Shuck and Jive

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of the congregation I joyfully serve. But my congregation loves me!

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Russian Hack of DNC? "A Fraud from the Very Beginning"


In 2016, Did Russia hack the DNC? In my opinion, no.

Mueller's indictment coming just before an important summit meeting with Trump and Putin seems political. That said, I do think something fishy went on with Trump's election and Greg Palast has the most convincing analysis that Trump stole the election.  Think Crosscheck.
Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan:                    13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list:                       449,922 
Trump victory margin in Arizona:                       85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list:                           270,82 
Trump victory margin in North Carolina:        177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list:              589,393
Here is Palast's comment about the mass media's fixation on Russia:
Karlin: Why do you think the mass corporate media makes a bigger deal out of whether the Russians hacked our vote than the many ways in which the Republicans are suppressing the vote in the United States? 
Palast: Because the LA/NYC media is filled with white Democrats who can’t accept that the election was determined by racial vote suppression. Hillary said that America has the greatest electoral system in the world — which means she’s only been to Kazakhstan. So, the Dems and their media make up the fairy tale about Russians — using the language that would make Joe McCarthy proud. If Edward R. Murrow was alive today, he’d barf on them.
What about the Russians?

William Binney, who was the Technical Director for the NSA for 35 years said on RT:

"The claim that Russia hacked into the DNC and got data and gave it to Wikileaks has been a fraud from the very beginning."




Binney and Ray McGovern (former CIA briefer of The President’s Daily Brief) wrote a Memo to President Trump Ahead of Monday's Summit after Mueller's indictment:
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the “handpicked analysts” who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do.  The independent investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the “hack” that day 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 same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the “fluid dynamics” principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
As a public service, here are some more articles that I have found helpful and that I think people should probably read before believing and repeating the meme that the "Russians hacked the election."

Craig Murray, Russiagate: The Stink Without a Secret:
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue). 
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument. 
The original “Russian hacking” allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The “evidence” for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian. 
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual “evidence” of Russian hacking. I won’t say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than “Russian hacking” being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.
Here is a letter to the president from Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity with 17 signatories including William Binney and Ray McGovern. This is from the Consortium News website, Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence:
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].
The following three articles are from Global Research, Selected Articles: Deep State Sours US-Russia Relations, Is Trump A Pawn?

From Scott Ritter: Indictment of 12 Russians Under the Shiny Wrapping, A Political Act:
Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States’ ability to conduct critical affairs of state—in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president’s political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin—or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment—is a direct result of Rosenstein’s decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia. 
This indictment, by any other name, is a political act, and should be treated as such by the American people and the media.
From Stephen Lendman, The Russian US Election Meddling Big Lie Won't Die
Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America’s political process – nothing. 
Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir Putin unfavorably. 
Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before, they’re easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in lockstep with the official falsified narrative. 
America’s dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests – acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again instead of informing them responsibly.
Philip Giraldi, The Establishment Strikes Back:
So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the leaders of the world’s two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.
Here is an excellent piece by Caitlin Johnstone, Russiagate is Like 9/11, Except It's Made of Pure Narrative:
This is what I’m talking about when I say that whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever controls the stories that westerners are telling each other has the power to advance concrete agendas which reshape global geopolitics without any actual thing even happening. Simply by getting a few hand-picked intelligence agents to say something happened in a relatively confident way, you can get the entire media and political body advancing that narrative as unquestionable fact, and from there advance sanctions, new military operations, a far more aggressive Nuclear Posture Review, the casting out of diplomats, the arming of Ukraine, and ultimately shove Russia further and further off the world stage. 
As we discussed last time, the current administration has actually been far more aggressive against Russia than the previous administration was, and has worked against Russian interests to a far greater extent. If they wanted to, the international alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies could just as easily use their near-total control of the narrative to advance the story that Trump is a dangerous Russia hawk who is imperiling the entire world by inflicting insane escalations against a nuclear superpower. They could elicit the exact same panicked emotional response that they are eliciting right now using the exact same media and the exact same factual situation. They wouldn’t have to change a single thing except where they place their emphasis in telling the story. The known facts would all remain exactly as they are; all that would have to change is the narrative.
I think that is probably enough.