America’s ‘Russiagate’ Hoax Unravels,
but Their Anti-Russia Sanctions Don’t.
Eric Zuesse
It was reported only on ‘fringe’
media (such as “Disobedient Media” now gone from the Web) until recently.
However, the evidence that the entire “Russiagate” charge — that Russia’s
Government had “hacked” the Democratic National Committee in 2016 — is an Obama
Administration hoax (which was continued into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s
report), is now starting to come out into public view and be endorsed publicly
by retired U.S. intelligence professionals who can’t be fired. It’s not yet
published in any mainstream U.S. news media, however. So, in this place will be
chronologically presented the gradual unraveling of the Russiagate hoax, and
maybe someday this history (all of which is solidly documented) will be
publishable in the United States, even within the mainstream
(non-billionaire-controlled) media.
Also, the complicity of the U.S. Congress — both Parties — in advancing this hoax, and in suppressing its being exposed as being a hoax, will be discussed here, because Congress’s nearly unanimous votes in favor of imposing sanctions against Russia for this “Russiagate” that never was, are now forcing every member of Congress who had voted for those hoax-based sanctions to either apologize to his/her voters, or else to continue ignoring the now (and increasingly) solid proof that they had been either fooled, or else themselves were complicit, in advancing this hoax and voting for those sanctions.
So: undoing the evil that has been
perpetrated by this Obama-Administration hoax will be next to impossible, and
the cover-up of it by America’s mainstream media will likely continue, unless
and until the news-media themselves are held severely to account for what they
have done by their pumping — instead of exposing — this hoax by the former
Administration, which hoax and cover-up of it have thus far been continued into
the present Administration, as if Trump himself doesn’t even know (or perhaps
even much care) what has happened, in this matter.
Here, then, is that unravelling, as
it has gradually unfolded, and every step of it is fully documented in the
links hereto:
These revelations began in a
mainstream UK tabloid that — unlike others — sometimes veers far off from the
U.S. Government’s position, the Daily Mail, and which headlined on
14 December 2016, “EXCLUSIVE:
Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT
provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an
intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers”, and the newspaper reported that
Craig Murray, former British
ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he
flew to Washington, D.C. for emails.
He claims he had a clandestine
hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email
sources.
The leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the ‘tilting of the
primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders’.
Murray says: ‘The source had legal
access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks’.
‘Regardless of whether the Russians
hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,’
Murray insists.
On 7 January 2017, I headlined “The Russian Hacking" "How the
‘Leaks’ From Clinton and the DNC Happened”, and reported that
Julian Assange, who received the
computer-data from what U.S. President Barack Obama alleges was ‘Russian
hackers’, had an opportunity, in his 3 January 2017 interview with Fox News
Channel’s Sean Hannity, to deny the allegation by Craig Murray (a former
British Ambassador and longtime friend of Assange) that no Russian or any other
hackers were involved passing that information to Wikileaks; and, in reply,
Assange declined the invitation to deny it, and he said, in short: Obama and
his Administration are flat-out lying about this matter.
Hannity then probed further, to find
whom the source actually was:
(See 55:00- in this interview, especially at 56:50-)
Hannity: There was one report in
the [UK newspaper] Daily
Mail that suggested somebody that you are friendly with, actually was handed
the documents at American University, in a wooded area, by a disgruntled
Democrat, who felt betrayed because the revelations showed that Bernie Sanders
had been betrayed and they didn’t like the corruption of the Clinton
Foundation. Can you confirm or deny that?
ASSANGE: Well that statement came
from Craig Murray, a friend of mine, but Wikileaks is a source-protection
organization. We are famous for never having exposed one of our sources. That’s
why sources trust us and they come to us. So, I can’t comment on other people’s
statements about our sources, except what we have said, which is that our
sources [in this] are
not a state party [such as Russia or any other government].
No one — not even Obama — denies that
the publisher of the information was Wikileaks. Furthermore, Assange said in
this interview (56:50-), “There is one person in the world, and I think it’s
actually only one, who knows exactly what is going on with our publications,
and that’s me.” He was saying there that (at least as regards the present
matter) he — and perhaps only he in the entire Wikileaks organization — was the
person who received and published this information from the individual who was
supplying it. This doesn’t necessarily exclude Craig Murray from the
possibility that he had passed it along to Wikileaks (i.e., to his friend
Assange), but it says that only Assange knows whether or not Murray had
supplied it to him. (And Assange refuses to answer that question.)
Craig Murray did, in fact speak at American
University in Washington DC, at 10:15 AM on Saturday 24 September 2016,
addressing a “World Without War” conference, in the Founders’ Room at the
University’s School of International Studies. The video is here. Essential background on this heroic man, Murray,
is here, explaining why the U.S. State Department under Obama
had initially denied him entrance into the United States to speak at this event
and to receive in Washington a whistleblower’s award.
Then on December 10th, buried
in an article at Britain’s Guardian, was this
blockbuster, which was mentioned there only in passing (because that newspaper
represents the Blair wing of UK’s Labour Party and the Clinton wing of U.S.’s
Democratic Party):
Craig Murray, the former UK
ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA
claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray
said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian
and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
Then, on 16 July 2017, I headlined “Russiagate Exposed: It’s a Fraud” and reported:
It has now been incontrovertibly
proven that the time-stamps and other data in the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) files that were leaked to Wikileaks are consistent with those files
having been leaked by a person who was inside the DNC and not by an external
hacker as has been presumed by all of the ‘news’-reports that this was a ‘hack’
of any sort — not from Russia nor from anywhere else outside the building, much
less from outside the east coast time zone.
There’s a very real scandal involved
in this matter, but it is extremely different from the Russia-hack narrative,
and it will be revealed here (for the first time anywhere) at the very end.
But, first things first — and that’s what the previous investigators have now
proven:
On July 9th, was published at
Disobedient Media a report that not only discredits the ‘news’ reports that
the Russian government (or anyone else in Russia) ‘hacked the election’ —
discredits the very core of the Russiagate story — but that shows the ‘hacks’ were instead
likelier leaks, to Wikileaks, by someone who had physical
access to the computers at the Democratic National Committee, and who,
in any case, was clearly and incontrovertibly operating only within the
time-zone of America’s east coast — not at all in Russia, nor anywhere
else outside that time zone.
In other words: it shows that the
data itself provide indications that this was a leak instead of any hack at
all: that the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (who claimed to
have picked up the data-recording device from the leaker in DC and brought it
to his friend Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London) was correct
when he had said that he picked the file up from an insider who
gave it to him in Washington DC — that the data themselves are more consistent
with that than with the ‘hack’ interpretation of the narrative of how Wikileaks
obtained these data.
So, now we have not only Murray’s
testimony about it, and we have not only my own
investigation showing
that Murray had, in fact, been in Washington DC at the very
time he says he had picked up the information physically in DC from the leaker
there, but we also now have — as of July 9th — the technical proof of
its having likely been transferred to Wikileaks by means of a leak instead of a
hack. Even the data that were transferred are entirely consistent with
this having been a voluntary release of this information.
Consequently, any ‘news’medium, after
July 9th, which still ‘reports’ about Russiagate, which so
much as even just suggests that people in Russia ‘hacked’ these data from the
DNC, are now the lowest order of fake ‘journalism’, not an authentic
journalistic operation at all, but pure propaganda. How long will it take for
that lie (the Russiagate-myth) to stop being published as being established
truth by the U.S. (and its allied) ‘news’ media? But it continues to be
embellished, as if that basic storyline is likely or even definitely true. It
is much likelier false than true.
Here then will be presented, first of
all, a generally good summary dated July 15th, of this important new
information, a summary of what was published on July 9th by Disobedient Media;
and I am here publishing a transcript that I have made of this video, which was
uploaded to youtube on July 15th, in which, by means of questions and answers,
the gist of the findings in the July 9th report and of how the findings had been
obtained, is set forth, in that July 15th video, which is titled, “TV Exclusive:
Forensic investigator says DNC computer hacked locally”:
A forensics expert has determined
that the DNC computers were hacked locally by someone with physical access to
the DNC network and not by someone far away like the Russians. This story was
broken online by the hot new investigative website called Disobedient Media.
The forensic expert handed over the information to the reporter Elizabeth Vos.
Joining me this time out of Iowa City Iowa is the managing editor of
Disobedient Media . com, Ethan Lyle; Ethan, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Ethan, no one has been sitting on
this story you guys are. Tell us how you got this information and what we know.
Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media’s
associate editor — a man named Adam Carter reached out to her. And he had an
analysis from somebody online named The Forensicator.
Let me ask you: Who was Adam Carter?
Adam Carter got this and gave it to you guys; who is he?
He’s an independent journalist [who had, in fact, long been working on this
case]. And, so, [as Carter called to Vos’s attention] an
anonymous blog of a forensic analyst looked at the data, and he had noticed
that because of the transfer-speed and the timing of those transfers [it
was actually only one transfer], that they were [the person was on
the] east coast, and they [the files] had to have been
accessed in the east coast. They were initially copied in the east coast, he
guaranteed [the person actually demonstrated, not ‘guaranteed’] that
… the likelihood of it [the file] being accessed initially
from anywhere but the east coast, is impossible [proven so, by that
analyst, “the forensicator”].
So, what that means in layman’s terms
is again that the DNC computer network which the media tells us and the DNC
tells us was hacked by the Russians, … that it was physically accessed by someone
within close proximity of the DNC?
Correct. Given metadata and … the
transfer and the stop times in between them, the only likely scenario is that it was accessed from inside
of the Local Area Network of the DNC or with a USB drive into a computer [in] which
you would have to be inside the building.
Now, I don’t want to sound like a
conspiracy theorist because there’s a lot more work to be done here, but …
those computers were hacked five days prior to Seth Rich’s untimely demise if
I’m not mistake, is that not correct?
That’s correct and it’s important to
state that this does not indicate that Seth Rich was the person that accessed
the files, because they [the
DNC] won’t turn over their logs to the FBI. There’s no way to tell
which credentials were used to get into the system.
Since you have broken this story
online, has anyone in law enforcement reached out to you?
No, they have not.
Anyone from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the
New York Times?
Absolutely not. (3:51)
At this stage, this cover-up by the
government and press is even bigger than the crime by the pro-Clinton DNC
insiders (which had used, as I’ll indicate, the chief PR agency for NATO, to do
this — to generate and spread this lie) who are trying to provoke even more
fear and hatred of Russia than they already have cooked-up and generated. Adam
Carter on July 16th, said that “The MSM have
kept this hidden from viewers for almost 150 days”, but certainly it has been hidden now, after it was
conclusively proven, on July 9th.
Here, then, are the openings of those
more detailed sources reporting on this, first being the news-report by
Elizabeth Vos, and then the original analysis by The Forensicator (which report
Vos was restating well in non-technical terms):
——
New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files
Were Copied Locally, Not Hacked
9 July 2017, Elizabeth Vos
…
This was then taken up on 24 July
2017, by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
“Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence”
July 24, 2017
In a memo to President Trump, a group
of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new
forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that
Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.
Editor’s Note: This VIPS Memo included two mistaken dates.
Neither affected the Memo’s main conclusion; i.e., that the July 5, 2016
intrusion into DNC emails that was blamed on Russia could not have been a hack
– by Russia or anyone else. The portions of the Memo affected by the mistaken
dates have been corrected.
A short explanation of the
corrections:
-(1) June 14, 2016 (not the 15th, as
the VIPS memo erroneously stated) was the day Crowdstrike said malware had been
found on the DNC server and claimed there was evidence the malware was injected
by Russians. (On the following day – the 15th) – “Guccifer 2.0” claimed
responsibility for the “hack” and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source.)
-(2) Although the VIPS Memo
indicated, correctly, that on June 15, 2016, “Guccifer 2.0” … posts a document
that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with ‘Russian fingerprints,’”
other language in the Memo was mistaken in indicating that evidence of such
tainting was also found in the “Guccifer 2.0” metadata from
the copying event on July 5.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking”
into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5,
2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with
physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer
2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber
investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external
storage device.
Key among the findings of the
independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was
copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet
capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show
that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far,
mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies
[see here and here].
…
Finally, now, Bill Binney has been
taking this to the “home stretch”:
“CIA
Fabricated Russiagate ‘Evidence’, Says Former NSA Tech Chief”
July 29, 2020
An important public statement was
made on July 27th by Bill Binney, the U.S. Government’s top expert on the internet,
and on computer hacking. He had been the Technical Director of the NSA when he
quit and became a whistleblower against that Agency while George W. Bush was
the U.S. President and invaded Iraq on the basis of faked evidence. Binney has
now laid out, in this speech, the evidence that he wants to present in court
against Barack Obama’s CIA, that it defrauded Americans to believe in
“Russiagate” (the allegation that Russia ‘hacked’ the computers of Hillary Clinton
and Democratic Party officials and fed that information to Wikileaks and other
organizations). Binney cites evidence, which, if true, conclusively proves that
Russiagate was actually created fraudulently by the CIA’s extensive
evidence-tampering, which subsequently became covered-up by the Special Counsel
Robert Mueller, in his investigations for the Democratic Party’s first (and
failed) try at impeaching and removing from office U.S. President Donald J.
Trump.
Here is the transcript of his 10-minute
speech (and I add
links to explanations of the meaning of technical phrases, and also boldface for
emphasis of his key findings, and I place into [brackets] explanatory
amplifications of my own), summarizing why he is convinced that the CIA (under
President Barack Obama) did this frame-up against Russia, ‘Russiagate’ — it’s a
case that he is seeking to present to Congress, and in court, and to debate in
public, instead of to continue to be hidden from the public; he wants to show,
and publicly to debate, this evidence, so that the public will be able to see
it, and evaluate it, for themselves:
Basically the problem is that I can’t
seem to get the forensic evidence into a court or up into the mainstream of
evidence for defeating-refuting Russiagate. The point is that in the Veterans
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity we have a bunch of technical people
including Kirk Wiebe and I and some others and some affiliates
that were in the UK who also joined the analysis process, and we were looking
at the files posted by Wikileaks, because the allegation from the beginning is
that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to Wikileaks to publish. So, we
looked at those emails, to see if there was something there that might give us
some idea of how Wikileaks got that data. Well, in all the 35,813 emails that
they posted in three batches, one [batch was] downloaded
according to last modified times on the 23rd of May, and another on the 25th of
May, and one [other] on the 26th of August, of 2016. Now, all
those files, all 35,813, had a last modified time that was rounded off [rounded
up] to an even [the next-higher] second, so they all ended
up in even [meaning complete or full, not fractional] seconds.
Now, if you know anything about data processing and data storage and things of
that nature, there is a program that was quite common in the past [including
2016] using what’s called fat file formatting file allocation, table formatting, which is a process that when doing
a batch process of data and transferring it to a storage device like a thumb
drive or a CD-ROM, it rounds off the last modified time to the nearest
even [next-higher] second,
so that’s exactly the property we found in all that data posted by Wikileaks.
Now, that said very simply this data was downloaded to a storage device
a CD-ROM or a thumb drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could
post it, so that meant it was not a hack [since there’s no
rounding off to the next-higher second, as it would be if it’s a file that’s
been carried over the internet], no matter how you look at it. We’re
looking at the forensic evidence that says the DNC emails were not hacked, they
were downloaded and physically transported to Wikileaks.
And, then, we had the other issue, [which was] with Guccifer 2. Now,
Guccifer 2 came out shortly after, you know, Julian Assange announced that he
had emails on Hillary Clinton, and so on, and the DNC. Well, we looked at all
the material that Guccifer 2 posted and [he] was saying here
are the hacks that I did on the DNC. He claimed he did one on the fifth of
July, and one on the first of September, of 2016. Well, when you start looking
at that — and we looked at the files — he posted a series of files, with file
names, the numbers of characters in the file, and a timestamp at the end of the
file. Then, the next file number of characters and timestamp, and so on, for I
don't know how many thousands of files. So, we looked at all those files, and
we ran a program to calculate the transfer rate of all
that data, because all you have to do is look at between the two time stamps,
the file name and the number of characters in the file, and take the difference
between the times [start-time versus end-time], and that’s the
transfer rate for that number of characters, so we found that the variations
ran from something like 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second. Now, that means for 19
to 49 million characters per second, and [yet] the world wide
web would not support that rate of transfer, not for anybody who's just, you
know, a hacker coming in across the net, trying to do it. They won’t support
that kind [speed] of transfer, and some people thought we
could be wrong [and] that it could be done, and so we said
okay, we’re going to try it. So, we organized some hackers in Europe, to try to
transfer a data set from the U.S. over to Europe, to see how fast we could get
it there, and we tried it from Albania, and Serbia, a couple of places in the
Netherlands, and London. Well, we got various rates, but the highest rate we
got was between the data center in New Jersey and one in London, and that
was [the one which had gone at] 49.1 megabytes per second, and
it went at 12 megabytes per second, which is one-fourth the rate, little less
than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer at the highest rate that
we saw in the Guccifer 2 data, which meant it didn't go across the net, so, in
fact, the file rate transfers couldn’t. We were nowhere near the maximum rate
that [would have been necessary if this had been a hack]. And so we
said, okay, if anybody has a way of getting it there, let us know, and we’ll
help you try to get to do that, and so far no one has ever come forward to
dispute either the facts on the DNC data last file, modified file times, nor
the transfer rates, for the Guccifer 2.
Plus, there’s another factor with
Guccifer 2, there’s actually two more with Guccifer 2 data, the first of the
five July data, and the one September data, if you ignored a date and hour they
could merge like you’re shuffling a deck of cards the holes in the five July
data timing were filled by data from the first September, that said to us
that Guccifer 2 was playing with the data, separating in the two files,
saying he made two different acts and and doing a range change on the date and
the hour on the one file, so this to us was also an indication of fabrication
on the part of Guccifer 2. Then,
there’s another factor: when Guccifer 2 put out some from files on 15 june of
2016, with the signatures of Russian saying it’s a Russian hack, our fellows in
the UK looking at the data found five of those files at a minimum, I don’t know
they’re through yet looking, but they found five files that Guccifer 2 posted
on the 15th of June with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this
because of a signature they found the same five files posted by Wikileaks from
a Podesta emails and they did not have the Russian signatures, so that
meant Guccifer 2 was inserting Russian signatures to make it look like
the Russians did the [alleged] hack. Well,
if you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you
look, they have this Marble
framework program that
will modify files to look like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries
that they had the ability to do that, in the in the Marble framework program?
Well, one was Russia, the other was China, North Korea, Iran, and Arab
countries. Well, to us, then, that means that the fabrication of the insert of
the Russian signatures means that somebody modified the file and made it look
like it fits the Marble framework definition of doing that kind of activity,
which thus says all of this boosts with two materials pointing back now
to CIA, as the origin of it, that’s the basic evidence we have, and none of it
points to Russia.
In fact, we can't even find anything
that points to Russia, when in fact the Mueller indictment, or the Mueller
report, and that Rosenstein indictment, named some that they called trolls for
the Russian government, the IRA, the Internet Research Agency, out of St.
Petersburg, and Russia, they named it in a court document, and, well, the IRA
over there said we are no way near, we are not in any way associated with, the
Russian government, so they sent lawyers in to challenge that in the court of
law here in the U.S., and the court charged the government to prove it, and
they couldn’t, they couldn’t prove anything, and so the judge basically
reprimanded them and said you were never to mention the IRA as in any way
affiliated with the Russian government again, so their whole case was falling
apart. Everything looked like the rooks were two potato, was a fabrication, the
alleged hack and so on, all applications, fabrication, and even if you look at
some of the testimony that came out from the Crowdstrike CEO [hired by the Democratic National Committee],
I think his name was Sean Henry, he said we we had no indications of
exfiltrating the data, but we had evidence that it was exfiltrated. Now, if
he's talking about the last modified times as an indication of exfiltration,
which it was but it wasn’t from a hack it was from a download, so that download
then is an indication it was done locally as were the Guccifer 2 data that
couldn’t go across the net. It was a download locally. All that stuff happened
locally. In fact, some of the data and the Guccifer 2 material had all the time
stamps indicating it was done on the East Coast of the United States, we had
one in Central time, and one on the West Coast, but most of them fell on the
East Coast, so it implied that all this stuff [both
Wikileaks and Guccifer 2] was happening on the East Coast, and that
really pointed right back at CIA, as the origin of all this fabrication.
Binney wants to present this case at
trial, against the CIA’s top officials under President Barack Obama.
NOTE: This news-report was submitted, in advance, to
each of the following 40 mainstream news-media, offering it as an exclusive,
to: ABC, BBC, CBS, FNC, NBC, New York Times, Washington
Post, USA Today, Guardian, McClatchy, Wall
Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Nation, The
Spectator, The New Republic, Time, The Week, Progressive, Jacobin, New
Yorker, Vanity Fair, Economist, National
Interest, Rolling Stone, Huffington Post, Salon, Slate,
Business Insider, Politico, The Hill, The Gray Zone, The Intercept, The Daily
Beast, Vice, Spiked, Bloomberg, Truthdig, Truthout, Vox, Common Dreams. None
accepted it. None of them wanted their audience to see it. So, this article is
now is being submitted for publication, free of charge, to all English language
(and a few other) news-media, simply in order to make known to as many of the
public as possible, the information that it contains.
And, on August 5th:
“Debate: Is
‘Russiagate’ a CIA Hoax? UPDATE:”
Eric Zuesse
There now is a public debate
regarding whether or not ‘Russiagate’ was/is a CIA-generated hoax, instead of
(as it has been reported) a Russian Government hacking operation. Whatever it
was, did spark massive U.S. economic and other sanctions against Russia, and is
therefore important in today’s U.S. international relations. Had the CIA
actually created the “evidence”? Were those sanctions based upon a U.S.
Government fraud? That is the question here.
On July 30th, the former Technical
Director of the NSA — America’s top position on cyber intelligence including
computer-hacking — Bill Binney, summarized, by a ten-minute presentation, the latest up-to-date
information that exists regarding, and discussing, the actual sources of the
various unauthorized releases, to the public, of emails and other documents
from the computers of the Democratic National Committee and of John Podesta who
headed the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Binney alleged there that
the raw data prove conclusively — not just speculatively — that the CIA
tampered with the evidence, in order to become enabled to accuse Russia as
having been involved in those unauthorized information-releases. He further
alleged that Robert Mueller’s report on the Democratic Party’s charges that
Russia and Trump were involved in these matters was false when it
unquestioningly accepted the CIA’s assertions against Russia and on that basis
accused the Internet Research Agency, in Russia, as having “hacked” the data.
Consequently: if Binney’s case is correct, then recent U.S. history is based
upon fraud by the U.S. Government itself. This would be a case like America’s
2003 invasion of Iraq, but perhaps even worse.
One of the news-sites that published
his presentation was Silver Doctors.
A reader-comment there, from an anonymous “Fred,” challenged Binney’s reconstruction of what had
occurred. Here below is Fred’s reader-comment, and Binney’s response to
it:
- •Fred
OMG, what a quack, I watched the video and as a cyber security professional, the man knows spews a lot of terminology but really knows nothing. First, time stamps can change every time files are moved to a new source. Of course they would be very close to each other when copying in bulk. Emails are mostly text if they don't have attachments which takes up very little space. Depending on the system all the emails can be contained in one file, so when that 1 file is transferred and of the contents would be the same time stamp. 2nd, of course data can be transferred at much high rates than 19mbs, what is he living in the 20th century? We have gigabyte internet now., data can be transferred well over 100 mbs. 3rd. he presents no evidence directly linking CIA other than to say, who else could have done it. His whole theory is just an opinion, absolute rubbish. No wonder he's not taken seriously. - •
Reply - •
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
Reply
Eric Zuesse Eric Zuesse
(continued): - •"2nd, of course data can be transferred at
much high rates than 19mbs, what is he living in the 20th century? We
have gigabyte internet now., data can be transferred well over 100 mbs.:”
- •While the ISP standard is Mbps = mega bits per
second and MBps = mega bytes per second, I believe Fred is referring to
mega bytes per second. What he says is true but only for shorter
distances - not
- •across the Atlantic to Europe let alone
Russia. In our testing, the further east we went; the lower
speeds we got. In other words, assuming there was a hacker,
he/she would have to have a high speed line
- •all the way from the target to the hackers
location. The WWW does not support that. If
Fred thinks it does, he needs to illustrate/prove where and how that can
be achieved. So far, no one has done that -
- •not even NSA/CIA/FBI or private security
companies.
- •" 3rd. he presents no evidence directly
linking CIA other than to say, who else could have done it. His whole
theory is just an opinion, absolute rubbish. No wonder he's not taken
seriously.”
- •Does Fred work for CIA? Or, is he
just an advocate for them? In either case, I pointed out what
evidence we have which is circumstantial and not
absolute. But, in terms used in the ICA of CIA/NSA/FBI,
- •I have “high confidence that CIA did it."
- •Note: all this data including Guccifer 2.0
files and speed calculations have been provided to lawyers in several
currently on-going court cases.
Reply
• Fred
[replying to] Eric Zuesse
1 August, 2020
Glad that my comments my the hit
parade. Maybe I'm a bit harsh in name calling, I don't like when others do it
either. However, does Mr. Binney understand that we have fiber optic cables
under the Atlantic? In many cases you can transfer data quicker to London from
Washington then to California. Also the time stamp doesn't prove anything, so
what if they were rounded off. Maybe the hackers tool did that, who knows.
Again he offers no proof the CIA did it and admits it purely circumstantial.
Meanwhile everyone goes around saying see the CIA did it because of his
comments. Here's another point, why would the CIA do it? To frame Russia? And
give it to Wikileaks who they despise and had Assange arrested? If anything the
hacked emails were bad for Clinton and helped
Trump, who praised the hack and
wanted more. So what's the CIA motive?
Reply
• BinneyResponds
Fred
Here’s my reply.
FRED: “Glad that my comments my the
hit parade. Maybe I'm a bit harsh in name calling, I don't like when others do
it either. However, does Mr. Binney understand that we have fiber optic cables
under the Atlantic?”
BINNEY: You can find all the
transoceanic cables and their capacity documented at: Greg’s cable map or https://www.submarinecablemap.com/ plus others. While these sites show capacity to
carry data, they do not show service provider capacity provided to users. So,
if Fred knows a way to pass data to Russia across the WWW at the speeds of the
Guccifer 2.0 evidence posted, then he needs to let all of us know. As I said
before, not even NSA/CIA/FBI or any commercial company have come forward to do
that.
FRED “In many cases you can transfer
data quicker to London from Washington then to California. Also the time stamp doesn't
prove anything, so what if they were rounded off.”
BINNEY: Are you saying that LMT’s
rounded to even numbers is not a property of FAT transfers?
FRED: “Maybe the hackers tool did
that, who knows.”
BINNEY: And, maybe pigs fly. Talk
about conspiracy theories.
FRED: “Again he offers no proof the
CIA did it and admits it purely circumstantial. Meanwhile everyone goes around
saying see the CIA did it because of his comments. Here's another point, why
would the CIA do it? To frame Russia? And give it to Wikileaks who they despise
and had Assange arrested? If anything the hacked emails were bad for Clinton
and helped Trump, who praised the hack and wanted more. So what's the CIA
motive?
BinneyResponds
BINNEY:
the last part of my reply was cut.
Here it is.
FRED: “Again he offers no proof the
CIA did it and admits it purely circumstantial. Meanwhile everyone goes around
saying see the CIA did it because of his comments. Here's another point, why
would the CIA do it? To frame Russia? And give it to Wikileaks who they despise
and had Assange arrested? If anything the hacked emails were bad for Clinton
and helped Trump, who praised the hack and wanted more. So what's the CIA
motive?”
BINNEY: I only make assertions based
on evidence available for all to examine. In this case, Vault 7 has Marble
Framework program used 1 time in 2016. Guccifer 2.0 files from 15 June 2016 had
Russian fingerprints while at least 5 of those items posted by Wikileaks did
not have those fingerprints. Says, to us, Guccifer 2.0 modified those Podesta
emails to make it look like the Russians did it. Note also that the Marble
Framework program was documented in Vault 7 as having the capability to frame
Russia/China/North Korea/Iran and Arab countries. This is why we have higher
confidence in our assertion that CIA did it, than CIA/FBI/NSA did in their
(baseless) ICA assertion that the Russians did it.
—
So, we now know that Russiagate was a
hoax. However, America’s President, Donald Trump, at least until very recently,
has given no indication that he knows it. On 10 July 2020, the Washington
Post headlined “Trump
confirms, in an interview, a U.S. cyberattack on Russia” and reported that
During an Oval Office interview with
me this week, President Trump acknowledged for the first time that, in 2018, he
authorized a covert cyberattack against Russia’s Internet Research Agency, the
St. Petersburg-based troll farm that spearheaded Russian interference in the
2016 presidential election and was doing the same in the 2018 midterm
elections.
Asked whether he had launched the
attack, Trump replied: “Correct.”
Trump said that, in 2016, President
Barack Obama “knew before the election that Russia was playing around. Or, he
was told. Whether or not it was so or not, who knows?
So: Trump authorized in 2018 a
cyberattack against Russia for retaliation against a bogus 2016 cyberattack
against the Democratic National Committee. And, even as late as July 10th of
this year, Trump didn’t know that Russiagate was an Obama Administration
scheme, while Obama was President, to frame Trump as being a secret agent of
the Kremlin.
Meanwhile: the Kremlin is being
increasingly surrounded by U.S. and NATO troops and weapons on and near
Russia’s borders, while The West accuses Russia of ‘aggression’, and Russia is
warning America and its allies that Russia may need to take pre-emptive actions
before those countries invade Russia. It’s a reasonable fear they have, just as
America’s fear was, when the Soviets were preparing to place their missiles in
Cuba in 1962.
On August 3rd, all 12 on the
“Steering Group” of VIPS, sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, asking her to condemn
her fellow Democrats’ promotions of the lies. Headlining “VIPS MEMO: To Nancy Pelosi — Did Russia Hack
the DNC Emails?” they
damned the New York Times’s and other media’s constant lying
against Iraq, and now against Russia, to ‘justify’ unjustifiable and aggressive
war, and wrote to her:
There were no consequences for those
officials who lied about WMD in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld had put one of them,
James Clapper, in charge of imagery analysis which, as you know, was the key to
finding WMD. Clapper made a stunning admission in his memoir, Facts and Fears:
Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence. He wrote that “intelligence officers,
including me, were so eager to help [Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld] that we found what
wasn’t really there.”
Nevertheless, with a glowing
recommendation from Obama confidant John Brennan, President Obama appointed
Clapper director of national intelligence in 2010. He remained in that post for
the remainder of Obama’s term despite having misled the Senate in March 2013
about what he later admitted was a “clearly erroneous” testimony, under oath, regarding
NSA surveillance of Americans.
Here’s the rub: Clapper and those he
conspired with have gone from blissful sans souci to apprehension, acutely
aware that they may not have a stay-out-of-jail card this time around.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse
is the author, most recently, of They’re Not
Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and
of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event
that Created Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.