S. intelligence services and consultants for
the DNC say Russian intelligence services started hacking DNC in
2015. Now, Trump is clearly not on the horizon in any substantial
manner in 2015,” Assange additionally concluded.
There
is a statement in the Mueller report that begins, “Although it is
clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from
the GRU to WikiLeaks…” It cuts off there because the rest was
redacted to supposedly protect an “investigative technique.” The
formulation of the sentence definitely suggests the Mueller team made
a statement reflecting doubts around what happened with WikiLeaks.
In
early 2017, Assange was willing to
“provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not
engage in the DNC releases.” He also was willing—before the
release of “Vault 7” materials—to help U.S. agencies address
“clear flaws in security systems” that led the U.S. cyber weapons
program to be compromised.
When
Democratic Senator Mark Warner learned Justice Department official
Bruce Ohr was negotiating some kind of a deal for limited immunity
and a limited commitment from Assange, he urged Comey to intervene.
A
potential deal with Assange was killed, the “Vault 7” files were
eventually published, and no testimony was ever collected that would
have helped the Mueller team gain a better understanding of what
happened with the DNC and Clinton campaign email publications.
Bill
Binney, former National Security Agency technical director for world
geopolitical and military analysis and co-founder of NSA’s Signals
Intelligence Automation Research
Center, conducted forensic
examinations of the files posted by the Guccifer 2.0 persona as well
as WikiLeaks. He was the principal author of multiple memos that
significantly undermined key allegations. But no one from Mueller’s
team ever contacted Binney or Ed Loomis, who also is a former
technical director at NSA, to interview them about their findings.
In
a published memo addressed to Attorney General Bill Barr, the
steering group for VIPS, which includes Binney and Loomis, declared,
“We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the
‘trail’ that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators
who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the
conventional-wisdom story about
Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false.”
“Drawing
largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for
a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and
became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our
findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media
— an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when
we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq
16 years ago,” the group added.
The
DNC files published by WikiLeaks, according to a forensic examination
by VIPS, show data was “transferred to an external storage device,
such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them.”
VIPS
drew this conclusion based on something called the File Allocation
Table (FAT) system property. This is a “method of organization.”
If the files were received as a hack, “the last modified times on
the files would be a random mixture of odd-and-even-ending numbers.”
However, the “last modified” time stamps for the WikiLeaks DNC
files each end in even numbers.
“We
have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site,”
the memo indicated. “All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6,
8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would
be an equal probability of the timestamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is one chance in two to the
500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were
physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide
Web.”
On
the Podesta emails, Binney said the FAT file format was not
introduced by WikiLeaks. The media organization did not have a
standard procedure. But it still means the files were put on a
removable storage device or CD-ROM, physically transported, and then
posted.
The
former officials additionally claim the Guccifer 2.0 persona
published a document that was “synthetically tainted with ‘Russian
fingerprints.’” Primarily, they assert this because the Guccifer
2.0 data was transferred with an Internet connection speed faster
than what is possible from remote online Internet connections. The
transfer rate was “as high as 49.1 megabytes per second,” which
coincided with “the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could
accommodate.”
As
part of the “Vault 7” materials published by WikiLeaks on March
31, 2017, the media organization revealedthe
Marble Framework. This was described as a tool for hampering
“forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing
viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA.”
“The
source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English
but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi,” WikiLeaks
described. “This would permit a forensic attribution double game,
for example, by pretending that the spoken language of the malware
creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing
attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic
investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion—but there
are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.”
VIPS
contends that whoever engaged in the activity referred to as “Russian
hacking” actually used an obfuscator to make it seem like the
Russians were responsible.
“The
timestamps we were getting from Guccifer internally in the data were
showing places like east coast in the U.S. and the central time in
the U.S. Also one in the west coast. So the time stamping isn’t
there for being anywhere outside the U.S.,” Binney told
Shadowproof.” “[But] once you have a fabricator, you have to find
some way of proving everything about him, and you know we can’t
really prove that that’s not also a fabrication.”
The
Mueller report, however, does not contemplate the possibility that
someone or a group potentially used a special tool, similar to what
the CIA employs, in order to obfuscate their acts.
Most
of the technical assertions around what happened with Democratic
Party computers or servers are not backed up so that a person could
research the claims and validate them. On the other hand, Binney
points out that is not the case with VIPS claims.
“The
stuff we looked at is out there on the web for everybody to go look
and verify for themselves,” Binney said. “The stuff they’re
talking about we don’t even see. How can you have any confidence in
anything like that, especially when they don’t address the things
you can see and anybody can go look at it?”
Furthermore,
former FBI director James Comey said “multiple
requests” were made at “different levels” for access to
Democratic servers. Ultimately, these servers, or computers, that
were allegedly targeted were not taken by the FBI for their own
forensic examination. They relied on the conclusions of an in-house
cyber-response team working for the Democrats known as CrowdStrike.
Where
the Mueller report stated the FBI “later received images of DNC
servers and copies of relevant traffic logs,” they were most likely
referring to the material that CrowdStrike handed over for the
investigation.
“Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original
device or server that’s involved, so it’s the best evidence,”
Comey admitted during a Senate intelligence committee hearing. And
yet, the FBI allowed the Democratic Party to rebuff their request for
access.
“It’s
like you’re denying. You don’t want to get the firsthand evidence
because then you’ll have it, and you’ll have to address it,”
Binney suggested.
He
added, “You can’t say the words. You have to put down the raw
data that says this is why I’m saying that, and they’re not doing
that.”
***
There
is good reason to demand that the Mueller team show their work. Many
of these same intelligence agency officials that made claims, which
form the narrative for “Russiagate,” work for agencies that
fabricated intelligence around so-called weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq back in 2002.
Binney
and Loomis, along with Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, were part of
the NSA
Four.
They were falsely accused in 2007 of leaking. As journalist Timothy
Shorrock detailed, they “endured years of legal harassment for
exposing the waste and fraud behind a multibillion-dollar contract
for a system called Trailblazer, which was supposed to
‘revolutionize’ the way the NSA produced signals intelligence
(SIGINT)
in the digital age.”
According
to Binney, the government backed away from targeting them because
they could show the government was engaged in a malicious
prosecution. Agency officials immediately tried to “confiscate
everything” on their computers and fabricated allegations for a
federal judge.
But
they had backed up all their data and could prove they were facing
retaliation for their work. (Drake was later the target of an
Espionage Act prosecution cooked up by the Justice Department.)
The
claims made by VIPS members are easy to reject because they do not
fit into the dominant narrative around what happened with the 2016
presidential election, but former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence
officer & CIA presidential briefer Ray McGovern believes Binney
and Loomis ought to be taken much more seriously because they helped
perfect the very systems that the government relies upon to draw
technical conclusions.
“When
you have people like that, they deserve a modicum of trust,”
McGovern argued. “When you have these people, who have absolutely
no suspicion or no secret agenda, who are indisputably the best
experts in this area,” even if you don’t understand every detail,
you ought to seriously consider what they say.
Finally,
because of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, McGovern said the NSA
would have any evidence of hacking as a result of “dragnet
coverage.” If Russia hacked, “where’s the intercepts” they
should have?
Binney
conversely argued it cannot be NSA data that the Mueller team relied
upon to draw conclusions about Guccifer and WikiLeaks. “The NSA
data, once they collect data, it’s classified.
The
only person that can expose classified material in the public and
authorize that is the president. No one else is authorized to do
that. So, if [Rod] Rosenstein and Mueller are doing that from NSA
data, then they’re compromising classified information, which is a
felony.”
“It’s
obvious that that’s not NSA data. It is data from a third-party.
It’d very likely be CrowdStrike or somebody like that,” Binney
added. “Any rate, it is tainted material. They’ve never had
continuous control of that information.”
The
vast majority of the press throughout the world will dismiss the work
of VIPS. It is quite easy because it clashes terribly with the
convenient narrative that intelligence agencies and powerful elites
deployed. It undermines the claims that WikiLeaks is a media
organization that was compromised during the 2016 election by Russian
intelligence. It fuels the notion that the Mueller team suffered from
confirmation bias and then sought to find details that confirmed what
intelligence agencies concluded in 2017. Anything conflicting was to
be dismissed or discarded.
Yet,
a review of the “Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations” does not
contain much more than circumstantial evidence and speculation about
WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0., leaving many valid questions about the
timeline of events unanswered.
One
small concession for Assange may be Attorney General Bill Barr’s
statement that can apply to WikiLeaks as much as individuals who
worked for the Trump campaign. “Under applicable law, publication
of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the
publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.”
While
Democrats push for the Justice Department to add further charges
against Assange and extradite him to the United States for publishing
Clinton campaign and DNC emails, this points to the reality that the
Justice Department would have to prove WikiLeaks was involved in
stealing or hacking the materials.
With
the national security apparatus so invested in this “Russiagate”
narrative, they probably do not want to graft on additional charges
relating to the election that would allow Assange to make discovery
requests that would potentially poke additional holes in their
preferred theory of events.
By Kevin Gosztola /
Republished with permission / Shadow
Proof / Report
a typo
==================================
Zie ook:
‘WaPo waarschuwt voor Russische digitale controle over de hersenen van VS burgers‘
”Geheime diensten in westen geven toe dat spioneren via het G5 netwerk praktisch onmogelijk is……..‘
‘1984 het boek van George Orwell: niet langer fictie…….‘
‘Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap‘ (zie daarin ook de links naar andere berichten over Assange)
‘Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie‘ aan……’ (zie in dat bericht ook de link naar een ander artikel met een smerige rol van Avaaz)
‘Rob Jetten (D66 fractievoorzitter) liegt een fikse slag in de rondte in EU verkiezingspraatje‘
‘Robert Mueller lijdt aan dementie en maakt van Russiagate een nog belachelijker verhaal‘
‘Putin vraagt en Trump levert: een lijst met ‘alle goede zaken die Trump voor Rusland regelde’‘
‘Julian Assange (brekend nieuws) veroordeeld tot 50 weken gevangenisstraf……‘
‘Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht)
‘BBC verslaggever is beschaamd over de 25 jaar die hij voor deze zendgemachtigde heeft gewerkt‘
‘BNR ‘denkt’ als één van de vele mediaorganen nog steeds dat Russiagate werkelijk plaats vond‘
‘Bedrijf dat voor ‘Russische bots’ waarschuwde, heeft een leger met nep-Russische bots‘
‘Two More Spiegel Employees Out After Fake News Scandal Expands‘ Ofwel: het zoveelste ‘gevalletje fake news’, gebracht door de reguliere massamedia……..
‘Waarom de burgers van de VS de illegale oorlogen steunen‘
‘Der Spiegel, groot bestrijder van ‘fake news’ bracht zelf jarenlang dit soort ‘nieuws’‘
‘BBC: Rusland ‘misbruikt humor’ om Russiagate te ontkrachten….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
‘Uitgelekte telefoongesprekken tussen Trump en Putin bewijzen dat ‘Russiagaters gelijk hebben……’‘
‘Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega’s voor zot uitgemaakt‘
‘Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘
‘New York Times ‘bewijzen’ voor Russiagate vallen door de mand……‘
‘Facebook gebruikte ‘fake news’ beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden‘
‘Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘
‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português