De reguliere mediaorganen in binnen en (westers) buitenland slaan zich op de knieën van pret, als zou nu dan toch eindelijk het bewijs boven tafel zijn gekomen, de 'smoking gun' zo u wilt, dat Rusland de VS verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd......
Volgens The Intercept, die de gelekte documenten ontving, blijkt uit de documenten dat er 'vanuit Rusland' minstens één grote cybveraanval is uitgevoerd, en zouden er kort voor de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS, meer dan 100 Russische 'phishing emails' zijn verzonden naar lokale verkiezingsbeambten.........
Echter in de documenten die vrijgekomen zijn, wordt niet eens gesproken over een cyberaanval tegen de VS, er is alleen informatie vergaard (wat je 'spionage' zou kunnen noemen), er is nooit een gevaar geweest voor bepaalde accounts en ook zijn de verkiezingen in de VS nooit in gevaar gekomen...... Voorts wordt erop gewezen, dat de cyberspionage (daar zou zoals eerder gesteld, wel sprake van zijn ) werd gedaan met technieken, die niet worden gebruikt door het Russische leger, die als dader werd en wordt aangewezen door de geheime diensten in de VS......
Weer blijkt dat de VS geen greintje bewijs heeft voor Russische inmenging bij de verkiezingen
Eén ding is zeker, The Intercept heeft (weer) een uiterst dubieuze rol gespeeld, de klokkenluider had nooit bekend mogen worden. Ik vraag me af, of er niet 'een beetje opzet in het spel is', gezien de reacties in de westerse pers..........
Lees het volgende artikel van Anti-Media, waarin ook de smerige rol ter sprake komt van The Intercept en oordeel zelf:
The Intercept Has A Source Burning Problem
June
8, 2017 at 9:07 am
Written
by Whitney
Webb
(MPN) Long
having built its reputation on reports derived from classified
information provided to them by leakers, The
Intercept now
finds itself in the unpleasant position of having burned – or outed
– one of its anonymous sources.
The
leaker, Reality Leigh Winner, allegedly gave The
Intercept classified NSA documents pertaining to an
investigation of Russian military intelligence hacking within the
U.S. and now faces years in prison under the Espionage Act. While
outing Winner could have been the result of negligence, the FBI
affidavit explaining why the bureau arrested Winner shows it went
beyond mere negligence.
According
to FBI
documents,
a reporter at the paper sent
the leaked documents to
a contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) – the
very agency they had been taken from – a full week before The
Intercept published
the story. The alleged intention was to let the NSA itself verify the
documents, an unusual move for a news outlet that was
originally intended to
have exclusive publication rights over the Snowden leaks that exposed
NSA surveillance. Upon being contacted, the NSA asked that The
Intercept redact
parts of the document and The
Intercept complied
with some of those requests.
The
FBI warrant also
notes that the reporter in question – who is unnamed in the
document – contacted a government contractor with whom he had a
prior relationship and revealed where the documents had been
postmarked from – Winner’s home of Augusta, Georgia – along
with Winner’s work location. He also sent unedited images of the
documents that contained security markings that allowed the document
to be traced to Winner.
While
the reporter’s identity remains unknown, the published report has
four authors – two of whom have been known to burn sources before.
Journalists Richard Esposito and Matthew Cole once found themselves
involved in a case against CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Kiriakou specifically
singled out Cole as
having not only misled him, but having played a likely role in
incriminating him. Kiriakou spent nearly two years in prison for
exposing the CIA’s torture program.
.@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy.
WikiLeaks,
a publishing organization committed to transparency that maintains
the confidentiality of its sources, has sharply condemned The
Intercept’s
role in Winner’s arrest. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote
that “If
the FBI affidavit is accurate, the reporter concerned must be named,
shamed and fired by whomever they work for to maintain industry
standards.” “Source-burning reporters are a menace,” he
continued. “They chill trust in all journalists, which impedes
public understanding.”
WikiLeaks
is now
offering a $10,000 reward for
information “leading to the public exposure & termination” of
the responsible reporter.
WikiLeaks issues a US$10,000 reward for information leading to the public exposure & termination of this 'reporter': twitter.com/wikileaks/stat…
“While
the FBI’s allegations against Winner have been made public through
the release of an affidavit and search warrant, which were unsealed
at the government’s request, it is important to keep in mind that
these documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed
to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism.
Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true
of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner.”
The
paper’s most prominent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, has distanced
himself from
the article and claimed that he does not edit the paper – even
though his
bio lists him as
a “founding co-editor.”
@ggreenwald the article in question relied heavily on that exact fallacy to generate publicity. big fan of yours since 04, but this is very troubling.
@gnocchiwizard I didn't write the article, & I don't edit the Intercept. I don't control other journalists. My views on it are here twitter.com/ggreenwald/sta…
The Intercept’s corporate dark side
This
latest debacle for The
Intercept may
be proving the organization’s long-time critics right. The short
history of the publication shows that it was hardly set up to serve
the public interest. The paper was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a
billionaire and major owner of both eBay and PayPal, who gave
the project more than $50 million in
seed money.
This
alone should have been enough to complicate its mission “to hold
the most powerful governmental and corporate factions accountable.”
Its
first hires were Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras –
all of whom were involved in publishing the Snowden revelations, as
well as other leaks. Greenwald and Poitras were the only journalists
with the full Snowden cache and those secrets now belong to a single
billionaire running a for-profit media company.
Omidyar’s
connections to the U.S. political establishment are numerous and
concerning. One of his foundation’s microcredit projects to “help”
farmers in India led to an
epidemic of farmer suicides that
gained international headlines, as farmers became unable to pay the
foundation back. His network has also funded regime change operations
with USAID, most recently in Ukraine. In addition, Omidyar was
well-connected to the Obama White House,
which stood to lose the most from the mass publication of the Snowden
cache. One of Omidyar’s main companies, PayPal, is
said to be implicated in
some of the NSA documents that have still been withheld.
Omidyar’s
influence on The
Intercept has
also been established. Former Intercept writer Ken
Silverstein wrote that,
at the paper, “a cult of personality existed around him [Omidyar]
internally that disrupted the whole organization” and that “the
company’s culture centered on Omidyar.”
This
background makes it less surprising that The
Intercept has
been caught publishing partisan stories that back U.S. establishment
objectives, such as articles supporting
U.S.-led regime change efforts in
Syria and the very piece that outed Winner.
Outing a source only to perpetuate the “Russian hacker” narrative
The
Intercept piece
at the center of the controversy is particularly troubling. Titled
“Top-Secret
NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election,”
it asserts that “Russian military intelligence executed a
cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent
spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just
days before last November’s presidential election, according to a
highly classified intelligence report obtained by The
Intercept.”
However, the
NSA report that The
Intercept published
in tandem with the article provides no evidence for that claim, as it
does not even mention of a cyberattack by “cyber espionage
operations,” indicating that no one was attacked and only that
information was collected. It also presents no proof that any
accounts were compromised, nor were the U.S. elections. Even worse is
that the document itself states that techniques were used by this
cyber espionage actor that distinguish it from known Russian military
intelligence operations, meaning the act in question may not have
been carried out by Russian intelligence.
In
addition, the piece quotes cyber security expert Bruce Schneier.
However, Schneier is a well-known Clinton supporter and argued that
Russia hacked the Democrats as far back as
last July,
a claim for which there is still no evidence. The
Intercept piece
fails to mention this aspect of Schneier’s background.
Essentially, The
Intercept piece
– which could lead to hard prison time for one very unfortunate
whistleblower – does not accurately interpret the classified
information at its core and instead seeks to propagate the “Russian
hacker” narrative still being peddled by the parts of the U.S.
establishment that are still bitter over Hillary Clinton’s loss.
Given Omidyar’s cozy ties with the Obama White House and the
left-leaning slant of The
Intercept’s current
editor Betsy Reed,
this could be more than coincidence.
While The
Intercept is now making headlines for outing a source, the
bigger message is that the paper has revealed itself as being part of
the system of establishment journalism it purports to stand against.
Zie ook: 'Arrestatie in VS voor lekken van inlichtingen naar de media', een artikel van de NOS, waarin wordt gesteld dat Glenn Greenwald één van de oprichters is, van The Intercept, dat is echter niet waar. Als u het artikel van Anti-Media hebt gelezen, zal het u opvallen dat het NOS artikel behoorlijk rammelt en concludeert dat er inderdaad Russische hacks en manipulaties hebben plaatsgevonden, waar nog wel wordt gesteld, dat dit verder geen invloed heeft gehad
Veel verder gaat de Volkskrant (die de 'smoking gun al lang geleden vond'), in dit flutblad dat in het (recente) verleden al een gigantisch aantal nepnieuwsberichten heeft gepubliceerd, durfde Michael Persson op 6 juni jl. het volgende te zeggen:
'Het aan The Intercept gelekte document is een gedetailleerd schema van een aanval van Russische hackers op Amerikaanse fabrikanten van stemcomputers. De Amerikaanse inlichtingendienst NSA concludeert, zo valt te lezen, dat de Russische militaire inlichtingendienst GROe achter de phishingoperatie zat.
Dat is nieuw: de Russische aanvallen op de electorale infrastructuur waren bekend, maar de conclusie dat ook dit een door het Kremlin gecoördineerde actie was is nog niet eerder (openbaar) getrokken. Overigens is er is nog steeds geen aanwijzing dat die infiltratiepogingen effect hebben gehad op de verkiezingsuitslag.'
Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! De eerdere claims van Russische bemoeienis ('de Russische aanvallen op de electorale infrastructuur waren bekend'), waar geen flinter bewijs voor werd geleverd, zijn voor de Volkskrant en 'journalist' Persson feiten, waar de documenten die nu gelekt zijn aan worden toegevoegd als bevestiging....... Dit terwijl de documenten die naar The Intercept werden gelekt, volkomen fout worden uitgelegd door de Volkskrant en in feite het tegenovergestelde bewijzen......... Gelukkig stelt ook Persson, dat de zogenaamde Russische hacks geen invloed hebben gehad op de verkiezingen....... Hier de link naar het volledige Volkskrant artikel van Michael Persson.
Vreemd dat de westerse reguliere media niet massaal met grote koppen komen, waarin wordt gesteld, dat de (zogenaamde) Russische hacks geen invloed hebben gehad op de VS presidentsverkiezingen. Immers dit werd en wordt nog steeds wel volgehouden door diezelfde media (waar de Volkskrant wel een heel vreemde draai maakt, zoals u kon lezen). Ach ja, als je dergelijke zaken eerder prominent als (nep-) nieuws bracht, ga je dat natuurlijk niet op de voorpagina onderuit halen..........
Lees wat betreft de VS, de vereniging van terreurstaten, die werkelijk alles en iedereen hacken en manipuleren, plus eerdere maffe uitlatingen van Persson: 'VS luisterde 1,8 miljoen Nederlandse telefoongesprekken af'
Mijn excuus voor de belabberde vormgeving.
