On January 6th, 2017, the logo of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared on a report given to President-elect Trump. The objective of the report was to prove that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee email server and that it used this and other information, as well as its broadcast outlet RT and various "trolls" on social media, to unduly influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The report (link to PDF) is a follow up to the previous week's report (12/29/16) from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which included various IP addresses and a few domain names, that purported to show evidence of Russian hacking.
Not one independent IT professional, including former high-level officials in the NSA and CIA, as well as a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, found that either of these reports proves what it claims:
* US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware;
* Department of Homeland Security / FBI Claim of Russian Hacking is Fake News;
* Emails were leaked, not hacked;
* McAfee breaks down inconsistencies in FBI’s Grizzly Steppe report;
* What does the CIA know about security? British teenager suspected of being a mystery hacker who stole CIA boss emails; and finally
* Former US Envoy to Moscow Calls Intelligence Report on Alleged Russian Interference ‘Politically Motivated’.
* December 18, 2019: New evidence: NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Eric Zuesse
Rather, both reports are nothing more than unsophisticated attempts at creating a case for: 1) demonizing Russia, as if Russia's intelligence organizations and state-owned media are doing anything different than the U.S. intelligence services and corporate-owned media, which is: defending the interests of those who control them; and 2) demonizing WikiLeaks, which has published emails that are damaging to the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, John Podesta, and others. While the evidence in this case does not point to Russia, it must be noted that the U.S. has made a habit of interfering in elections all around the globe.
It's also important to note that in the latest report, the NSA expressed only "moderate confidence" in the CIA's and FBI's "high confidence" assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances ... by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him." It is the NSA, of course, that literally tracks all Internet traffic and could easily produce proof of Russian hacking, if it had it, which it obviously does not. (The reason for this is obvious: the CIA impersonates Russian hacking.)
As a result, the latest report hides behind the mask of "national security" and the use of the term "assessment" (which in this context means a guess) in refusing to release any hard data associated with their claims, as if the world is somehow ignorant of the capabilities of the NSA and the technical feasibility for the U.S. (and Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, etc.) to spy on each other and any other country on the planet.
Regardless, we are asked by U.S. intelligence agencies to "believe us, because you know we have your best interests at heart." Of course, history has shown this to be a patently false claim. For example, James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, "lied about the NSA committing the most massive Fourth Amendment violation in history," that is, he lied about the level of NSA surveillance and information it collects on every U.S. citizen. Other obvious lies generated by the intelligence community include Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which precipitated the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. In fact, the CIA systematically lies for furthering the objectives of those who control it, whose interests are not those of the U.S. citizenry, as they pretend. There are approximately 20 layers or more of national security above the President of the U.S., who simply reads the teleprompter for the puppet masters.
There is an overreaching agenda here, as we have previously covered, most notably in this prior post; that is, the U.S., along with the U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, are merely proxies for the Anglo-Euro-American banking cartel and its corporations.
Given this context, the objectives behind the accusations of Russian "hacking" become much clearer:
* Russia, along with China and Iran, have successfully supported the Syrian government in driving out the cartel's proxies (military officials of the U.S., U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, as well as their mercenaries, the "Syrian rebels" and ISIS) out of Syria. This is a major setback to the cartel which, since 9-11, has destroyed a series of nations that controlled their own central banks and currencies (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya), leaving only five sovereign nations on the planet (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuban, and Sudan); i.e., the cartel's "official enemies list." In addition to controlling money creation, the cartel's secondary objectives of control over oil production and gold reserves have also been partially met by these illegal invasions, which stand in violation of international law. So, further demonizing Russia, via McCarthyist red-baiting, is an important step in gearing up to roll back any military advances of those opposed to the cartel's efforts at monolithic control over the planet; for example, the approval and buildup of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe during the latter half of 2016 and early 2017, starting from a baseline of 95,000 troops in Europe at the end of September, 2016. A parallel attempt to debunk the evidence in WikiLeaks involves an inquiry into the FBI's bait and switch on Clinton's illegal and unsecured private email servers.Let's examine some of the statements in the latest report, to get a clearer idea of the U.S. intelligence community's assumptions and their transparent attempts at propaganda, limited hangout, and lies to sway the public:* The cartel also seeks to demonize various whistle blowers, such as Edward Snowden, who revealed the depth of the NSA surveillance over U.S. citizens, and Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, has successfully published leaked documents, including many from the DNC and State Department, which reveal various indictable offenses and other damaging plans of Hillary Clinton and her staff and organizations. While Donald Trump threatened, during the 2016 presidential campaign, to indict Clinton over these crimes and, since elected, has retreated from this position, the fact remains that these emails are publicly available and, we suspect, are only the tip of the iceberg as far as illegal activities of Clinton or, for that matter, most of the high-level political and corporate executives that serve the cartel's business model of fraud enforced by police, military, and intelligence operations. Thus, demonizing Assange and WikiLeaks materials serves as a means of distracting the public's attention from Clinton's corruption, while painting her as a victim of smears, rather than a perpetrator of war crimes, electoral theft, and worse.
"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President. The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future."RESPONSE: Given the complete lack of evidence provided by the previous FBI/DHS report, one would expect that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the CIA, would provide some evidence of their claims. As noted above, everyone knows the NSA could reverse engineer any attack to its source, so why not show us? Alas, the intelligence community apparently thinks it can bluff its way out of this.
"The tradecraft standards for analytic products have been refined over the past ten years. These standards include describing sources (including their reliability and access to the information they provide), clearly expressing uncertainty, distinguishing between underlying information and analysts’ judgments and assumptions, exploring alternatives, demonstrating relevance to the customer, using strong and transparent logic, and explaining change or consistency in judgments over time."
RESPONSE: These are excellent protocols, but none of these standards are employed in this report.
"The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation—malicious or not—leaves a trail. US Intelligence Community analysts use this information, their constantly growing knowledge base of previous events and known malicious actors, and their knowledge of how these malicious actors work and the tools that they use, to attempt to trace these operations back to their source."
RESPONSE: Actually, according to Snowden and many other IT professionals, they can do this, even if they now pretend it's difficult. So, where's the proof? This is a good example of what the intelligence community calls "limited hangout"; that is stating or admitting a few truths that everyone already knows, and then lying.
"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."
RESPONSE: Get this: Contrary to what the Washington Post and the corporate media have reported, this statement contends that the report makes no assessment regarding the impact of so-called "Russian hacking" on the election. And yet, in actuality, they are constantly editorializing (in the report) that it did have an effect. Perhaps this "statement of principles" is all about plausible deniability when it is discovered later that, like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and WMDs, the "Intelligence Community" was lying about Russian hacking.
"Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and redlines, whether on Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States."
RESPONSE: This is true of both the Russian government, and the U.S. government, as well as China, Britain, France, Israel, etc., except that by limiting this to Russia, it becomes propaganda (as it's use of the term Kremlin, which becomes, in this context, an ad hominem [logical fallacy] makes obvious), rather that a political truth.
"Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations."
RESPONSE: First, let's take a moment to have a good laugh over the use of the term "US-led liberal democratic" order. As noted here and here: 1) the U.S. is just one of the Anglo-Euro-American banking cartel's proxies, even if it is the leading proxy; 2) corporate control over the state is one of the textbook definitions of fascism (there is nothing liberal about this, even if the blue and red parties market themselves under the banners of equality and inequality, because these branding attempts are tactics not philosophies; and 3) as we noted here, there is nothing democratic about our electoral processes, which include gerrymandering, voter suppression, registration switching, ballot destruction, electronic voting machine hacking, fake polls, and fake news. The final phrase of the above declaration ("these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations") is the justification for U.S. retaliation.
"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
RESPONSE: So, going back on what this report claimed at the top--"We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."--the analysts blame Putin for the pitiful state of the cartel's criminal control over U.S. elections and Clinton's self-admitted crimes in the emails. This is childish at best. Also, why wouldn't Putin prefer Trump, who claims he would rather promote trade and stop wasting our resources on war? Finally, given the low percentage of voter turnout for U.S. elections, public faith in the electoral process here has been waning for a long time, and has nothing to do with Russia, but rather the red-blue charade orchestrated by the cartel.
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence."
RESPONSE: So, the U.S., which has a military presence in 138 nations (!!!), stages coups d'etat as a matter of course, assassinates heads of sovereign states, invades sovereign states, tortures its own and foreign citizens, destroys currencies, etc., is saying that it is an act of terrorism that Russia would propagandize in favor of Trump? This claim is disingenuous at best. Secondly, Clinton discredited herself in the emails.
"Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”
RESPONSE: The U.S. does the very same thing via NSA's work force and corporate controlled media, with the Washington Post's work as a water boy for the CIA (with whom it has a $600 million dollar contract) and its recent retractions serving as obvious examples.
"We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
RESPONSE: Various IT professionals say that there is no proof of this, and the Intelligence Community, which has a history of lying for political, economic, and military purposes, refuses to show any details. And then there is the inconvenient truth that WikiLeaks' has never posted false data or claims. So, this statement in the report has no credibility. If there is proof of this, then it is time to show it.
"Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."
RESPONSE: Get this straight: The report says Russia DID NOT HACK THE ELECTION. And second, there is no proof offered that it gained access to electoral boards. It is far more likely that the cartel, which controls the red and blue parties, did the hacking, since at least 12 states were hacked for Clinton in the blue party primary and all the swing states were hacked for Trump in the general election. Take a look at who stopped the recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania: red and blue party operatives.
"Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)."
RESPONSE: Think about what the "intelligence" agencies are saying here! This is quite an admission: that Russia saw Trump as helping a coalition against terrorism. This is obviously threatening to the cartel's agenda, because the CIA created Al Qaeda and ISIS to use as excuses to invade sovereign nations, take over their monetary systems, and steal their oil and gold. So, the cartel is basically objecting to Russia helping to do what the U.S. claims to do, but does not.
"By their nature, Russian influence campaigns are multifaceted and designed to be deniable because they use a mix of agents of influence, cutouts, front organizations, and false-flag operations. Moscow demonstrated this during the Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Russia deployed forces and advisers to eastern Ukraine and denied it publicly."
RESPONSE: We're glad to see intelligence agencies using the term "false-flag operations" here, which is basically an admission that such events are part and parcel of how the great powers work. Second, the U.S. uses the very same tactics in many more countries than do the Russians. And finally, Russia was reacting to a U.S.-staged coup d'etat in Ukraine.
"The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC."
RESPONSE: No proof is offered, of course, only the use of the word "probably." This statement is just one piece of the narrative that Russia hacked the DNC, rather than an insider--perhaps Seth Rich who was later murdered--passing files to WikiLeaks, as Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, intimated to the Dailymail.com, and Assange backed in a round-about way.
"We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets."
RESPONSE: There is no proof that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian agent. IT professionals dispute the evidence for this as well.
"RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States."
RESPONSE: This is attacking the messenger for basically relaying what the DNC, Clinton, and Podesta said. Where else is Assange to get coverage, since the intelligence agencies and the media are just puppets for the cartel? As far as denouncing the U.S., the criminals that have hijacked the U.S. government do a fine job at denigrating themselves and destroying the credibility of the U.S. around the world. Assange has only to point out the facts.
"RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called "Cultures of Protest," about active and often violent political resistance (RT, 1-10 November)."
RESPONSE: First, as we have shown, here and here, those who run the U.S. are corrupt and the banks and their corporations do own and operate the U.S. Second, the police and military use agent provocateurs and saboteurs to foment violence at peaceful demonstrations to create the excuse for police and military violence in response. And third, the police and military are internationally coordinated, as shown by the worldwide shut-down of Occupy Wall Street over a two-week period.
"RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 28 October, 1-10 November)."
RESPONSE: As Snowden revealed and John Clapper, the overseer of this report, lied about, the U.S. is a surveillance state. Additionally, as #blacklivesmatter has brought to our attention, police brutality and racism is prevalent throughout the U.S. and rife in police departments as well. Finally, the use of drones by the U.S. military to slaughter civilians, including children, worldwide has been widely documented, and drones are now deployed in the U.S. So, RT's report is accurate.
"RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November)"
RESPONSE: As we have noted, the U.S. economic system is fundamentally corrupt. The business model of the banking cartel and its corporations is fraud. Senator Sanders, in his presidential campaign also used these very words. As the chief proxy for the cartel, the U.S. leverages its control over the world reserve currency (Federal Reserve Notes) to destroy economies worldwide and steal the natural resources of these nations. One need look no further than John Perkins' best-selling Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to see this policy in action. As far as U.S. economic collapses go, since the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve System in 1913, the powers-that-be have collapsed the economy every five years or so. No predictions are needed. Such "profit-taking" on the part of the cartel will keep happening as long as the banking system is privately owned.
"RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability (5 October)."
RESPONSE: This is a priceless revelation of the cartel's agenda. It's as good as anything that WikiLeaks has ever published and comes straight from the horse's mouth. Basically, the cartel is saying straight-out that anyone concerned with fracking and environmental issues that have an impact on public health are a threat to oil industry profits. We agree and we hope that the renewable and cheap energy technology, which has been suppressed for many years, as well as solar, wind, and tidal energy, soon puts the banking cartel and its oil industry out of business. It should be noted though, that these charges were originally made in 2014 to denigrate the anti-fracking movement and make them appear as dupes for the Russians; that is, the usual McCarthyist red-baiting from the cartel's puppets in the corporate press and intelligence community.
"RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government (RT, 10 October - 9 November)."
RESPONSE: Pure propaganda. Many U.S. and foreign journalists oppose the U.S. presence in Syria and elsewhere. As noted above, what is happening in Syria is, contrary the the cartel's intelligence agencies' claims here, not a "Western intervention," but an illegal invasion of a sovereign state. The cartel and its proxies use mercenaries (the "Syrian opposition" and ISIS), which they fund, train, and manage, to create an excuse to invade. Russia, Iran, and China, in support of Syria, are in the process of ousting the cartel's forces, which is directly related to this U.S. initiative to defame Russia with claims of hacking.
As it stands, the U.S. intelligence community has issued two reports to support its contention that Russia hacked the DNC and used its this data to alter the course of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During the course of its propaganda campaign, the U.S. has provided no proof for its claims, other than opinions rustled up from various agencies that have failed the truth test of various independent IT professionals, including former high-level executives from the NSA and the CIA, as well a political analysts from around the globe, who have revealed the ulterior motives of such a ploy.
While we are not supporters of any operatives for the red and blue parties, or their puppet masters who control the key central banks and corporations on this planet, we do appreciate that the president-elect is questioning the veracity of these reports and is taking a less bellicose line towards Russia than his predecessors.
UPDATE 5/10/20: As it turns out, as President, Trump became an instrument for the Anglo-Euro-American banking cartel and its corporations, as we have detailed in our ongoing online sequel to our book. That analysis begins here. Additionally, further proof that so-called #Russiagate was a hoax continues to mount:
New House Documents Sow Further Doubt That Russia Hacked the DNC
Copyright 2017, Robert Bows
# # #
[We are pleased to announce that our book, 7 Steps to Global Economic and Spiritual Transformation, is now available online at Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.]
This was an accurate and very detailed summary of the situation. Thank you for taking the time to do the diligence.
ReplyDelete