Russiagate: nog overtuigd van bestaan daarvan? Lees dit!

Het hele Russiagate verhaal, al een paar jaar door de reguliere media gebruikt als zijnde een voldongen feit, is als een kaartenhuis in elkaar gestort, nadat Mueller zijn onderzoek had afgerond. Echter de reguliere media geven niet toe dat ze een paar jaar lang fake news hebben gebracht en gebruikt als zijnde de waarheid, nee men doet net of de neus bloedt en stelt als de Democratische Partij en haar achterban dat er nog steeds een 'smoking gun' verstopt zit in het rapport van Mueller.....

Deze figuren vergeten voor het gemak dat Mueller Trump maar al te graag gepakt had voor vuil spel met de Russen...... Het feit dat Mueller expres bewijzen van het tegendeel heeft achtergehouden, interesseert die media niet eens, barbertje zal hangen.......

Waarom dan, vraag je je wellicht af, wel simpel: de democraten moesten hun zwaar misdadig gedrag verbergen, het stelen van de democratische voorverkiezingen van Bernie Sanders in 2016 door Clinton en haar team, Sanders destijds de andere democratische kandidaat voor het VS presidentschap......

Overigens was er nog een netelige kwestie voor hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton, die men liever uit de pers hield en dat was het telkens weer opduikende feit dat ze haar privé mail heeft gebruikt voor staatszaken, toen ze minister van BuZa was onder Obama, een periode waarin ze tevens 'opklom' tot volwaardig oorlogsmisdadiger........

Wat beter om e.e.a te bereiken, dus misdaden uit de pers houden, dan de Russen te beschuldigen van het hacken van de servers van het DNC, het campagneteam van Clinton....... Uiteraard zou de reguliere media van dit soort verhalen onmiddellijk in de alarmstand gaan staan en zou dat weken, zo niet maandenlang de voorpagina's van de kranten en de talkshows op tv beheersen......

Lees het volgende artikel van Kevin Gosztola, waarin hij verder ingaat op de smerige spellen die het Clinton team, de FBI, de CIA en zelfs de NSA hebben gespeeld. Verder noemt Gosztola de Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) die met een paar deskundigen e.e.a. hebben onderzocht waar de tijdschaal van een aantal gegevens niet kloppen, wat er op duit dat men (in de VS) heeft gerommeld met de computers.....

Uitermate vreemd ook dat de FBI de servers niet in beslag heeft genomen voor onderzoek, standaard in dergelijk onderzoek, maar zich op de hoogte heeft laten brengen door een door de Democratische Partij ingehuurd onderzoeksbureau..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja mensen ik geloofde m'n ogen niet toen ik dat onder ogen kreeg, ongelofelijk!!

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Gosztola, waarin hij de zaken veel beter uit de doeken doet, dan ik hierboven heb getracht. Veiligheidgordels vast?

On WikiLeaks, Mueller Ignored Findings of Former US Intelligence Officials

April 20, 2019 at 10:38 am

Written by Kevin Gosztola

(SP) — Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on an investigation into alleged Russian efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election does not confirm, without a doubt, that Russian intelligence agents or individuals tied to Russian intelligence agencies passed on emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to WikiLeaks.

Mueller’s team highlighted statements from WikiLeaks on Twitter about former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff member Seth Rich, which seemed to relate to the alleged source of emails and documents the organization published. Yet, more explicit claims from WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange on the source of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta were not addressed in the report.

A group of former military and intelligence officials, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), conducted their own forensic tests that received a bit of attention in the United States press because they were some of the first people with prior backgrounds in government to question the central allegations of hacking into DNC servers. They asserted their examinations of the files showed DNC emails published by WikiLeaks were leaked, not hacked.

However, the Mueller report makes no mention of the claims made by VIPS over the past two to three years—not even to debunk them.

The report stated, “Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016.” But “appear to have” indicates the team did not have incontrovertible proof. They could only speculate.

“The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries, who visited during the summer of 2016,” the report acknowledged. “For example, public reporting identified Andrew Müller-Maguhn as a WikiLeaks associate who may have assisted with the transfer of these stolen documents to WikiLeaks.”

Yet, this is wildly misleading. The source for this example is a 2018 profile of Müller-Maguhn by journalist Ellen Nakashima that was published by the Washington Post. Müller-Maguhn told Nakashima it “would be insane” for him to hand deliver sensitive files, especially when the CIA has labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

“How many of you wouldn’t be scared shitless by the head of the CIA declaring you the next target?,” he said.

Müller-Maguhn, who met Assange through the Chaos Computer Club in 2007 and sits on the board of the Wau Holland foundation, characterized this allegation as a “lame attempt” by U.S. intelligence agencies to hurt the foundation so they cut off their tax-free donations to WikiLeaks in Europe.

Assange held a press conference in January 2017, where he responded to the intelligence community assessment on alleged Russian hacking. The media organization urged skepticism toward the assertion that publications of DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign emails were connected to alleged hacking operations.

“Even if you accept that the Russian intelligence services hacked Democratic Party institutions, as it is normal for the major intelligence services to hack each others’ major political parties on a constant basis to obtain intelligence,” you have to ask, “what was the intent of those Russian hacks? And do they connect to our publications? Or is it simply incidental?” Assange said.

Assange accused U.S. intelligence agencies of deliberately obscuring the timeline. He said they did not know when the DNC was hacked.

“The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly. So there seems to be a great fog in the connection to WikiLeaks,” Assange declared.

He added, “As we have already stated, WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not state parties. They do not come from the Russian government.”

“The [Clinton campaign] emails that we released during the election dated up to March [2016]. U.S. intelligence services and consultants for the DNC say Russian intelligence services started hacking DNC in 2015. Now, Trump is clearly not on the horizon in any substantial manner in 2015,” Assange additionally concluded.

There is a statement in the Mueller report that begins, “Although it is clear that the stolen DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to WikiLeaks…” It cuts off there because the rest was redacted to supposedly protect an “investigative technique.” The formulation of the sentence definitely suggests the Mueller team made a statement reflecting doubts around what happened with WikiLeaks.

In early 2017, Assange was willing to “provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases.” He also was willing—before the release of “Vault 7” materials—to help U.S. agencies address “clear flaws in security systems” that led the U.S. cyber weapons program to be compromised.

When Democratic Senator Mark Warner learned Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was negotiating some kind of a deal for limited immunity and a limited commitment from Assange, he urged Comey to intervene.

A potential deal with Assange was killed, the “Vault 7” files were eventually published, and no testimony was ever collected that would have helped the Mueller team gain a better understanding of what happened with the DNC and Clinton campaign email publications.

Bill Binney, former National Security Agency technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research

Center, conducted forensic examinations of the files posted by the Guccifer 2.0 persona as well as WikiLeaks. He was the principal author of multiple memos that significantly undermined key allegations. But no one from Mueller’s team ever contacted Binney or Ed Loomis, who also is a former technical director at NSA, to interview them about their findings.

In a published memo addressed to Attorney General Bill Barr, the steering group for VIPS, which includes Binney and Loomis, declared, “We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the ‘trail’ that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false.”

“Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago,” the group added.

The DNC files published by WikiLeaks, according to a forensic examination by VIPS, show data was “transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them.”

VIPS drew this conclusion based on something called the File Allocation Table (FAT) system property. This is a “method of organization.” If the files were received as a hack, “the last modified times on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and-even-ending numbers.” However, the “last modified” time stamps for the WikiLeaks DNC files each end in even numbers.

“We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site,” the memo indicated. “All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the timestamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is one chance in two to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.”

On the Podesta emails, Binney said the FAT file format was not introduced by WikiLeaks. The media organization did not have a standard procedure. But it still means the files were put on a removable storage device or CD-ROM, physically transported, and then posted.

The former officials additionally claim the Guccifer 2.0 persona published a document that was “synthetically tainted with ‘Russian fingerprints.’” Primarily, they assert this because the Guccifer 2.0 data was transferred with an Internet connection speed faster than what is possible from remote online Internet connections. The transfer rate was “as high as 49.1 megabytes per second,” which coincided with “the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.”

As part of the “Vault 7” materials published by WikiLeaks on March 31, 2017, the media organization revealedthe Marble Framework. This was described as a tool for hampering “forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans, and hacking attacks to the CIA.”

“The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi,” WikiLeaks described. “This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example, by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion—but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.”

VIPS contends that whoever engaged in the activity referred to as “Russian hacking” actually used an obfuscator to make it seem like the Russians were responsible.

“The timestamps we were getting from Guccifer internally in the data were showing places like east coast in the U.S. and the central time in the U.S. Also one in the west coast. So the time stamping isn’t there for being anywhere outside the U.S.,” Binney told Shadowproof.” “[But] once you have a fabricator, you have to find some way of proving everything about him, and you know we can’t really prove that that’s not also a fabrication.”

The Mueller report, however, does not contemplate the possibility that someone or a group potentially used a special tool, similar to what the CIA employs, in order to obfuscate their acts.

Most of the technical assertions around what happened with Democratic Party computers or servers are not backed up so that a person could research the claims and validate them. On the other hand, Binney points out that is not the case with VIPS claims.

“The stuff we looked at is out there on the web for everybody to go look and verify for themselves,” Binney said. “The stuff they’re talking about we don’t even see. How can you have any confidence in anything like that, especially when they don’t address the things you can see and anybody can go look at it?”

Furthermore, former FBI director James Comey said “multiple requests” were made at “different levels” for access to Democratic servers. Ultimately, these servers, or computers, that were allegedly targeted were not taken by the FBI for their own forensic examination. They relied on the conclusions of an in-house cyber-response team working for the Democrats known as CrowdStrike.

Where the Mueller report stated the FBI “later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs,” they were most likely referring to the material that CrowdStrike handed over for the investigation.

“Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that’s involved, so it’s the best evidence,” Comey admitted during a Senate intelligence committee hearing. And yet, the FBI allowed the Democratic Party to rebuff their request for access.

“It’s like you’re denying. You don’t want to get the firsthand evidence because then you’ll have it, and you’ll have to address it,” Binney suggested.

He added, “You can’t say the words. You have to put down the raw data that says this is why I’m saying that, and they’re not doing that.”

***

There is good reason to demand that the Mueller team show their work. Many of these same intelligence agency officials that made claims, which form the narrative for “Russiagate,” work for agencies that fabricated intelligence around so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq back in 2002.

Binney and Loomis, along with Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, were part of the NSA Four. They were falsely accused in 2007 of leaking. As journalist Timothy Shorrock detailed, they “endured years of legal harassment for exposing the waste and fraud behind a multibillion-dollar contract for a system called Trailblazer, which was supposed to ‘revolutionize’ the way the NSA produced signals intelligence (SIGINT) in the digital age.”

According to Binney, the government backed away from targeting them because they could show the government was engaged in a malicious prosecution. Agency officials immediately tried to “confiscate everything” on their computers and fabricated allegations for a federal judge.

But they had backed up all their data and could prove they were facing retaliation for their work. (Drake was later the target of an Espionage Act prosecution cooked up by the Justice Department.)

The claims made by VIPS members are easy to reject because they do not fit into the dominant narrative around what happened with the 2016 presidential election, but former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer Ray McGovern believes Binney and Loomis ought to be taken much more seriously because they helped perfect the very systems that the government relies upon to draw technical conclusions.

“When you have people like that, they deserve a modicum of trust,” McGovern argued. “When you have these people, who have absolutely no suspicion or no secret agenda, who are indisputably the best experts in this area,” even if you don’t understand every detail, you ought to seriously consider what they say.

Finally, because of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, McGovern said the NSA would have any evidence of hacking as a result of “dragnet coverage.” If Russia hacked, “where’s the intercepts” they should have?

Binney conversely argued it cannot be NSA data that the Mueller team relied upon to draw conclusions about Guccifer and WikiLeaks. “The NSA data, once they collect data, it’s classified.

The only person that can expose classified material in the public and authorize that is the president. No one else is authorized to do that. So, if [Rod] Rosenstein and Mueller are doing that from NSA data, then they’re compromising classified information, which is a felony.”

“It’s obvious that that’s not NSA data. It is data from a third-party. It’d very likely be CrowdStrike or somebody like that,” Binney added. “Any rate, it is tainted material. They’ve never had continuous control of that information.”

The vast majority of the press throughout the world will dismiss the work of VIPS. It is quite easy because it clashes terribly with the convenient narrative that intelligence agencies and powerful elites deployed. It undermines the claims that WikiLeaks is a media organization that was compromised during the 2016 election by Russian intelligence. It fuels the notion that the Mueller team suffered from confirmation bias and then sought to find details that confirmed what intelligence agencies concluded in 2017. Anything conflicting was to be dismissed or discarded.

Yet, a review of the “Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations” does not contain much more than circumstantial evidence and speculation about WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0., leaving many valid questions about the timeline of events unanswered.

One small concession for Assange may be Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement that can apply to WikiLeaks as much as individuals who worked for the Trump campaign. “Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.”

While Democrats push for the Justice Department to add further charges against Assange and extradite him to the United States for publishing Clinton campaign and DNC emails, this points to the reality that the Justice Department would have to prove WikiLeaks was involved in stealing or hacking the materials.

With the national security apparatus so invested in this “Russiagate” narrative, they probably do not want to graft on additional charges relating to the election that would allow Assange to make discovery requests that would potentially poke additional holes in their preferred theory of events.

By Kevin Gosztola / Republished with permission / Shadow Proof / Report a typo

==================================
Zie ook:
'WaPo waarschuwt voor Russische digitale controle over de hersenen van VS burgers'

'Federale rechter stelt ten overvloede dat DNC geen grond heeft voor zaak te tegen Trumps verkiezingsteam'

''Geheime diensten in westen geven toe dat spioneren via het G5 netwerk praktisch onmogelijk is........'

'Britse regering weigert RT en Sputnik voor conferentie over persvrijheid..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'1984 het boek van George Orwell: niet langer fictie.......'

'Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap' (zie daarin ook de links naar andere berichten over Assange)

'De sterkste beïnvloeding van de VS presidentsverkiezingen wordt als volkomen 'legaal' en normaal gezien'

'Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie 'fake news en desinformatie' aan......' (zie in dat bericht ook de link naar een ander artikel met een smerige rol van Avaaz)

'Rob Jetten (D66 fractievoorzitter) liegt een fikse slag in de rondte in EU verkiezingspraatje'

'EU verkiezingen: manipulatie ook door lobbyisme is misdadig, zelfs Bas Eickhout (GroenLinks) doet hieraan mee'

'Intel processors al 10 jaar zo lek als een mandje, Intel niet een bedrijf uit Rusland of China, maar uit..... de VS!'

'Robert Mueller lijdt aan dementie en maakt van Russiagate een nog belachelijker verhaal'

'Putin vraagt en Trump levert: een lijst met 'alle goede zaken die Trump voor Rusland regelde''

'Russiagate: VS en buitenlandse geheime diensten hebben de VS presidentsverkiezingen in 2016 gemanipuleerd'

'Julian Assange (brekend nieuws) veroordeeld tot 50 weken gevangenisstraf......'

'Jan Kuitenbrouwer ('journalist'): Assange is een charlatan en WikiLeaks heeft beelden van de moord op 2 journalisten gemanipuleerd'

'Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten' (en zie de links in dat bericht)

'Russiagate haat- en angstcampagne samenzweerders als FBI en Clinton moeten strafrechtelijk worden vervolgd'

'BBC verslaggever is beschaamd over de 25 jaar die hij voor deze zendgemachtigde heeft gewerkt'

'BNR 'denkt' als één van de vele mediaorganen nog steeds dat Russiagate werkelijk plaats vond'

'BBC topman waarschuwt dat de BBC haar geloofwaardigheid en reputatie kwijtraakt...... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Geen rectificaties voor meer dan 2 jaar brengen van fake news over het kwaadaardig sprookje Russiagate'

'Bedrijf dat voor 'Russische bots' waarschuwde, heeft een leger met nep-Russische bots'

'Britse militaire geheime dienst bedient zich van moddergooien en andere manipulaties om Europese en VS politiek te manipuleren, zo blijkt uit gelekte documenten'

''Fake news': alternatieve media en bloggers in het westen zouden onzin brengen, echter niet als dit soort groepen wat roepen in landen die het westen niet welgevallig zijn'

'Two More Spiegel Employees Out After Fake News Scandal Expands' Ofwel: het zoveelste 'gevalletje fake news', gebracht door de reguliere massamedia........

'Waarom de burgers van de VS de illegale oorlogen steunen'

'Democraten deden zich voor als Russen in false flag operatie om Roy Moore (Republikein) zwart te maken tijdens verkiezing.....'

'Der Spiegel, groot bestrijder van 'fake news' bracht zelf jarenlang dit soort 'nieuws''

'BBC: Rusland 'misbruikt humor' om Russiagate te ontkrachten..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Uitgelekte telefoongesprekken tussen Trump en Putin bewijzen dat 'Russiagaters gelijk hebben......''

'Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega's voor zot uitgemaakt'

The Guardian: ondanks een enorme misser (fake news) gaat men door met de valse beschuldigingen t.a.v. Assange......'

'WikiLeaks belooft The Guardian 1 miljoen dollar als het haar leugens i.z. Assange en Russiagate kan bewijzen.......'

''Banden van Trump met Rusland' gebaseerd op FBI operatie om VS 'burger' (CIA) in Iran vrij te krijgen......'

'Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!'

'New York Times 'bewijzen' voor Russiagate vallen door de mand......'

'Facebook gebruikte 'fake news' beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden'

'Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax'

'Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks....!!!!'

'Russiagate': Intel-raport over Russische bemoeienis met verkiezingen opgebouwd met leugens en is politiek gemotiveerd, aldus Matlock, voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou

Altijd leuk om weer een bevestiging tegen te komen over de leugen dat Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS heeft beïnvloed t.g.v. Donald Trump, de 'lichtelijk' imbeciele psychopaat.

Er kunnen niet genoeg van deze berichten verschijnen, zeker als je dag in dag uit westerse 'journalisten', politici en 'deskundigen' de leugen hoort herhalen dat de Russen wel degelijk deze verkiezingen hebben gemanipuleerd, iets waarvoor tot op heden geen flinter bewijs is geleverd..... Zoals er ook geen nanometer bewijs is voor Russische bemoeienis met de Brexit, de roep om onafhankelijkheid in Catalonië of verkiezingen in de EU, terwijl ook dat bijna dagelijks de revue passeert......

Lees het hieronder opgenomen artikel en verbaas je ook over het gemak waarmee de wereld werd en nog steeds wordt voorgelogen met een zo doorzichtig aantal leugens..... In deze geopenbaard door Jack Matlock, een voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou. Hij stelt o.a. dat de aanname dat de VS inlichtingendiensten achter deze leugens staan, op zich al een leugen van formaat is en dat het zogenaamde inlichtingen rapport vooral politiek gemotiveerd is (o.a. om Hillary Clinton uit de wind te houden en de winst van Trump bij de presidentsverkiezingen ter discussie te stellen, Ap):

Former US Ambassador: Intel Report on Russian Interference “Politically Motivated”

July 3, 2018 at 10:53 pm

Written by Consortium News

Prominent journalists and politicians seized upon a shabby, politically motivated, “intelligence” report as proof of “Russian interference” in the U.S. election without the pretense of due diligence, argues Jack Matlock, a former U.S. ambassador in Moscow.

(CN Op-ed) — Did the U.S. “intelligence community” judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election?

Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to “Russian interference” as a fact and asks whether the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. “intelligence community” proved Russian interference. In fact, the U.S. “intelligence community” has not done so. The intelligence community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as “proof” of “Russian interference.”

I spent the 35 years of my government service with a “top secret” clearance. When I reached the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National Security, I also had clearances for “codeword” material. At that time, intelligence reports to the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I developed at that time a “feel” for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6, 2017 report of three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

This report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in fact it is not that. A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency was omitted.

The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?

What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.

The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council (NIC) whose officers can call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities.”

Unusual FBI Participation

During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the substance of reports.

What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn’t say.

The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State Department’s intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it reported accurately on Gorbachev’s reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev had the same aims as his predecessors.

This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and politicians should have asked is “Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion? If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is “classified information.” But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn’t the public deserve to know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?

The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?

State Department Intel Silenced

As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it. So the January report was not one of the “intelligence community,” but rather of three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA (if it is military) or the State Department’s INR (if it is political).

The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts’ views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security.

One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never posed regarding the position of the State Department’s INR, or whether the analysts in the agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.

Let’s put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:

“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

Now, how can one judge whether activity “interfered” with an election without assessing its impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and politicians from citing the report as proof that “Russia interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of “capabilities” but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is “explained” by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with “high confidence” or occasionally, “moderate confidence.” Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term “high confidence” is what most normal people would call “our best guess.” “Moderate confidence” means “some of our analysts think this might be true.”

Guccifer 2.0: A Fabrication

Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published*.

Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the “Guccifer 2.0” data on the web and have concluded that “Guccifer 2.0’s” data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that “Guccifer 2.0” is a total fabrication.

The report’s assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but its final statement in this regard is important: “Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”  In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So, Russians are accused of “degrading our democracy” by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre—to put it mildly–concept of democracy.

Most people, hearing that it is a “fact” that “Russia” interfered in our election must think that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful sanctions. But this is the one thing that the “intelligence” report of January 6, 2017, states did not happen. Here is what it said: “DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.”

This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the study? Or—was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.

Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of “Russian interference” in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries.

This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don’t rise, I’ll be musing about other aspects soon.

Op-ed by Jack Matlock / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

* De WikiLeaks Vault 7 en 8 documenten.

Zie wat betreft verkiezingen in de VS ook:
'Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!'

'New York Times 'bewijzen' voor Russiagate vallen door de mand......'

'Trump (Republikeinen) wint de midterm verkiezingen, alsook de Democraten, het verschil voor mensen elders in de wereld, die onder VS terreur moeten leven, is nul komma nada.......'

'Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen' (zie ook de links in dat bericht)

'Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax'

'Russische inmenging VS presidentsverkiezingen? ha! ha! ha! ha! Sheldon Adelson en Netanyahu zal men bedoelen!'

'De Israëlische manipulatie van de VS presidentsverkiezingen, gaat veel verder dan wat men Rusland in de schoenen schuift.....'

Zie verder:
'VS heeft Rusland al 3 keer met oorlog gedreigd, de laatste 2 keer in de afgelopen 1,5 week......'

'Kajsa Ollongren (D66 vicepremier): Nederland staat in het vizier van Russische inlichtingendiensten....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Ollongren gesteund door Thomas Boesgaard (AD), 'Rusland verpakt het nepnieuws gekoppeld aan echt nieuws.....' Oei!!'

'The Attack on ‘Fake News’ Is Really an Attack on Alternative Media'

'The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media “Fake News” Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq'

'FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web........'

'Mocking Trump Doesn’t Prove Russia’s Guilt'

'CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8.....'

'WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia'

'Hillary Clinton en haar oorlog tegen de waarheid........ Ofwel een potje Rusland en Assange schoppen!'

'Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd'

''Russische manipulaties uitgevoerd' door later vermoord staflid Clintons campagneteam Seth Rich......... AIVD en MIVD moeten hiervan weten!!'

'Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks....!!!!'

'VS 'democratie' aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!'

'Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump'

'Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump........'

'Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election'

'FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information'

'Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election'

'Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media'

'CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Russische 'hacks' door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence'

'Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen........'

''Russiagate' een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC...........'

''Russiagate' een verhaal van a t/m z westers 'fake news.....''

'Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht............' (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: 'Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie' en 'Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary')

'Clinton te kakken gezet: Brazile (Democratische Partij VS) draagt haar boek op aan Seth Rich, het vermoorde lid van DNC die belastende documenten lekte'

'Ollongren gesteund door Thomas Boesgaard (AD), 'Rusland verpakt het nepnieuws gekoppeld aan echt nieuws.....' Oei!!'

'RT America één van de eerste slachtoffers in een heksenjacht op westerse alternatieve media en nadenkend links......'

'Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt.......'

'Alarm Code Geel: Lara Rense (NOS) voedt Rusland-haat'

'Mediaorgaan Sinclair dwingt 'TV ankers' propaganda op te lezen (Sinclair bedient rond de 70% van de VS bevolking van 'lokaal nieuws')'

'Ex-CIA agent legt uit hoe de VS schaduwregering en deep state werken, ofwel de machinaties achter de schermen......'

''Russiagate' een nieuwe ongelooflijke aanklacht van de Democraten.......'

'VS demoniseert Russiagate critici als Jill Stein.....'

'De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers.........'

'Britse en VS manipulaties van verkiezingen en stimulatie van conflicten middels psychologische oorlogsvoering' (voor VS manipulaties van verkiezingen elders, liggen er 'metersdikke' dossiers, o.a. in te zien op WikeLeaks)

Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ''Death Sentence for Local Media': Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant' Met o.a.:"At a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities, we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to the local viewers and listeners they're supposed to serve." —Dana Floberg, Free Press. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, dan wel (beursgenoteerde) politiek rechtse organisaties, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben, waarbij deze eigenaren allen grote aanhangers zijn van het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme en grote voorstanders zijn van de VS terreur, waar ter wereld die ook wordt uitgeoefend........

GRU in Nederlands GROe, label veranderd op 5 oktober 2018.