‘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.
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):
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:
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?
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”:
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:
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.
Eric Zuesse Fred
"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
Eric Zuesse Eric Zuesse
- "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.
[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?
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?
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.