#computerhacking | #computer | #Hacking | ‘Russiagate’ Hoax Unravels, But Their Anti-Russia Sanctions Don’t


It was reported only on ‘fringe’ media (such as
“Disobedient Media” now gone from the Web) until
recently. However, the evidence that the entire
“Russiagate” charge — that Russia’s Government had
“hacked” the Democratic National Committee in 2016 —
is an Obama Administration hoax (which was continued into
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report), is now starting
to come out into public view and be endorsed publicly by
retired U.S. intelligence professionals who can’t be
fired. It’s not yet published in any mainstream U.S. news
media, however. So, in this place will be chronologically
presented the gradual unraveling of the Russiagate hoax, and
maybe someday this history (all of which is solidly
documented) will be publishable in the United States, even
within the mainstream (non-billionaire-controlled)
media.

Also, the complicity of the U.S. Congress —
both Parties — in advancing this hoax, and in suppressing
its being exposed as being a hoax, will be discussed here,
because Congress’s nearly unanimous votes in favor of
imposing sanctions against Russia for this “Russiagate”
that never was, are now forcing every member of Congress who
had voted for those hoax-based sanctions to either apologize
to his/her voters, or else to continue ignoring the now (and
increasingly) solid proof that they had been either fooled,
or else themselves were complicit, in advancing this hoax
and voting for those sanctions.

So: undoing the evil
that has been perpetrated by this Obama-Administration hoax
will be next to impossible, and the cover-up of it by
America’s mainstream media will likely continue, unless
and until the news-media themselves are held severely to
account for what they have done by their pumping — instead
of exposing — this hoax by the former Administration,
which hoax and cover-up of it have thus far been continued
into the present Administration, as if Trump himself
doesn’t even know (or perhaps even much care) what has
happened, in this matter.

Here, then, is that
unravelling, as it has gradually unfolded, and every step of
it is fully documented in the links
hereto:

These revelations began in a
mainstream UK tabloid that — unlike others — sometimes
veers far off from the U.S. Government’s position, the
Daily Mail , and
which headlined on 14 December 2016,
EXCLUSIVE:
Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative
claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were
handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for
‘disgusted’ Democratic
whistleblowers”
, and the newspaper
reported that

Craig Murray, former British
ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange,
told the Dailymail.com he flew to
Washington, D.C. for emails.

He claims he had a
clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American
University with one of the email sources.

The
leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust at the corruption of
the Clinton Foundation and the ‘tilting of the primary
election playing field against Bernie
Sanders’.

Murray says: ‘The source had legal
access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks’.

‘Regardless of whether the
Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,’ Murray
insists.

On 7 January 2017, I headlined
The Russian
Hacking” “How the ‘Leaks’ From Clinton and the DNC
Happened”
, and reported
that

Julian Assange, who received the
computer-data from what U.S. President Barack Obama alleges
was ‘Russian hackers’, had an opportunity, in his 3
January 2017 interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean
Hannity, to deny the allegation by Craig Murray (a former
British Ambassador and longtime friend of Assange) that no
Russian or any other hackers were involved passing that
information to Wikileaks; and, in reply, Assange declined
the invitation to deny it, and he said, in short: Obama and
his Administration are flat-out lying about this
matter.

Hannity then probed further, to find whom the
source actually was:

(See 55:00- in this
interview
, especially at 56:50-)

Hannity: There
was one report in the [UK newspaper] Daily Mail that
suggested somebody that you are friendly with, actually was
handed the documents at American University, in a wooded
area, by a disgruntled Democrat, who felt betrayed because
the revelations showed that Bernie Sanders had been betrayed
and they didn’t like the corruption of the Clinton
Foundation. Can you confirm or deny
that?

ASSANGE: Well that statement came from
Craig Murray, a friend of mine, but Wikileaks is a
source-protection organization. We are famous for never
having exposed one of our sources. That’s why sources
trust us and they come to us. So, I can’t comment on other
people’s statements about our sources, except what we have
said, which is that our sources [in this] are not a state
party [such as Russia or any other government].

No
one — not even Obama — denies that the publisher of the
information was Wikileaks. Furthermore, Assange said in this
interview (56:50-), “There is one person in the world, and
I think it’s actually only one, who knows exactly what is
going on with our publications, and that’s me.” He was
saying there that (at least as regards the present matter)
he — and perhaps only he in the entire Wikileaks
organization — was the person who received and published
this information from the individual who was supplying it.
This doesn’t necessarily exclude Craig Murray from the
possibility that he had passed it along to Wikileaks (i.e.,
to his friend Assange), but it says that only Assange knows
whether or not Murray had supplied it to him. (And Assange
refuses to answer that question.)

Craig Murray
did, in fact speak at American University in Washington DC,
at 10:15 AM on Saturday 24 September 2016, addressing a
“World Without War” conference, in the Founders’ Room
at the University’s School of International Studies.

The video is here.
Essential background on this heroic man, Murray, is here,
explaining why the U.S. State Department under Obama had
initially denied him entrance into the United States to
speak at this event and to receive in Washington a
whistleblower’s award.

Then on December 10th, buried
in an
article
at Britain’s Guardian, was this
blockbuster, which was mentioned there only in passing
(because that newspaper represents the Blair wing of UK’s
Labour Party and the Clinton wing of U.S.’s Democratic
Party):

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to
Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the
CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely
making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,”
Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and
they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s
a leak, not a hack; the two are different
things.

Then, on 16 July 2017, I headlined
Russiagate
Exposed: It’s a Fraud”
and
reported:

It has now been incontrovertibly
proven that the time-stamps and other data in the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) files that were leaked to Wikileaks
are consistent with those files having been leaked by a
person who was inside the DNC and not by an external hacker
as has been presumed by all of the ‘news’-reports that
this was a ‘hack’ of any sort — not from Russia nor
from anywhere else outside the building, much less from
outside the east coast time zone.

There’s a very
real scandal involved in this matter, but it is extremely
different from the Russia-hack narrative, and it will be
revealed here (for the first time anywhere) at the very end.
But, first things first — and that’s what the previous
investigators have now proven:

On July 9th, was
published at Disobedient Media a
report
that not only discredits the ‘news’ reports
that the Russian government (or anyone else in Russia)
‘hacked the election’ — discredits the very core of
the Russiagate
story
— but that shows the ‘hacks’ were instead
likelier leaks , to Wikileaks, by someone who had
physical access to the computers at the Democratic
National Committee, and who, in any case, was clearly and
incontrovertibly operating only within the time-zone of
America’s east coast — not at all in Russia, nor
anywhere else outside that time zone.

In other
words: it shows that the data itself provide indications
that this was a leak instead of any hack at all: that the
former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (who
claimed to have picked up the data-recording device from the
leaker in DC and brought it to his friend Julian Assange at
the Ecuadorean Embassy in London) was correct when he had
said
that he picked the file up from an insider who gave
it to him in Washington DC — that the data themselves are
more consistent with that than with the ‘hack’
interpretation of the narrative of how Wikileaks obtained
these data.

So, now we have not only Murray’s
testimony about it, and we have not only my
own investigation
showing that Murray had, in fact,
been in Washington DC at the very time he says he had
picked up the information physically in DC from the leaker
there, but we also now have — as of July 9th —
the technical proof of its having likely been
transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a
hack.
Even the data that were transferred are
entirely consistent with this having been a voluntary
release of this information.

Consequently, any
‘news’medium, after July 9th, which still ‘reports’
about Russiagate, which so much as even just suggests that
people in Russia ‘hacked’ these data from the DNC, are
now the lowest order of fake ‘journalism’, not an
authentic journalistic operation at all, but pure
propaganda. How long will it take for that lie (the
Russiagate-myth) to stop being published as being
established truth by the U.S. (and its allied) ‘news’
media? But it continues to be embellished, as if that basic
storyline is likely or even definitely true. It is much
likelier false than true.

Here then will be presented,
first of all, a generally good summary dated July 15th, of
this important new information, a summary of what was
published on July 9th by Disobedient Media; and I am here
publishing a transcript that I have made of this video,
which was uploaded to youtube on July 15th, in which, by
means of questions and answers, the gist of the findings in
the July 9th report and of how the findings had been
obtained, is set forth, in that July 15th video, which is
titled, “TV
Exclusive: Forensic investigator says DNC computer hacked
locally”
:

A forensics expert has determined
that the DNC computers were hacked locally by someone with
physical access to the DNC network and not by someone far
away like the Russians. This story was broken online by the
hot new investigative website called Disobedient Media. The
forensic expert handed over the information to the reporter
Elizabeth Vos. Joining me this time out of Iowa City Iowa is
the managing editor of Disobedient Media . com, Ethan Lyle;
Ethan, welcome to the show.

Thank
you.

Ethan, no one has been sitting on this
story you guys are. Tell us how you got this information and
what we know.

Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient
Media’s associate editor — a man named Adam Carter
reached out to her. And he had an analysis from somebody
online named The Forensicator.

Let me ask you:
Who was Adam Carter? Adam Carter got this and gave it to you
guys; who is he?

He’s an independent
journalist [who had, in fact, long been working on this
case]. And, so, [as Carter called to Vos’s attention] an
anonymous blog of a forensic analyst looked at the data, and
he had noticed that because of the transfer-speed and the
timing of those transfers [it was actually only one
transfer], that they were [the person was on the] east
coast, and they [the files] had to have been accessed in the
east coast. They were initially copied in the east coast, he
guaranteed [the person actually demonstrated, not
‘guaranteed’] that … the likelihood of it [the file]
being accessed initially from anywhere but the east coast,
is impossible [proven so, by that analyst, “the
forensicator”].

So, what that means in
layman’s terms is again that the DNC computer network
which the media tells us and the DNC tells us was hacked by
the Russians, … that it was physically accessed by someone
within close proximity of the DNC?

Correct.
Given metadata and … the transfer and the stop times in
between them, the only likely scenario is that it was
accessed from inside of the Local Area Network of the DNC or
with a USB drive into a computer [in] which you would have
to be inside the building.

Now, I don’t want
to sound like a conspiracy theorist because there’s a lot
more work to be done here, but … those computers were
hacked five days prior to Seth Rich’s untimely demise if
I’m not mistake, is that not
correct?

That’s correct and it’s important
to state that this does not indicate that Seth Rich was the
person that accessed the files, because they [the DNC]
won’t turn over their logs to the FBI. There’s no way to
tell which credentials were used to get into the
system.

Since you have broken this story
online, has anyone in law enforcement reached out to
you?

No, they have not.

Anyone
from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York
Times?

Absolutely not. (3:51)

At this
stage, this cover-up by the government and press is even
bigger than the crime by the pro-Clinton DNC insiders (which
had used, as I’ll indicate, the chief PR agency for NATO,
to do this — to generate and spread this lie) who are
trying to provoke even more fear and hatred of Russia than
they already have cooked-up and generated. Adam Carter on
July 16th, said that “The
MSM have kept this hidden from viewers for almost 150
days”
, but certainly it has been hidden now, after it
was conclusively proven , on July 9th.

Here,
then, are the openings of those more detailed sources
reporting on this, first being the news-report by Elizabeth
Vos, and then the original analysis by The Forensicator
(which report Vos was restating well in non-technical
terms):

——

http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/

web.archive.org/web/20190613052241/http://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/

New
Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not
Hacked

9 July 2017, Elizabeth
Vos

This was then taken up on 24 July
2017, by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity:

“Intel Vets Challenge
‘Russia Hack’ Evidence”

July 24,
2017

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former
U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite
new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan.
6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic
emails last year.

Editor’s Note:
This VIPS Memo included two mistaken dates. Neither
affected the Memo’s main conclusion; i.e., that the July
5, 2016 intrusion into DNC emails that was blamed on Russia
could not have been a hack – by Russia or anyone else. The
portions of the Memo affected by the mistaken dates have
been corrected.

A short explanation of the
corrections:

-(1) June 14, 2016 (not the 15th, as the
VIPS memo erroneously stated) was the day Crowdstrike said
malware had been found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence the malware was injected by Russians. (On the
following day – the 15th) – “Guccifer 2.0” claimed
responsibility for the “hack” and claimed to be a
WikiLeaks source.)

-(2) Although the VIPS Memo
indicated, correctly, that on June 15, 2016, “Guccifer
2.0” … posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with ‘Russian fingerprints,’”
other language in the Memo was mistaken in indicating that
evidence of such tainting was also found in the
“Guccifer 2.0” metadata from the copying event on July
5.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The
President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT
: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside
Job?

Executive
Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian
hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last
year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked
(not hacked)
by a person with physical access
to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the
“Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC
server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that
an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage
device.

Key among the findings of the independent
forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data
was copied onto a storage device at a speed that
far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack
. Of equal importance, the forensics show that
the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus
far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these
independent studies [see here
and here].

Finally,
now, Bill Binney has been taking this to the “home
stretch”:

“CIA
Fabricated Russiagate ‘Evidence’, Says Former NSA Tech
Chief”

July 29, 2020

An important public
statement was made on July 27th by Bill
Binney
, the U.S. Government’s top expert on the
internet, and on computer hacking. He had been the Technical
Director of the NSA when he quit and became a whistleblower
against that Agency while George W. Bush was the U.S.
President and invaded Iraq on the basis of faked evidence.
Binney has now laid out, in this speech, the evidence that
he wants to present in court against Barack Obama’s CIA,
that it defrauded Americans to believe in “Russiagate”
(the allegation that Russia ‘hacked’ the computers of
Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party officials and fed that
information to Wikileaks and other organizations). Binney
cites evidence, which, if true, conclusively proves that
Russiagate was actually created fraudulently by the CIA’s
extensive evidence-tampering, which subsequently became
covered-up by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his
investigations for the Democratic Party’s first (and
failed) try at impeaching and removing from office U.S.
President Donald J. Trump.

Here is the transcript of
his
10-minute speech
(and I add links to explanations of the
meaning of technical phrases, and also boldface
for emphasis of his key findings, and I place into
[brackets] explanatory amplifications of my own),
summarizing why he is convinced that the CIA (under
President Barack Obama) did this frame-up against Russia,
‘Russiagate’ — it’s a case that he is seeking to
present to Congress, and in court, and to debate in public,
instead of to continue to be hidden from the public; he
wants to show, and publicly to debate, this evidence, so
that the public will be able to see it, and evaluate it, for
themselves:

Basically the problem is that I can’t
seem to get the forensic evidence into a court or up into
the mainstream of evidence for defeating-refuting
Russiagate. The point is that in the Veterans Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity we have a bunch of technical people
including
Kirk
Wiebe
and I and some others and some affiliates
that were in the UK who also joined the analysis process,
and we were looking at the files posted by Wikileaks,
because the allegation from the beginning is that Russia
hacked the DNC and gave the emails to Wikileaks to publish.
So, we looked at those emails, to see if there was something
there that might give us some idea of how Wikileaks got that
data. Well, in all the 35,813 emails that they posted in
three batches, one
[batch was] downloaded according
to last modified times on the 23rd of May, and another on
the 25th of May, and one
[other] on the 26th of
August, of 2016. Now, all those files, all 35,813, had a
last modified time that was rounded off
[rounded up]
to an even [the next-higher] second, so they all
ended up in even
[meaning complete or full, not
fractional] seconds. Now, if you know anything about data
processing and data storage and things of that nature, there
is a program that was quite common in the past

[including 2016] using what’s called fat
file formatting file allocation
, table
formatting, which is a process that when doing a batch
process of data and transferring it to a storage device like
a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, it rounds off the last modified
time to the nearest even
[next-higher] second, so
that’s exactly the property we found in all that data
posted by Wikileaks. Now, that said very simply this
data was downloaded to a storage device a CD-ROM or a thumb
drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could post
it, so that meant it was not a hack
[since
there’s no rounding off to the next-higher second, as it
would be if it’s a file that’s been carried over the
internet] , no matter how you look at it. We’re
looking at the forensic evidence that says the DNC emails
were not hacked, they were downloaded and physically
transported to Wikileaks.

And, then,
we had the other issue,
[which was] with Guccifer 2.
Now, Guccifer 2 came out shortly after, you know, Julian
Assange announced that he had emails on Hillary Clinton, and
so on, and the DNC. Well, we looked at all the material that
Guccifer 2 posted and
[he] was saying here are the
hacks that I did on the DNC. He claimed he did one on the
fifth of July, and one on the first of September, of 2016.
Well, when you start looking at that — and we looked at
the files — he posted a series of files, with file names,
the numbers of characters in the file, and a timestamp at
the end of the file. Then, the next file number of
characters and timestamp, and so on, for I don’t know how
many thousands of files. So, we looked at all those files,
and we ran a program to calculate the transfer rate
of all that data, because all you have to do is
look at between the two time stamps, the file name and the
number of characters in the file, and take the difference
between the times
[start-time versus end-time] , and
that’s the transfer rate for that number of characters, so
we found that the variations ran from something like 19 to
49.1 megabytes per second. Now, that means for 19 to 49
million characters per second, and
[yet] the world
wide web would not support that rate of transfer, not for
anybody who’s just, you know, a hacker coming in across the
net, trying to do it. They won’t support that kind
[speed] of transfer, and some people thought we could
be wrong
[and] that it could be done, and so we said
okay, we’re going to try it. So, we organized some hackers
in Europe, to try to transfer a data set from the U.S. over
to Europe, to see how fast we could get it there, and we
tried it from Albania, and Serbia, a couple of places in the
Netherlands, and London. Well, we got various rates, but the
highest rate we got was between the data center in New
Jersey and one in London, and that was
[the one which
had gone at] 49.1 megabytes per second, and it went at 12
megabytes per second, which is one-fourth the rate, little
less than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer
at the highest rate that we saw in the Guccifer 2 data,
which meant it didn’t go across the net, so, in fact, the
file rate transfers couldn’t. We were nowhere near the
maximum rate that
[would have been necessary if this had
been a hack] . And so we said, okay, if anybody has a way
of getting it there, let us know, and we’ll help you try
to get to do that, and so far no one has ever come forward
to dispute either the facts on the DNC data last file,
modified file times, nor the transfer rates, for the
Guccifer 2.

Plus, there’s another factor with
Guccifer 2, there’s actually two more with Guccifer 2
data, the first of the five July data, and the one September
data, if you ignored a date and hour they could merge like
you’re shuffling a deck of cards the holes in the five
July data timing were filled by data from the first
September, that said to us that Guccifer 2 was
playing with the data, separating in the two files, saying
he made two different acts and and doing a range change on
the date and the hour on the one file, so this to us was
also an indication of fabrication on the part of Guccifer 2.
Then, there’s another factor: when Guccifer 2 put
out some from files on 15 june of 2016, with the signatures
of Russian saying it’s a Russian hack, our fellows in the
UK looking at the data found five of those files at a
minimum, I don’t know they’re through yet looking, but
they found five files that Guccifer 2 posted on the 15th of
June with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this
because of a signature they found the same five files posted
by Wikileaks from a Podesta emails and they did not have the
Russian signatures, so that meant Guccifer 2 was
inserting Russian signatures to make it look like the
Russians did the
[alleged] hack.
Well, if you go back to the Vault 7 release from
Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you look, they have this
Marble
framework program
that will modify files to look
like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries
that they had the ability to do that, in the in the Marble
framework program? Well, one was Russia, the other was
China, North Korea, Iran, and Arab countries. Well, to us,
then, that means that the fabrication of the insert of the
Russian signatures means that somebody modified the file and
made it look like it fits the Marble framework definition of
doing that kind of activity, which thus says all of
this boosts with two materials pointing back now to CIA, as
the origin of it, that’s the basic evidence we have, and
none of it points to Russia.

In fact,
we can’t even find anything that points to Russia, when in
fact the Mueller indictment, or the Mueller report, and that
Rosenstein indictment, named some that they called trolls
for the Russian government, the IRA, the Internet Research
Agency, out of St. Petersburg, and Russia, they named it in
a court document, and, well, the IRA over there said we are
no way near, we are not in any way associated with, the
Russian government, so they sent lawyers in to challenge
that in the court of law here in the U.S., and the court
charged the government to prove it, and they couldn’t,
they couldn’t prove anything, and so the judge basically
reprimanded them and said you were never to mention the IRA
as in any way affiliated with the Russian government again,
so their whole case was falling apart. Everything looked
like the rooks were two potato, was a fabrication, the
alleged hack and so on, all applications, fabrication, and
even if you look at some of the testimony that came out from
the Crowdstrike CEO (correction: President of CrowdStrike
Services and CSO)
[hired by the Democratic National
Committee] , I think his name was Sean Henry (correction:
Shawn Henry), he said we we had no indications of
exfiltrating the data, but we had evidence that it was
exfiltrated. Now, if he’s talking about the last modified
times as an indication of exfiltration, which it was but it
wasn’t from a hack it was from a download, so that
download then is an indication it was done locally as were
the Guccifer 2 data that couldn’t go across the net. It
was a download locally. All that stuff happened locally. In
fact, some of the data and the Guccifer 2 material had all
the time stamps indicating it was done on the East Coast of
the United States, we had one in Central time, and one on
the West Coast, but most of them fell on the East Coast, so
it implied that all this stuff
[both
Wikileaks and Guccifer 2] was happening on the
East Coast, and that really pointed right back at CIA, as
the origin of all this
fabrication.

Binney wants to present this
case at trial, against the CIA’s top officials under
President Barack Obama.

NOTE: This
news-report was submitted, in advance, to each of the
following 40 mainstream news-media, offering it as an
exclusive, to: ABC, BBC, CBS, FNC, NBC, New York Times
, Washington Post , USA Today ,
Guardian , McClatchy , Wall Street Journal
, The Atlantic , The Nation , The
Spectator
, The New Republic , Time ,
The Week , Progressive , Jacobin ,
New Yorker , Vanity Fair , Economist ,
National Interest , Rolling Stone , Huffington
Post, Salon, Slate, Business Insider, Politico, The Hill,
The Gray Zone, The Intercept, The Daily Beast, Vice, Spiked,
Bloomberg, Truthdig, Truthout, Vox, Common Dreams. None
accepted it. None of them wanted their audience to see it.
So, this article is now is being submitted for publication,
free of charge, to all English language (and a few other)
news-media, simply in order to make known to as many of the
public as possible, the information that it
contains.

And, on August 5th:

“Debate:
Is ‘Russiagate’ a CIA Hoax? UPDATE:”

Eric
Zuesse

There now is a public debate regarding whether
or not ‘Russiagate’ was/is a CIA-generated hoax, instead
of (as it has been reported) a Russian Government hacking
operation. Whatever it was, did spark massive U.S. economic
and other sanctions against Russia, and is therefore
important in today’s U.S. international relations. Had the
CIA actually created the “evidence”? Were those
sanctions based upon a U.S. Government fraud? That is the
question here.

On July 30th, the former Technical
Director of the NSA — America’s top position on cyber
intelligence including computer-hacking — Bill Binney, summarized,
by a ten-minute presentation, the latest up-to-date
information that exists regarding, and discussing, the
actual sources of the various unauthorized releases, to the
public, of emails and other documents from the computers of
the Democratic National Committee and of John Podesta who
headed the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Binney
alleged there that the raw data prove conclusively — not
just speculatively — that the CIA tampered with the
evidence, in order to become enabled to accuse Russia as
having been involved in those unauthorized
information-releases. He further alleged that Robert
Mueller’s report on the Democratic Party’s charges that
Russia and Trump were involved in these matters was false
when it unquestioningly accepted the CIA’s assertions
against Russia and on that basis accused the Internet
Research Agency, in Russia, as having “hacked” the data.
Consequently: if Binney’s case is correct, then recent
U.S. history is based upon fraud by the U.S. Government
itself. This would be a case like America’s 2003 invasion
of Iraq, but perhaps even worse.

One of the news-sites
that published his presentation was Silver
Doctors. A reader-comment there, from an anonymous
“Fred”
and challenged Binney’s reconstruction of
what had occurred. Here below is Fred’s reader-comment,
and Binney’s response to
it:

OMG, what a quack, I watched
the video and as a cyber security professional, the man
knows spews a lot of terminology but really knows nothing.
First, time stamps can change every time files are moved to
a new source. Of course they would be very close to each
other when copying in bulk. Emails are mostly text if they
don’t have attachments which takes up very little space.
Depending on the system all the emails can be contained in
one file, so when that 1 file is transferred and of the
contents would be the same time stamp. 2nd, of course data
can be transferred at much high rates than 19mbs, what is he
living in the 20th century? We have gigabyte internet now.,
data can be transferred well over 100 mbs. 3rd. he presents
no evidence directly linking CIA other than to say, who else
could have done it. His whole theory is just an opinion,
absolute rubbish. No wonder he’s not taken
seriously.

Reply

“Fred,” I sent your comment to Bill Binney
and asked him to respond. His response included an
attachment, which probably won’t be able to be included
here, but I now am pasting here his reply to
you:

  • Eric, here are my comments to this
    “professional.”
  • “OMG, what a
    quack,”
  • When people don’t have any substance to
    address, they throw labels out to try and prejudice the
    issue.
  • ” I watched the video and as a cyber security
    professional, the man knows spews a lot of terminology but
    really knows nothing.”
  • I guess I achieved the
    position of Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and
    Military Analysis and Reporting at NSA by knowing nothing.
    Sure! This is a typical baseless assertion
    that
  • Sophists make all the time. And our country has
    thousands of people like this.
  • “First, time stamps
    can change every time files are moved to a new source. Of
    course they would be very close to each other when copying
    in bulk. Emails are mostly text if they don’t have
    attachments which takes up very little space. Depending on
    the system all the emails can be contained in one file, so
    when that 1 file is transferred and of the contents would be
    the same time stamp.”
  • The last modified times on
    the DNC emails had different times all rounded to the
    nearest even number. See attachment. For comparison, this
    file contains the DNC email last modified times (LMT)
    showing FAT file
  • properties and the Pedesta emails
    LMT’s that do not show FAT file properties.
  • ” 2nd,
    of course data can be

Reply

Eric Zuesse
Eric Zuesse

(continued):

  • “2nd, of course
    data can be transferred at much high rates than 19mbs, what
    is he living in the 20th century? We have gigabyte internet
    now., data can be transferred well over 100
    mbs.:”
  • While the ISP standard is Mbps = mega bits
    per second and MBps = mega bytes per second, I believe Fred
    is referring to mega bytes per second. What he says is true
    but only for shorter distances – not
  • across the
    Atlantic to Europe let alone Russia. In our testing, the
    further east we went; the lower speeds we got. In other
    words, assuming there was a hacker, he/she would have to
    have a high speed line
  • all the way from the target
    to the hackers location. The WWW does not support that. If
    Fred thinks it does, he needs to illustrate/prove where and
    how that can be achieved. So far, no one has done that
  • not even NSA/CIA/FBI or private security
    companies.
  • ” 3rd. he presents no evidence directly
    linking CIA other than to say, who else could have done it.
    His whole theory is just an opinion, absolute rubbish. No
    wonder he’s not taken seriously.”
  • Does Fred work
    for CIA? Or, is he just an advocate for them? In either
    case, I pointed out what evidence we have which is
    circumstantial and not absolute. But, in terms used in the
    ICA of CIA/NSA/FBI,
  • I have “high confidence that
    CIA did it.”
  • Note: all this data including Guccifer
    2.0 files and speed calculations have been provided to
    lawyers in several currently on-going court
    cases.

Reply

• Fred

[replying to]
Eric Zuesse

1 August, 2020

Glad that my comments
my the hit parade. Maybe I’m a bit harsh in name calling, I
don’t like when others do it either. However, does Mr.
Binney understand that we have fiber optic cables under the
Atlantic? In many cases you can transfer data quicker to
London from Washington then to California. Also the time
stamp doesn’t prove anything, so what if they were rounded
off. Maybe the hackers tool did that, who knows. Again he
offers no proof the CIA did it and admits it purely
circumstantial. Meanwhile everyone goes around saying see
the CIA did it because of his comments. Here’s another
point, why would the CIA do it? To frame Russia? And give it
to Wikileaks who they despise and had Assange arrested? If
anything the hacked emails were bad for Clinton and
helped

Trump, who praised the hack and wanted more. So
what’s the CIA motive?

Reply


BinneyResponds

Fred

Here’s my
reply.

FRED: “Glad that my comments my the hit
parade. Maybe I’m a bit harsh in name calling, I don’t like
when others do it either. However, does Mr. Binney
understand that we have fiber optic cables under the
Atlantic?”

BINNEY: You can find all the transoceanic
cables and their capacity documented at: Greg’s cable map
or https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
plus others. While these sites show capacity to carry data,
they do not show service provider capacity provided to
users. So, if Fred knows a way to pass data to Russia across
the WWW at the speeds of the Guccifer 2.0 evidence posted,
then he needs to let all of us know. As I said before, not
even NSA/CIA/FBI or any commercial company have come forward
to do that.

FRED “In many cases you can transfer
data quicker to London from Washington then to California.
Also the time stamp doesn’t prove anything, so what if they
were rounded off.”

BINNEY: Are you saying that
LMT’s rounded to even numbers is not a property of FAT
transfers?

FRED: “Maybe the hackers tool did that,
who knows.”

BINNEY: And, maybe pigs fly. Talk about
conspiracy theories.

FRED: “Again he offers no proof
the CIA did it and admits it purely circumstantial.
Meanwhile everyone goes around saying see the CIA did it
because of his comments. Here’s another point, why would the
CIA do it? To frame Russia? And give it to Wikileaks who
they despise and had Assange arrested? If anything the
hacked emails were bad for Clinton and helped Trump, who
praised the hack and wanted more. So what’s the CIA
motive?

Binney Responds

BINNEY:

the last
part of my reply was cut. Here it is.

FRED: “Again
he offers no proof the CIA did it and admits it purely
circumstantial. Meanwhile everyone goes around saying see
the CIA did it because of his comments. Here’s another
point, why would the CIA do it? To frame Russia? And give it
to Wikileaks who they despise and had Assange arrested? If
anything the hacked emails were bad for Clinton and helped
Trump, who praised the hack and wanted more. So what’s the
CIA motive?”

BINNEY: I only make assertions based on
evidence available for all to examine. In this case, Vault 7
has Marble Framework program used 1 time in 2016. Guccifer
2.0 files from 15 June 2016 had Russian fingerprints while
at least 5 of those items posted by Wikileaks did not have
those fingerprints. Says, to us, Guccifer 2.0 modified those
Podesta emails to make it look like the Russians did it.
Note also that the Marble Framework program was documented
in Vault 7 as having the capability to frame
Russia/China/North Korea/Iran and Arab countries. This is
why we have higher confidence in our assertion that CIA did
it, than CIA/FBI/NSA did in their (baseless) ICA assertion
that the Russians did it.

So, we now know
that Russiagate was a hoax. However, America’s President,
Donald Trump, at least until very recently, has given no
indication that he knows it. On 10 July 2020, the
Washington Post headlined “Trump confirms, in an
interview, a U.S. cyberattack on Russia”
and reported
that

During an Oval Office interview with me this
week, President Trump acknowledged for the first time that,
in 2018, he authorized a covert cyberattack against
Russia’s Internet Research Agency, the St.
Petersburg-based troll farm that spearheaded Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election and was doing
the same in the 2018 midterm elections.

Asked
whether he had launched the attack, Trump replied:
“Correct.”

Trump said that, in 2016,
President Barack Obama “knew before the election that
Russia was playing around. Or, he was told. Whether or not
it was so or not, who knows?

So: Trump authorized
in 2018 a cyberattack against Russia for retaliation against
a bogus 2016 cyberattack against the Democratic National
Committee. And, even as late as July 10th of this year,
Trump didn’t know that Russiagate was an Obama
Administration scheme, while Obama was President, to frame
Trump as being a secret agent of the
Kremlin.

Meanwhile: the Kremlin is being increasingly
surrounded by U.S. and NATO troops and weapons on and near
Russia’s borders, while The West accuses Russia of
‘aggression’, and Russia is warning America and its
allies that Russia may need to take pre-emptive actions
before those countries invade Russia. It’s a reasonable
fear they have, just as America’s fear was, when the
Soviets were preparing to place their missiles in Cuba in
1962.

On August 3rd, all 12 on the “Steering
Group” of VIPS, sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, asking her
to condemn her fellow Democrats’ promotions of the lies.
Headlining “VIPS MEMO: To Nancy Pelosi
— Did Russia Hack the DNC Emails?”
they damned the
New York Times’ s and other media’s constant
lying against Iraq, and now against Russia, to ‘justify’
unjustifiable and aggressive war, and wrote to
her:

There were no consequences for those officials
who lied about WMD in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld had put one of
them, James Clapper, in charge of imagery analysis which, as
you know, was the key to finding WMD. Clapper made a
stunning admission in his memoir, Facts and Fears: Hard
Truths From a Life in Intelligence. He wrote that
“intelligence officers, including me, were so eager to
help [Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld] that we found what wasn’t
really there.”

Nevertheless, with a glowing
recommendation from Obama confidant John Brennan, President
Obama appointed Clapper director of national intelligence in
2010. He remained in that post for the remainder of
Obama’s term despite having misled the Senate in March
2013 about what he later admitted was a “clearly
erroneous” testimony, under oath, regarding NSA
surveillance of Americans.

Here’s the rub:
Clapper and those he conspired with have gone from blissful
sans souci to apprehension, acutely aware that they may not
have a stay-out-of-jail card this time
around.

—————

Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re
Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic
Records, 1910-2010
, and of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created
Christianity
.

© Scoop Media

 



Source link

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Get your CompTIA A+, Network+ White Hat-Hacker, Certified Web Intelligence Analyst and more starting at $35 a month. Click here for more details.

Leave a Reply