END OF stupid story-tell RUSSIAN HACK
1-Introduction by Paul Craig Roberts
"...the success of this false and orchestrated story
of Russian hacking, for
which not a scrap of evidence exists, revealed to the military/security complex
the opportunity to remove Trump and thus protect the oversized budget and power
of the military/security complex that is threatened by Trump’s intention to
normalize relations with Russia."
…
US intelligence
services, the Democratic Party, some Republicans including members of President
Trump’s own government, and the presstitute US media are
conspiring against American democracy
and the President of the United States.
We
know this from a public letter to Trump published today, July 24, 2017, on consortiumnews.com by Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. See full report
about, at the bottom.
Unlike the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the
veteran intelligence professionals performed forensic investigations. They
found conclusive evidence that the alleged “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016
intrusion into the DNC server [these are the emails that show the DNC working
for Hillary against Sanders] was not hacked but leaked.
The leaked documents
were copied onto an external storage device and doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate
Russia as having hacked the documents.
In other words, the alleged hack
was instead a copy from the inside that was subsequently doctored to reflect
Russian origin.
The veteran intelligence professionals surmise that this was
done in order to focus attention away from the
embarrassing content of the emails, placing attention instead on “Russian
interference in the US presidential election.”
As I see it, the success of this false and orchestrated
story of Russian hacking, for which not a scrap of evidence exists, revealed to
the military/security complex the opportunity to remove Trump and thus protect the oversized budget and power of the
military/security complex that is threatened by Trump’s intention to normalize
relations with Russia.
It revealed to the Hillary forces the opportunity to vindicate themselves with the argument that
Russia stole the election for Trump.
It revealed to Israel the opportunity
to put an end to Trump’s withdrawal of US interference in the Middle East, thus enabling Israel to continue to use the US
military to clear away obstacles to Israeli expansion.
It provided the presstitutes, who
hate Trump and “the deplorables” who elected him, with a headline story for
months and months to be followed in their expectations with
the story of Trump’s removal from the presidency.
The retired intelligence professionals are too circumspect
to tell President Trump outright that a conspiracy is underway to remove him
from office whether by impeachment or assassination by a right-wing “lone nut”
enraged at the traitorous president, but this does seem to be the message between
the lines. As
I have provided the link to the letter, you can read it and come to your own
conclusion.
….
....
....
2-
Was
“Russian Hack” an Inside Job? Intelligence Vets Challenge Forensic “Evidence” By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
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.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic
National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to
incriminate Russia.
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, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
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 and doctoring were 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].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of
this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic
Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community
Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and
the Attorney General. VIPS member William
Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency,
and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest
to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic
studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on
the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked
analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community
Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about
hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this
Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0
“hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack
of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President
Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data
from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point
at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of
the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence
Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian
intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission
came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S.
government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to
WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique
technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a
year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but
almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information
available, we conclude that the same
inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times,
by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian
Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to
publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to
expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything
WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
***
Mr. President:
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a
history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence
colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our
first such memorandum,
a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s
U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were
likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justify” the war
on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as
fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
The January 6
“Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI,
CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is
largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity
with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence
and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic
findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast
serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign
to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and
politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S.
election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they
ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics
don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely
understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their
merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike
Pompeo what he knows about
this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it
is possible that neither former CIA Director John
Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been
completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just
completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy
persona named “Guccifer 2.0. ” The forensics reflect what seems
to have been a desperate effort to
“blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the
DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from
content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a
compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after
WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related
to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a
month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the
media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief
Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the
rounds at the convention. She wrote that
her “mission was
to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process:
the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC,
but that it had
done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind
of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence
analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In
contrast, the
investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found
in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer
2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job
to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky
Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the
FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a
dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that
malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was
injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for
the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the
forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure
coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show”
that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In
the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time,
someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the
DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87
seconds onto an external storage device. That
speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by
Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed
WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by
Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external
storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata
reveal there was a subsequent synthetic
insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in
the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made
aware of in this general connection. On
March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents
that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from
a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and
significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in
2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original
documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare
tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development
Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable
digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100
mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New
York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3
release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was
judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the
Times.
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did
not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and
accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow
the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release
indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and
that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the
CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report,
Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic
attribution double game” or false-flag operation because
it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed
out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and
insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state
hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do
not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role
in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know
how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with
you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early
White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know
if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In
his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager –
to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology
enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that
no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And,
vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual that
everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,”
he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United
States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck
to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? …
I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over
recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the
public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus,
we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread
truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence
colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits
say is purely coincidental. The fact
we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these
highly politicized times. This is
our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s
speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found here.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE
PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY VIPS
William Binney, former
NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder
of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden,
independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US
(Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former
Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA
& State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air
Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation
Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former
CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD
preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr.,
former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray,
former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI
Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland,
former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and
Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research
Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US
Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S.
Diplomat
…
----
----
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario