Tag Archives: Wikileaks

Who Does America Believe? 84,000 Votes Later, Here Is The Answer, by Tyler Durden

When a Trump opponent in the mainstream media asked his Trump antipathetic audience who they believe, Wikileaks or the US intelligence community’s allegations about Russian influence, the results were surprising. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Earlier in the week, president-elect Donald Trump tweeted that:

“It is for the American people to make up their minds as to the truth.”

And now we have the answer.

When CNBC’s Podesta-panderer and Trump-denier John Harwood asked the question yesterday “who do you believe America?” we suspect he was not expecting the answer he received from over 84,000 American citizens…

John Harwood ✔@JohnJHarwood
Who do you believe America?
6:25 PM – 5 Jan 2017
83%Wikileaks
17%US intel officials
84,115 votes • Final results

It would appear that “We, the people” have spoken once more and only 1 in 6 believe in the elite establishment-delivered narrative.

This merely confirms Lou Dobbs’ survey from earlier in the week.

Lou Dobbs ✔@LouDobbs
#LDTPoll: Who do you believe on the Russian hacking allegations?
5:01 PM – 3 Jan 2017 · Manhattan, NY
6%President Obama
94%Julian Assange
17,899 votes • Final results

Once again the establishment has learned absolutely nothing from the campaign and election of Donald Trump, and refuses to listen to anything outside of the cozy echo-chamber in which they hamster-wheel their lives away in.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-07/who-does-america-believe-84000-votes-later-here-answer

 

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims, by Veteran Intelligence Agents for Sanity

According to this group of intelligence professionals, if the DNC was actually hacked, the NSA would know about it and who did it. Because the NSA has not come forward, it points to the probability of a leak, rather than a hack, that led to the WikiLeaks leaks. The leaks could have come from a DNC insider, or from an intelligence agency or the FBI, but it couldn’t have come from Russia. From VIPS at consortiumnews.com:

As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

MEMORANDUM

Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless

A New York Times report on Monday alluding to “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.

Monday’s Washington Post reports that Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia. Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay.

In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience – with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security – to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog. Far from hiding behind anonymity, we are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit – given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is – without fear or favor.

We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.

All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.

In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.

To continue reading: US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims

The Leak That Came in From the Cold, by Justin Raimondo

The evidence that the WikiLeaks’ emails came from an insider leak is at least as strong as that it came from a foreign hack. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

Craig Murray tells all – media ignores him

What difference, at this point, does it make?

As the frantic attempts by die-hard Democrats, the media, and the CIA to prevent Donald Trump from being sworn into office reach a fever pitch, Hillary Clinton’s anguished cry seems like the only appropriate response. Trump won the election, he’s now announcing his Cabinet, and that’s the end of the matter.

Or is it only the beginning?

When the CIA targets a country for regime change, I wouldn’t bet the farm on the targeted government surviving. And while this isn’t quite Allende’s Chile, America’s increasing resemblance to a banana republic is augured in the CIA’s refusal to appear at a congressional oversight committee to explain leaks in the press charging that Russian intelligence actively worked to elect Trump. So who’s in charge here – the CIA or the people’s elected representatives?

The White House has joined the fray, implying that the PEOTUS is directly colluding with Moscow. White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated that Trump was “obviously” aware, “based on whatever sources were available to him,” that the Russians were behind the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta. Because, you see, Trump has a direct line to the Kremlin: after all, how else could the Russians issue their marching orders?

It’s unlikely, albeit possible, that this brouhaha is going to prevent Trump from taking office: the “Hamilton electors” campaign doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, in spite of the best efforts of Christine Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s daughter – gee, how did she become an elector, I wonder?

To continue reading: The Leak That Came in From the Cold

 

Putin Lashes Out At Obama: “Show Some Proof Or Shut Up” by Tyler Durden

Are the US mass media “manipulating themselves?” That may be all they end up manipulating; nobody else trusts them. The Russians are telling their accusers to put up some real proof or shut up. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, “hacked the US presidential election.”

The Russian president’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was “indecent” of the United States to “groundlessly” accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.

“You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent”, Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.

Peskov also warned that Obama’s threat to “retaliate” to the alleged Russian hack is “against both American and international law”, hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.

Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was “laughable nonsense”, while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused “Western media” of being a “shill” and a “mouthpiece of various power groups”, and added that “it’s not the general public who’s being manipulated,” Zakharova said. “the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It’s the mass media that is manipulating themselves.”

Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was “dumbstruck” by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.

The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a “high level of confidence” that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. “I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious,” Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.

To continue reading: Putin Lashes Out At Obama: “Show Some Proof Or Shut Up”

 

Did the Russians Hack Hillary? by Andrew P. Napolitano

The infamous Democratic emails weren’t hacked, by Wikileaks, the Russians, or anyone else, they were leaked. From Andrew P. Napolitano at antiwar.com:

Earlier this week, leaders of the Democratic National Committee and former officials of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign made the startling allegation that the Russian government hacked into Clinton’s colleagues’ email accounts to tilt the presidential election toward Donald Trump. They even pointed to statements made by CIA officials backing their allegations.

President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?

Here is the back story.

The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies – God only knows the number of secret agencies – have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.

The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.

To continue reading: Did the Russians Hack Hillary?

Hillary Clinton Gets it Wrong and the Establishment Blinks, by Brett Stevens

Hillary Clinton confirms that the emails released by WikiLeaks are not fakes. From Brett Stevens at amerika.org via theburningplatform.com:

Follow if you will this entertaining modern tale: a politician is accused of doing wrong things, and she denies it, and then a trove of emails stolen in a hack come out saying that she did indeed do those things. She does what she has done her whole career and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence.

Then, in a stunning turnaround that reveals what we can only call flamboyant incompetence, she or someone from her group at the Establishment Cathedral attack the man who is leaking the emails. His internet is cut off, and he possibly faces political pressure which will force his extradition to the United States.

Julian Assange is the man, as you surely guessed, and Hillary Clinton is the woman. The two have become actors in the final drama of this season before the election itself, which is the question of whether Clinton is as guilty as these emails make her seem.

She had a good chance of ducking those until yesterday. Before yesterday, she was casting doubt on their legitimacy. Today she has confirmed their legitimacy by attacking the Assange through her friends at the State Department. If the emails were as fake as she had implied they were, none of this would have been necessary.

What this shows us is not only that one of our presidential candidates belongs in jail, but also that the people in the Establishment Cathedral are not wizards; rather, they are students who studied hard instead of having actual ability. Peasants pretending to be kings. Vaisya play-acting as Brahmins. Children dressing up in adult clothes.

To continue reading: Hillary Clinton Gets it Wrong and the Establishment Blinks

Assange’s Fate, by Justin Raimondo

When nothing will get you in more trouble than telling the truth, it’s an unmistakable indication of impending social doom. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

The saga of Julian Assange seems to be drawing to a climax – one that will decide the fate of this historic whistleblower who, for years, has been a giant thorn in the side of governments everywhere.

His role in exposing the machinations of the US government over the years earned him the plaudits of liberals – until the Bush era ended, and he started exposing the crimes of the Obama administration and – most pointedly – the hypocrisy and venality of Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla. Now we see right-wing figures like Sean Hannity and – yes! – Donald Trump praising and defending him, while the ostensible liberals take up the cry of the Clinton campaign that he’s a “pawn of the Kremlin” and a “rapist.” Even Glenn Greenwald, formerly a comrade-in-arms, who together with Assange helped Edward Snowden evade the not-so-loving arms of Uncle Sam, has lately sought to distance himself from the founder of WikiLeaks (over the value of “curation”). Nice timing, Glenn!

Funny how that works.

Now we see that the Ecuadorian government, which has provided sanctuary for Assange ever since the frame-up “rape” charges by the Swedes were brought, is succumbing to pressure from Washington to silence him. As Assange released the now famous Podesta emails, that – among other things – exposed the collusion of the media and the Clinton campaign in delicious detail, John Kerry demanded that the Ecuadorians cut off Assange’s Internet access – and they meekly complied. Of course, since leftist Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has openly endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and openly abhors Trump, this is hardly surprising: this is how the left operates internationally, as well as in this country – if you stray from the party line it doesn’t take long before the knives come out, aimed directly at one’s back.

In any case, Correa’s betrayal seems to have been short-circuited by the ever-resourceful Assange, who is still releasing incriminating emails. This is someone with a Plan!

Coincident with all this is the culmination of the long “legal” process initiated by the Swedish government, which is falsely accusing Assange of “rape.” He was supposed to have met with Swedish prosecutors on Monday, but has put off the meeting until November 14 – after the US elections.

Given Sweden’s bizarre laws on the subject, and the provenance of his accusers, the smear campaign aimed at Assange has zero credibility. No one believes these charges (and remember, he has never been formally charged) aren’t motivated by Washington’s stated desire to get him extradited to the US on “espionage” charges – and there isn’t anyone who thinks that the British government (which has spent millions making sure he stays holed up in Ecuador’s embassy) wouldn’t do so given half a chance.

Is it a coincidence that the way the Establishment tries to destroy those who oppose it is by hurling sex charges at them? They did the same thing to Dan Ellsberg: it’s the oldest trick in the book.

To continue reading: Assange’s Fate

Julian Assange: The Untold Story Of An Epic Struggle For Justice, by John Pilger

Julian Assange, one of the guiding lights of Wikileaks, is not in prison, but he might as well be. He has been confined to a room at the Ecudorean embassy in London for three years. From John Pilger at newmatilda.com:

The siege of Knightsbridge is both an emblem of gross injustice and a gruelling farce. For three years, a police cordon around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. It has cost £12 million. The quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country.

His “crime” is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. From August 20, three quarters of the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires.

At the same time Washington’s obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power that offers the greatest threat – as Chelsea Manning and those still held in Guantanamo can attest.

The Americans are pursuing Assange because WikiLeaks exposed their epic crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they covered up, and their contempt for sovereignty and international law, as demonstrated vividly in their leaked diplomatic cables.

WikiLeaks continues to expose criminal activity by the US, having just published top secret US intercepts – US spies’ reports detailing private phone calls of the presidents of France and Germany, and other senior officials, relating to internal European political and economic affairs.

None of this is illegal under the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they]must be protected from reprisal”.

In 2012, the campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama boasted on its website that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined.

Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had pronounced the whisletblower guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to 35 years in prison, having been tortured during his long pre-trial detention.

Few doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. Threats of the capture and assassination of Assange became the currency of the political extremes in the US following Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.

Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president’s plane in 2013 – wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden.

According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a “manhunt target list”. Washington’s bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is “unprecedented in scale and nature”.

In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent five years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.

Faced with this constitutional hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”.

To continue reading: Julian Assange: The Untold Story Of An Epic Struggle For Justice