Category Archives: CIA

Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative

From the mouth of feminist icon Gloria Steinem, 82, an admission that she had worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Below is my transcript of the undated interview with a young Gloria Steinem.

Beginning at the 0:14 mark:

Interviewer: “When did your association with the CIA start and in what fashion — they come to you, or did you go to them?”

Steinem: “In 1958, when I came home from India, I discussed with student leaders past and present, many of them with the National Student Association, this kind of small foundation to encourage Americans to go. They thought it was a good idea too. I was then told by foundations and professors and friends that I should not do this, that I would get in trouble with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, the American Legion, all of those ’50s people. And I became convinced that it was impossible. It was at that point that the student leaders said to me that they had in the past received funds for international programs from the CIA, and that they felt this was important and could also be partly funded by the CIA.”

Note: The National Student Association (NSA) was a confederation of college and university student governments that was in operation from 1947 to 1978. From the early 1950s until 1967, the international program of the NSA, and some of its domestic activities, were underwritten by clandestine funding from the CIA. The revelation of the NSA’s ties to the CIA sparked a national scandal but did not measurably damage the NSA’s standing with student governments. The NSA formally cut its ties with the CIA. In 1969, the NSA held its annual meeting in El Paso, Texas, where thousands of student delegates overwhelmed the city, particularly the Hotel Cortez, with music, drugs, and free love. The NSA originally housed the United States Student Press Association (USSPA), and its news agency, College Press Service (CPS). In 1978 the NSA merged with the National Student Lobby (NSL), to form the United States Student Association (USSA).

Interviewer: “Did you feel that you really tried. I mean did you go around to all the wealthy private foundations, wealthy private people, and explain your point of view, and explain why you felt it was important that the United States be represented in a certain way. What did they tell you?”

Steiner: “Uh, they told me that, well, the Ford Foundation for instance told me that they thought we were too liberal and too controversial and that we would endanger their cultural programs in Austria — the first festival was being held in Vienna. It was not encouraging at all, and the private individuals to whom I went often had particular points of view to put forward which would have been much, much more restricting than the CIA funds which were free — I mean no one was told what to say.”

Interviewer: “Do you mean to say it was easier for you to work with the CIA than a private –”

Steinem: “That’s right, that’s right, and the reason I think that comes as a surprise. It did to me at the time. I had the conventional liberal view that the CIA is a right-wing incendiary group, and I was amazed to discover that this was far from the case, that they were enlightened liberals, non-partisan activists of the sort who characterized the Kennedy Administration, for instance”

Interviewer: “You have not been working there for the CIA since 1962. You still criticized, you were there in Washington.”

Steiner: “Yes, when the story broke that I had once been, for years, a Central Intelligence agent, I was demonstrating outside the Pentagon underneath Mr. McNamara’s office against bombing in Vietnam. And this didn’t precisely fit with the image of a CIA agent, but then neither did the CIA.”

Note: Robert McNamara (1916–2009) was U.S. Secretary of Defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; and president of the World Bank.

From Wikipedia:

In May 1975, Redstockings, a radical feminist group, published a report on the Vienna Youth Festival that Steinem and others had put together for the Independent Research Service.[90][91] Though she acknowledged having worked for the CIA-financed foundation in the late 1950s and early 1960s in interviews given to the New York Times and Washington Post in 1967 in the wake of the Ramparts magazine CIA exposures (nearly two years before Steinem attended her first Redstockings or feminist meeting), Steinem in 1975 denied any continuing involvement.[92] An essay, ‘The Religious Crusades of the CIA,’ in the popular online magazine Indiafacts has noted that Gloria Steinem visited Kerala [India] and worked with an American Protestant missionary in 1957 which falls into the time frame described by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his admission that the CIA interfered in Indian politics.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia

The “Russia intervened in 2016 election to favor Trump” conspiracy theory is the Democrats’ last-ditch effort to subvert the election by convincing the Electoral College to vote for Hillary next Monday. There’s even talk of redoing the presidential election itself.
Thus far, all we’ve heard and read is hearsay — by the Washington Post, by Obama, by this or that senator or congressman — that there is a secret CIA report on Russia’s nefarious role in the election in:

  1. Hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton, and her close associate, the very creepy John Podesta.
  2. Giving the hacked emails to unnamed “agents” who then supplied the emails to WikiLeaks to publish.

What the American people have not seen is the actual CIA report.
Stranger still is the fact that although several congressional committees are looking into the suspected Russian interference, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, refused a request to brief the House intelligence committee last Thursday (Dec. 15) on the cyber-attacks.
The legal dictionary defineshearsay” as “A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The dictionary further explains that:

the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.”

And yet we are to accept that on the basis of hearsay about some secret CIA report, which no court would consider as evidence, the Electoral College should overturn the results of the 2016 election by voting for Hillary Clinton as president, despite Donald Trump having attained a majority of Electoral votes of 306 vs. Hillary’s 232.
But we do have a first-person testimony that is not hearsay — from former British ambassador Craig Murray, who claims he had received Hillary Clinton campaign emails, not from Russia, but from “disgusted” Democrat whistleblowers.
craig-murray
Alana Goodman reports for the Daily Mail that in an interview with Dailymail.com on Dec. 13, 2016, Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, said he had flown to Washington, D.C. in September 2016 for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources. Murray retrieved the package during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. The individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.
Murray said:

“Neither of [the email leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from [Democrat Party] inside leaks, not hacks.”

Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.” Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. He said that Podesta’s emails might be “of legitimate interest to the security services” in the U.S. due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from CIA officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Trump win the U.S. presidential election:

“I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true. Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.”

Murray’s account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks:
seth-rich

  • In August 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange intimated that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails. At about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, 27 year-old Rich was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. His murder remains unsolved to this day.
  • More recently in November in an interview with John Pilger, Assange said, “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.”

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office. Murray was cleared of charges of misconduct, but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.
His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believes Russia had hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.
See also:

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Wayne Madsen: Snopes.com is a CIA operation

This morning, our DCG published this post, “Facebook is going to use Snopes and other fact-checkers to combat and bury ‘fake news’“.
Using Snopes as an authority is laughable. According to independent investigative reporter Wayne Madsen, “The so-called ‘fact-checking’ authentication website Snopes.com is the go-to website for CIA propaganda.”
From Madsen’s for-subscribers-only report of Oct. 7, 2016, “Snopes.com: the latest CIA addition to Internet disinformation“:

“On April 19, 2016, WMR reported: […] ‘Snopes.com is run by a California couple named Barbara and David Mikkelson, who founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society . . . The Mikkelsons chose the name Snopes because it is the name of a fictional family featured in William Faulkner’s novels that includes a pedophile, a murderer, a bigamist, a corrupt racist politician, and a thief who live in the fictional Yoknapatawpha County in Mississippi. The idea is to label all those targeted by the Mikkelsons as candidates for membership in the Snopes family. […]’
Snopes.com is on record calling WMR a ‘disreputable web site.’ Nothing says ‘CIA’ more than Snopes.com’s description of legitimate news reports of CIA director John Brennan being a Wahhabist and Saudi sympathizer as ‘bogus.’
Snopes’s most recent dissembling of the truth was to discount reports from Greece that Turkey has been shipping weapons disguised as furniture shipments to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and affiliated terrorist groups in North Africa and Europe.
Snopes claims that because the story of a Greek Coast Guard interception of a weapons shipment south of the island of Crete dates from 2015, there is no validity to the Turkish connection to weapons shipments to ISIL terrorists. The ship transporting the weapons was the Bolivian-flagged Haddad 1, operated by Delta Sea Maritime of Turkey. The vessel had loaded twelve containers at the Egyptian port of Alexandria, a favorite weapons shipment location for the CIA. The ship, before stopping in Famagusta in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, loaded another three containers at the Turkish port of Iskenderun, the transit port for the shipment of captured weapons from Muammar Qaddafi’s arms warehouses to Syrian jihadist rebels. It was the Iskenderun transport operation that involved the late U.S. envoy to Libya Christopher Stevens; Turkish Consul General in Benghazi Ali Sait Akin; CIA director David Petraeus; and, reportedly, senior advisers to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The CIA had to commission its favorite Internet disinformation site to throw cold water on the Turkish weapons links to ISIL because it threatens to expose the CIA’s massive weapons smuggling operations to ISIL terrorists that involved Turi Defense Group of Arizona — a case just buried by the Department of Justice on orders of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign — and other covert weapons transfers being carried out on the orders of ‘Al Hadj’ John Brennan, veteran of the Islamic ritual pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca.
One of the CIA’s smuggling operations entailed the Belgian-based arms manufacturer Fabrique Nationale (FN), which has a CIA-connected subsidiary called FNH-USA. One particular FN rifle, the Fusil Automatique Léger (FAL), was the standard weapon used by the Libyan rebels in 2011 and 2012, including the jihadist group that attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The FAL, called the ‘Right Arm of the Free World’ during the Cold War, uses only NATO standard rounds. The weapon was never used by the Libyan Army, which relied on Soviet weaponry. Claims by NATO that the rebels were using Libyan weapons captured from Libyan army arsenals and caches were patently false.
Snopes is now questioning Turkey’s weapons links to jihadist terrorists in North Africa and Europe. However, photographs do not lie, as seen below. Ammunition and 5,000 shotguns from the Turkish-owned arms dealer Yavex USA were shipped from Istanbul in boxes denoted as plastic office furniture manufactured by the Turkish firm ‘Senyayla Plastik Sanayi ve Ticaret A/S’ of Istanbul. The Turkish government and the CIA had their ‘plausible deniability’ cover story on the intercepted weapons and ammunition ready to go just after the Greek Coast Guard interception: The 492,000 handgun bullets were destined for the Sudanese national police and were to be delivered through the port of Beirut, Lebanon and the 4900 shotguns were ‘hunting rifles’ destined for Lebanese customers. The Haddad 1 was stopping at the Libyan ports of Misrata and Tobruk, according to the Turkish government, to deliver bags of ‘cement mix.’ At the time of the interception, Libya was subject to a United Nations arms embargo.
madsen1madsen2madsen3
Yavex’s U.S. subsidiary is located at 6361 Corporate Park Circle in Fort Myers, Florida. It is clear that both Yavex USA, Turi Defense Group, and FN-USA, now called FN-America, were involved in a covert CIA weapons smuggling operation in violation of the UN arms embargoes imposed on Libya, and later, on Syria, with the connivance of Hillary Clinton. Not surprisingly, FN-America operates from a post office box in McLean, Virginia, not far from CIA headquarters in Langley.
What may have possessed Hillary Clinton to destroy thousands of State Department emails transmitted, processed, and stored on her personal servers? Perhaps it was her involvement in a major CIA weapons smuggling operation that saw U.S. and NATO weapons being shipped to jihadist terrorists in Libya, Syria, and Europe. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton had ultimate authority for approving U.S. weapons transfers abroad pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act.
As far as Snopes.com is concerned, nothing they report should be taken seriously. They are as reliable a news source as The Onion.”

barbara-and-david-mikkelson
According to Wikipedia, the Mikkelsons, a California couple, created the Snopes site in 1995. By mid-2014, the couple had divorced and Barbara Mikkelson had not written for the site “in several years”. So David Mikkelson “hired employees to assist him from Snopes.com’s message board.” Barbara no longer has an ownership stake in Snopes.com.
In other words, we are to believe that one man, David Mikkelson, with “assistants” he’d hired from Snopes’ message board, manages to pump out a steady stream of researched articles every day. If you believe that, I have the proverbial swamp in Florida to sell you.
Dog eyeroll
H/t Will Shanley
See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama administration's DHS, not Russia, hacked cyber-networks of Georgia, Kentucky and West Virginia

I awoke in pre-dawn early morning to the overnight TV news of a last-ditch effort to subvert the 2016 presidential election.
The Obama administration, Republican reprobates like Sens. Lindsey Graham (long rumored to be a closeted homosexual) and John McCain, as well as the usual Hollyweirdo suspects (see this video) are all clamoring that Putin and the Russian government hacked the 2016 presidential election to favor Donald Trump, and that next Monday, the Electoral College must cast their votes for Hillary Clinton instead of President-elect Donald Trump.
All this despite the fact that:
(1) The American people have been given only hearsay that the CIA and “other intelligence agencies” found Russia to have intervened in the election — not the actual CIA report that, we are told, is “secret”.

If the Electoral College is going to subvert the will of the people, let’s see that CIA report!!!

(2) Lead media attack dog Washington Post‘s own article on the alleged CIA secret report does not actually say that the Russian government “intervened” in the election, nor that Moscow actually directed its witting or unwitting “agents” (the List of 200) to provide the hacked Democrat emails to WikiLeaks. See “Fake News: Washington Post’s CIA report that Russia intervened in elections to help Trump”.
(3) CIA personnel say there is no such “secret” CIA report. See “CIA: Washington Post lied about a secret CIA report that Russia intervened in 2016 election”.
Instead of Russian hackers, it is the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security that are the cyber hackers — according to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

Aaron Diamant reports for WSB-TV2 Atlanta, Dec. 15, 2016:

The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office now confirms 10 separate cyberattacks on its network were all traced back to U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.
In an exclusive interview, a visibly frustrated Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed the attacks of different levels on his agency’s network over the last 10 months. He says they all traced back to DHS internet provider addresses.
[…] The Secretary of State’s Office manages Georgia’s elections, and most concerning for Kemp about the newly discovered scans is the timing.
The first one happened on Feb. 2, the day after Georgia’s voter registration deadline. The next one took place just days before the SEC primary. Another occurred in May, the day before the general primary, and then two more took place in November, the day before and the day of the presidential election.
“It makes you wonder if somebody was trying to prove a point,” Kemp said. […]
Kemp says several of those scans came around the same time he testified before Congress about his opposition to a federal plan to classify election systems as “critical infrastructure,” like power plants and financial systems.Kemp believes Georgia’s state-run election systems are already secure and doesn’t think the feds should be involved.
The DHS did not return Diamant’s emails seeking comment Tuesday.

In a tweet, Diamant reports that WSB-TV has received “documents” showing that two other states’ elections agencies — those of Kentucky and West Virginia — had also been hacked by the Department of Homeland Security:
aaron-diamant-tweet-about-dhs-cyber-attacks
Why isn’t this news reported by Washington Post and the national alphabet TV networks?
H/t IWB, The Sean Hannity Show, and FOTM‘s JCscuba
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

CIA: Washington Post lied about a secret CIA report that Russia intervened in 2016 election

Since being bought by billionaire Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Washington Post has degenerated into a newspaper of fake news, conspiracy theories, and sinister McCarthyism.
Recall that it was the Washington Post that, without making even a feeble effort at investigative journalism or verification, cited the work of a shadowy anonymous newly-founded website Is It Propaganda or Not? (PropOrNot) naming 200 websites as conscious or unconscious purveyors of Russian propaganda and “fake news”. The List of 200 includes WikiLeaks, Drudge Report, and this humble little blog, FOTM. (See “FOTM made the List of 200 secret-Russian-agents websites!“)
Most recently, Washington Post claims an anonymous “government official” said a secret CIA report has concluded that the Russian government intervened in the 2016 presidential election to favor Donald Trump by giving hacked Democrat emails to its agents to be published by WikiLeaks. The only problem is a careful reading of the Washington Post article shows that the alleged CIA report doesn’t actually say that, which means the Washington Post outright lied. (See “Fake News: Washington Post’s CIA report that Russia intervened in elections to help Trump“)
Now, Philadelphia based conservative news organization True Pundit is confirming that the Washington Post indeed lied — CIA personnel say there is no such CIA report.
hillary-clinton-in-fake-news-protector-hat
From True Pundit, Dec. 12, 2016:

The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an ‘outright lie,’ according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case….
‘It’s an outright lie,’ a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. ‘There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.’
Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks.

(Note: See “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails”)

On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post.
CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.
“If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.

(Note: See “CIA director John Brennan, suspected Muslim, voted for the Communist Party”)

Trump has already named Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as Brennan’s successor and CIA personnel anxiously anticipate Brennan’s departure, sources said. (But you won’t read about that in the Washington Post.)
Could the Russian state be linked to hacking to influence the 2016 U.S. election? Intelligence analysts, again, reiterate there is no overwhelming current evidence to definitively link any government to such rogue actions.
CIA personnel said any official information released by Brennan or the White House on this issue prior to President Barack Obama’s departure from office should be discounted and tuned out as partisan ‘white noise.’
The CIA sources’ collective assessment that the Washington Post purposely and brutally misrepresented the CIA’s findings is the third blow to the embattled newspaper in the last week, having been busted writing two other high profile fake stories on national security that were quickly proven to be problematic and ultimately bogus.
A veteran beltway journalist, author and award-winning professor…Greg Morris [said about the Washington Post], ‘They just make news up, fabricate whatever news was required at the time, especially when they were scooped or embarrassed by other publications…. Sometimes they did it because they believed they were entitled. Nothing has changed.’
Morris worked for Time Magazine, the New York Post, Gannett’s Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in Rochester, NY and Washington Star, D.C. A graduate of Cornell University with a bachelor and Master’s degree, Morris is currently an award winning journalism professor at Hunter College in New York City.
Morris has chronicled the decline of the mainstream media, especially the Washington Post, for 30 years as a professor and journalist and is currently working on a new book about corruption in undergraduate higher education.
Morris said the Washington Post’s latest foray into make-believe journalism with the CIA Russian story had several glaring inconsistencies that are often hallmarks of fabricated, fake news, including:

  • Story debates itself. Certain parts of the story directly contradict other so-called facts of the same story. The reader is rendered bewildered; the narrative’s “facts” prove untrustworthy.
  • Haphazard construction. The story’s sloppy foundations and reporting were likely the result of it being constructed on a rush basis or under pressure from editors or the publisher.
  • Weak sourcing. The story fails to nail down a true link between what the Post claims and DIRECT confirmation from CIA sources.

There are no sources with direct knowledge, it’s just all hearsay,’ Morris said. ‘Who cares what some partisan Senators or lawmakers say they were told. The Post needs real sources on this. Without CIA sources, this story wouldn’t even make it out of my classroom alive.
The editors should be fired. If you’re covering national security as a reporter for the Post or New York Times, LA Times, and don’t have CIA sources at your fingertips, find another job.’
Morris is far from alone when questioning the Washington Post’s credibility on its concocted narrative of the flimsy CIA-Russian allegations story.”

H/t Jim Stone
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Everything is Russia's fault! Obama admin warns Russian hacks may fake election fraud!

The Obama administration has a new all-purpose bogeyman: Russia.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. government identified the Russia government as the hacker of those embarrassing Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails that WikiLeaks has been releasing, and formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations to interfere with the election process.

See “WikiLeaks Podesta emails: Clinton Foundation works with Big Pharma to keep AIDS drug prices high

But the Obama administration provided no actual evidence beyond a vague statement that the CIA is “confident” Russia is the hacker.
Now, the Obama administration has gazed into its crystal ball and issued a new warning — that Russian hackers may fake election fraud.
In other words, sheeple, don’t believe it even if you see clear evidence of voter fraud! That’s just fake voter fraud conjured by those nasty Russians! Baaaaa!
sheeple watch TV
Reuters reports, Oct. 20, 2016, that speaking “on condition of anonymity,” U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials “are warning that hackers with ties to Russia’s intelligence services could try to undermine the credibility of the presidential election by posting documents online purporting to show evidence of voter fraud,” so as “to create public perceptions of widespread voter fraud.”
The unnamed officials said that they don’t actually have specific evidence of such a nefarious plan, but state and local election authorities had been warned to be vigilant for hacking attempts. U.S. elections are run by state and local officials, not the federal government. On Nov. 8, votes will be cast in hundreds of thousands of polling stations in 9,000 different jurisdictions, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State.
The unnamed officials said “evidence indicates that suspected Russian government-backed hackers have so far tried to attack voter registration databases operated by more than 20 states. Tracing the attacks can be difficult but breaches of only two such databases have been confirmed.”
At the same time, the unnamed officials also said there is no evidence that any hackers have succeeded in accessing equipment or databases used to record votes, and insisted that many states use systems that would be difficult to hack or defraud, including paper ballots which initially are tallied by machines. The officials said that the U.S. election system is so large, diffuse and antiquated that hackers would not be able to change the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
The U.S. officials declined to comment on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s contention that the election is being “rigged.” Trump had said in the third and final presidential debate last Wednesday night that he would not say until the election results were known whether or not he would accept the outcome. A day after the debate, Trump said he would accept the results of the election “if I win” and that he reserved the “right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.”
Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director who declared his endorsement of  Hillary Clinton in a New York Times op-ed, accused Trump of being “an unwitting agent of Putin” and that Trump “does not even know he is being manipulated.” On August 8, 2016, Morell told PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose that the U.S. should kill Russians and Iranians to teach them a lesson for supporting the Syrian government against the so-called “rebels” who include radical jihadists.
michael-morell
Rose asked Morell: “We make them pay the price by killing Russians?” Morell answered, “Yeah.” Rose then asked, “And killing Iranians?,” to which Morell said, “Yes … You don’t tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
Meanwhile, ZeroHedge reports that Smartmatic, a company associated with George Soros, has secured major contracts to supply electronnic voting machines for 16 states in the U.S., including key battleground states like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
According to Gateway Pundit, Smartmatic’s board includes Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a man who had served on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and who was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds.
lord-mark-malloch-brown
According to a cable released by WikiLeaks, in 2000 Smartmatic came out of nowhere and suddenly snatched up major contracts to supply voting machines around the world, including in Venezuela where its board included a Hugo Chavez campaign adviser. In 2004, with Smartmatic voting machines in place, Hugo Chavez won a “landslide victory” that all but destroyed his political opposition.
Here’s the cable:
smartmactic-corporation
While the Obama administration is busy accusing Russia of hacking, it turns out the real cyber threat is China.
According to Bloomberg, Internet-connected CCTV cameras made by a Chinese firm, Hangzhou Xiongmai Technology Co., were infected with malware that allowed hackers to takeover “tens of millions” of devices to launch the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks across the U.S. last Friday, Oct. 21.
In fact, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff recently warned the U.S. military against using equipment made by China’s Lenovo computer manufacturer amid concerns about cyber spying against Pentagon networks. A Sept. 28 internal report from the Pentagon’s J-2 intelligence directorate warned that use of Lenovo products could facilitate cyber intelligence-gathering against both classified and unclassified—but still sensitive—U.S. military networks. One official said Lenovo equipment in the past was detected “beaconing”—covertly communicating with remote users in the course of cyber intelligence-gathering.
See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Why it's not illegal to hack those WikiLeaks emails

In recent days, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have made bombastic threats of cyber-attacking Russia because they claim Russia had hacked into those DNC, Hillary and Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, which are embarrassing and damaging to Hillary’s presidential ambitions.

See “Who really hacked the WikiLeaks emails? – Russia, Romania or the CIA?


However, neither Hillary nor the Obama administration has given any evidence that Russia is the hacker, although that hasn’t stopped the media whores from  parroting that allegation as truth. Indeed of solid evidence of Russia’s hacking, what the administration said in its press release on this matter is that the U.S. intelligence community merely “is confident” that the Russian government is the hacker.
In other words, the U.S. is prepared to instigate a likely World War III by going to war — cyber or military — against Russia based on the CIA’s vague sense of “confidence”.
Donald Trump pointed that out in the second 2016 presidential debate on October 9. In response to Hillary saying “Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election,” Trump stated a simple truth:

“She doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking.”

Hillary’s media whore, CNN’s Chris Cuomo, even declared that we must not read those emails because “it’s illegal to possess [and read] these stolen documents” — which is rich, coming from Cuomo who had openly admitted that the media are whole-hog for lawless Hillary, saying “We couldn’t help her any more than we have, she’s got just a free ride so far from the media, we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”
In other words, it’s illegal only when we the little people do it, but it’s okay for Hillary to conduct business as U.S. secretary of state with an unsecured email server, in direct violation of State Department rules and U.S. law.
Instead of reading those hacked emails ourselves — which is “illegal”! — Cuomo says we are to rely on media whores like him to read those emails — which is legal! — and tell us what’s in those emails. But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out, “The First Amendment offers the same protection to the media as to the rest of us…, the media has no more First Amendment rights than the rest of us.”
But is possession (and reading) of the hacked emails by us little people really illegal?
William Dunkerley, a media business analyst and the author of Ukraine in the Crosshairs (2014 Omnicom Press) and Litvinenko Murder Case Solved (2015 Omnicom Press), maintains that the hacked emails are not stolen because they are in the public domain because no one owns them. And since the emails are not owned by anyone, how then can they be stolen?
In an article for Russia Insider on Oct. 18, 2016, Dunkerley writes:

The issue here is whether or not any documents were stolen. Some suggest that they instead have been leaked by an insider. But no evidence of a leak has been presented.
The overarching issue, however, is that there is no legitimate legal theory under which the documents could have been stolen. Here’s why. For something to have been stolen there must be an owner from whom it was stolen. The fact is that no one had legal ownership of those State Department documents.
On the surface that may sound preposterous. They were indeed State Department documents after all.
But nothing was taken physically. No papers were removed from any premises or taken away from any person. What’s at issue here is “intellectual property.” The body of law that deals with content such as the emails in question is US Copyright Law. It allows a person or organization to own intellectual property.
That law does not protect the emails in question, though. That’s because the law specifically exempts content produced by federal government employees as a part of their jobs. It is considered to be in the public domain. There is no owner. There is no one to have stolen from.
Then there is the question of why the Clinton campaign is focused on whomever or however the emails were obtained. If the Russians had done the hacking, and for all I know they very well may have, why is Russia being blamed for the publication?
Isn’t the publication of the emails the source of Clinton’s embarrassment? Why isn’t Wikileaks the focus of Hillary’s angst? If Russia had just put hacked emails in a vault, would the Clinton campaign be so aggrieved?
That points to the essence of this whole Russian hacking story. It really doesn’t matter who got the ball rolling. It’s the publication of the emails that hurts. And the publication of public domain content does not infringe anyone’s copyright.
I suspect that Russia is being targeted as part of a provocation. Even the use of the word “stolen” is pejorative.

Which then explains why the Obama administration is instrumental in cutting off WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s Internet connection. (See “The Evil Empire strikes back: WikiLeaks’ Internet connection severed; RT’s bank accounts frozen“)
On October 16, Assange’s Internet service was intentionally cut off by “a state actor,” identified by WikiLeaks as the government of Ecuador. Assange has been holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London for the past 4 years.
wikileaks-tweet
On October 18, WikiLeaks tweeted that they were told by “multiple U.S. sources” that the Obama administration had pressured Ecuador to sever Assange’s Internet connection:
wikileaks-tweet-on-john-kerry“FARC peace negotiations” refers to the ongoing negotiations between the Columbian government and the country’s largest Marxist rebel group — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (in Spanish, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC), a guerrilla movement in the continuing 5-decades long Colombian armed conflict since 1964.
An article on wsws.org makes an interesting observation:

Whether the State Department [John Kerry] was the only entity placing pressure on Ecuador on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or whether Wall Street also intervened directly, is unclear. The timing of the Internet cutoff, in the immediate aftermath of the release of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, may be more than coincidental.
In the spring of 2014, the government of Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half of its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years, in an attempt to raise cash to cover a growing deficit brought on by the collapse in oil prices. It reportedly sent 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at the time, in return for “high security” financial instruments and an anticipated profit on its investment. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to believe that such a relationship would give Goldman Sachs considerable leverage in relation to the Ecuadorian government.
In any case, it is evident that the US ruling establishment is growing increasingly desperate to stanch the flow of previously secret emails and documents that are exposing the real character not only of Clinton […]
The transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and other top banks and employers’ groups, for which she was paid on average $200,000 per appearance, are the most incriminating. They expose the workings of the oligarchy that rules America and the thinking and actions of a politician prepared to do anything to advance the interests of this ruling stratum, while simultaneously accruing ever greater riches and power for herself.
While on the campaign trail, Clinton has postured as a “progressive,” determined to hold Wall Street’s feet to the fire. But in her speeches to Goldman Sachs, she made clear her unconditional defense of the banks and financial houses. Under conditions of popular outrage against the bankers and their role in dragging millions into crisis in the financial meltdown of 2008, Clinton gave speeches praising the Wall Street financiers and insisting that they were best equipped to regulate themselves. She apologized to them for supporting the toothless Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law, saying that it had to be enacted for “political reasons.”
In front of her Wall Street audiences, Clinton made clear she had no inhibitions about ordering mass slaughter abroad. While telling her public audiences that she supports a “no-fly zone” in Syria as a humanitarian measure to save lives, she confidentially acknowledged to her Goldman Sachs audience that such an action is “going to kill a lot of Syrians” and become “an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” In the same speech she declared her willingness to bomb Iran.
The emails have laid bare the nexus of corrupt connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, her various campaigns and her network of financial and corporate donors, which together constitute a quasi-criminal influence-peddling enterprise that could best be described as “Clinton, Inc.”
The revelations contained in the WikiLeaks material have been ignored or downplayed by the corporate media, which instead has focused unrelentingly on the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Clinton’s Republican rival, Donald Trump.

H/t Will Shanley
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Who really hacked the WikiLeaks emails? – Russia, Romania or the CIA?

Calling it “a direct assault on our democracy,” Hillary and the Obama administration are pointing their finger at the Russian government as the hacker of the never-ending stream of embarrassing and damaging Democrat emails published by WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks groups those emails into three data bases:

  1. DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails
  2. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails
  3. John Podesta emails (Podesta is the longtime Democrat apparatchik who is currently the chairman of Hillary’s presidential campaign).

Based on that accusation, Obama recently instructed the CIA to prep for a cyber attack on Russia. On NBC’s Meet the Press on Oct. 16, Vice President Joe Biden spoke ominously that U.S. retaliation “will be proportional in what we do” “at a time of our choosing and in circumstances that have the greatest impact.”
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25A6cI6QPIo]
Hillary was equally bombastic. On August 31, 2016, she vowed that when she is President, she will treat Russia’s alleged “cyber attacks just like any other attack . . . with serious political, economic, and military responses.”
In effect, Hillary threatens to unleash what can become World War III in retaliation for Russia’s alleged hacking of emails.

But we are not told or shown the actual evidence that points to Russia as the hacker. So why should we believe it?
What we do have are evidence and testimonies that a Romanian hacker and perhaps the CIA are the hackers.

(1) FBI: No hack of Hillary’s email server

To begin, the whole question of who the hacker(s) is, is itself in question because none other than the FBI had said there’s no evidence that then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server had even been hacked in the first place. In his press release of July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey said:

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.

(2) FBI: Hillary’s email hacked by Romania

That’s what FBI director James Comey publicly said. Privately, however, in FBI’s transcription of witness interviews, the FBI said a different story.
The latest Hillary Clinton document release by the FBI includes a 100-page document identified as FD-302a — summaries from FBI interviews conducted with employees of and various parties associated with Platt River Networks (PRN), the Denver-based IT (information technology) firm that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hired to manage her email system.
Until 2013, Hillary’s private, unsecured email server was located in her home in Chappaqua, New York. In early 2013, PRN won the bid for a contract to be the email server of not only Hillary Clinton, but also email domains associated with Bill Clinton and Clinton aides, e.g., Sidney Blumenthal, a close confidante of Hillary who was Bill Clinton’s White House aide and a major proponent of the “Arab Spring” rebellion in Libya that ousted Muammar Qaddafi and plunged Libya into a blood-soaked civil war. PRN’s account with the Clintons was under the name CESC.
According to an FBI interview conducted on June 6, 2016 with an unnamed employee working for a US defense contractor in “missile, space and intelligence,” while trying to determine if Hillary’s private server had been breached from the outside by “a foreign power,” the defense contractor employee found files from the server of Sidney Blumenthal residing on a server in Romania. The Romanian server contained approximately 200 Microsoft Word, Excel, and other file types belonging to Blumenthal. “Upon viewing this file”, the unnamed witness “became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project.”

(3) Guccifer

Guccifer Lehel
In an NBC interview in May 2016, Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel, aka Guccifer, claimed that in addition to hacking Sidney Blumenthal, he had also gained access to Hillary’s “completely unsecured” server. Referring to Hillary’s emails, Guccifer said, “It was like an open orchid on the Internet. There were hundreds of folders.”
It was in 2013 that Guccifer breached Blumenthal’s inbox and exposed Hillary’s private email address, which forced her to change her username.
In subsequent questioning by the FBI, however, Guccifer recanted and said he had lied about hacking Hillary’s server. But according to independent investigative reporter Wayne Madsen, Lehel/Guccifer was arrested by Romanian authorities for publicizing Hillary’s private emails that he had hacked during the time frame surrounding the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Romania then very obligingly extradicted Lehel to the U.S., where he was prosecuted in the court of the U.S. Eastern District of Virginia, described by Madsen as “the U.S. military-intelligence community’s ‘rocket docket’ for quick prosecutions without the worry of classified information being disclosed during a trial.”
Last week, Guccifer was quietly sent back to Romania where he will remain for the duration of his 52 month sentence.

(4) Guccifer 2.0

“Guccifer 2.0” is a person or persons claiming to have hacked into the DNC computer network and then leaked its documents to WikiLeaks. In August 2016, Guccifer 2.0 posted an excel spreadsheet on his blog which includes the personal cell phone number, physical and email address, as well as full personal information of some 200 Congressional Democrats. (See “Nancy Pelosi had to change phone number after receiving scores of obscene and sick calls“)
According to Wikipedia, some of the documents released by Guccifer 2.0 “appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.” The Obama administration’s intelligence community and cybersecurity experts and firms say that some of the genuine leaks claimed by Guccifer 2.0 are part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC by two Russian intelligence groups. But the Russian government claims it had no involvement in the theft.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also said there’s no proof that Russia was behind the attack. In an interview on Dutch television on August 9, 2016, Assange implied that the source of the leaked DNC emails was a 27-year-old DNC staffer named Seth Conrad Rich who, at about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about Rich’s death; WikiLeaks has a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction. Rich’s murder remains unsolved. (See “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails”)

(5) The CIA

In a for-subscribers-only post on October 17, 2016, Wayne Madsen — author of the recently-published book, The Almost Classified Guide to CIA Front Companies, Proprietaries & Contractors — claims that he was told by “top Republican Party sources not connected with the Donald Trump presidential campaign” that the CIA, not Russia, “has been conducting unprecedented interference in the 2016 campaigns for the presidency and Congress,” which Madsen calls “unparalleled in U.S. electoral history.”
The CIA’s code name for its clandestine interference in the 2016 election is “The Wave” — meaning “a wave” of Democrat victories on November 8.
To support his claim, Madsen makes the following points:

  1. The CIA favors Hillary Clinton, who has the endorsement of top retired CIA officials — former acting CIA director Mike Morrel; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden (who said Hillary would be a better president than the “incoherent” Trump); former CIA director David Petraeus (who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last May that condemned Trump’s rhetoric without mentioning Trump’s name: “inflammatory political discourse . . . has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.”); and former CIA director Robert Gates. The only former CIA director who has publicly endorsed Trump is James Woolsey, who describes himself as a life-long Democrat. Woolsey was Bill Clinton’s first CIA director. Bill fired Woolsey in December 1994 after CIA officer Aldrich Ames was revealed to be a Soviet spy.
  2. But the CIA wants Trump as the GOP presidential candidate because Trump, whose “embarrassing skeletons are well known to the CIA,” is “the best opportunity for the Democrats to retain the White House and decisively win back control of the U.S. Senate and, quite possibly, the House of Representatives.”
  3. Ohio was the one state where CIA operatives were unsuccessful in ensuring a Trump victory in the GOP primaries. Kasich won his home state’s primary and the state capital of Columbus serves as a GOP bulwark against Trump forces — comprised of Kasich, Ohio Republican chairman Matt Borges, Senator Rob Portman who is running for re-election, and state auditor Dave Yost. It was the CIA’s interference in Ohio that “showed its hand in the state,” which “became known to an inner circle of Republicans, both current and former office holders.” Presumably, those Republicans are Madsen’s informants.
  4. To ensure Trump’s defeat on November 8, a former CIA clandestine services officer, Evan McMullin, is running as an independent spoiler in normally solid-Republican Utah to siphon votes away from Trump. McMullin, a Mormon and a former banking executive for Goldman Sachs, is making a difference in Utah, which many polls now rate as a toss-up state between Trump and Clinton.
  5. Madsen: “Underlying the CIA subterfuge directed against the Ohio Republican Party are some recent suspicious and untimely deaths, including one individual who revealed the existence of ‘The Wave’ operation and two former Republican congressmen who may have been briefed on ‘The Wave.'” The suspicious deaths include:
    • A female CIA officer, who retired to her native Ohio and first spoke to a select audience about the CIA’s involvement in the 2016 election, contracted a fatal form of cancer and died soon thereafter.
    • Michael Oxley, a former Congressman (Ohio) who had served as an FBI agent and was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and House sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that regulated Wall Street after the collapse of the CIA-linked Enron, died of lung cancer in McLean, Virginia, on January 1, 2016, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Oxley never smoked.
    • Steve LaTourette, a 9-term Congressman (Ohio) and a close confidante of House Speaker John Boehner, died of pancreatic cancer at his home also in McLean, VA, on August 4, 2016. McLean is adjacent to CIA headquarters in Langley. In May 2015, LaTourette sued the federal government over a misdiagnosis of his cancer by U.S. Capitol doctors in 2012.

Madsen then makes the bold assertion that the CIA is “at the forefront of proffering intelligence” that Russia has been leaking hacked Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. All of this is actually “a ruse by the CIA to cover the tracks on its own interference in the election by running interference for Trump throughout the primaries” so as “to hand Hillary Clinton the White House and the Democrats the Congress with the gift-wrapping and ribbons supplied by the CIA.”
H/t Will Shanley and ZeroHedge

UPDATE:

Interestingly, a new Rasmussen Reports poll found that most voters aren’t buying the story that the Russians are trying to manipulate the election for Donald Trump. Instead, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s more likely that many in the media are working to get Clinton elected president. Only 26% believe Hillary-Obama’s accusation that the Russian government is working to get Trump elected; 18% are not sure.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

State Department tried to bribe FBI to unclassify Clinton emails

And yet I’m sure nothing will become of this. Corruption is the new norm in DC.
Hillary Clinton what difference does it make
Via NY Post: A top State Department official offered a bribe — a “quid pro quo” — to an FBI official in an attempt to declassify certain emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server that were previously deemed classified, according to FBI documents released Monday.
The documents allege Patrick Kennedy proposed the deal in exchange for the FBI being allowed to operate in countries where it’s currently banned.

Patrick Kennedy

Patrick Kennedy


“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’” states the FBI document, a summary of an interview the agency conducted in investing Clinton’s email server.
“[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” the document adds.
The redactions in the FBI documents strike the name of the official who was talking with Kennedy.
During a later meeting with the FBI, CIA and other agencies, Kennedy was asked whether any of the emails in question were classified. “Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see,’” Kennedy responded.
Donald Trump’s campaign pointed to the new documents as proof that the State Department and FBI worked together to protect Clinton. “These FBI documents provide undeniable proof that Hillary Clinton colluded with the FBI, DOJ and State Department to cover up criminal activity at the highest levels. Hillary Clinton has recklessly put our national security at extreme risk,” Trump surrogate Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said in a statement to the press.
We have men and women putting their lives on the line for this country. If any person had done a fraction of what she has done with our sensitive information, they would be criminally charged and those in our military would be court-martialed. Hillary Clinton acts as though she is above the law and therefore, she is not fit to serve as commander in chief,” Flynn added.
The FBI documents come from the more than year-long FBI investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server.
FBI Director James Comey announced in July that he would recommend the Justice Department not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.
It's good to be a demorat...

It’s good to be a demorat…


Days later, Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement saying she agreed with Comey’s assessment — and that charges against Clinton would not be filed.
DCG

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

It's war: CIA prepping for cyber attack on Russia

The Obama administration has been itching to go to war with Russia — first, over Ukraine/Crimea; then, over Syria because the Russian military actually attacks ISIS and the jihadist Syrian “rebels” while Obama (and Israel and Saudi Arabia) wants to topple Syria’s Assad government who is friendly toward Christians.

See “U.S. breaks off talks with Russia, as Russians prepare for war with massive civil defense drill

The latest “reason” is the Obama administration’s accusation that Russia hacked the emails of the DNC, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta, the chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign campaign — emails that WikiLeaks has been leaking, to the Dems’ embarrassment.
See, for example:

But according to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, it was a murdered DNC staffer who was the source of leaked DNC emails.
Now comes ominous news that the CIA is preparing to launch a cyber attack on Russia.
cyberwarNBC News reports, Oct. 14, 2016:

The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.
The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Joe Biden told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that “we’re sending a message” to Putin and that “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” [But] When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, “Hope not.”
[…] Sean Kanuck, who was until this spring the senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for analyzing Russian cyber capabilities, said not mounting a response would carry a cost.
“If you publicly accuse someone,” he said, “and don’t follow it up with a responsive action, that may weaken the credible threat of your response capability.”
President Obama will ultimately have to decide whether he will authorize a CIA operation. Officials told NBC News that for now there are divisions at the top of the administration about whether to proceed.
[…] Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far as to attack Russian networks.
“Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don’t want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us,” he said. “My own view is that our response shouldn’t be covert — it should overt, for everybody to see.” [Good luck with that, Morrell, because this news of CIA prepping cyber war is out. -Eowyn]
The Obama administration is debating just that question, officials say — whether to respond to Russia via cyber means, or with traditional measures such as sanctions.
The CIA’s cyber operation is being prepared by a team within the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, documents indicate. According to officials, the team has a staff of hundreds and a budget in the hundreds of millions, they say. […]
While the National Security Agency is the center for American digital spying, the CIA is the lead agency for covert action and has its own cyber capabilities. […] According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the CIA requested $685.4 million for computer network operations in 2013, compared to $1 billion by the NSA.
Retired Gen. Mike Hayden, who ran the CIA after leading the NSA, wrote this year: “We even had our own cyber force, the Information Operations Center (IOC), that former CIA director George Tenet launched and which had grown steadily under the next spy chief, Porter Goss, and me. The CIA didn’t try to replicate or try to compete with NSA… the IOC was a lot like Marine Corps aviation while NSA was an awful lot like America’s Air Force.”

Does Obama seriously think Russia won’t counterattack if the U.S. launches a cyber attack? And are we prepared to withstand cyber war with Moscow (and perhaps China, too), given head of Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency Gen. Keith Alexander’s warning in February 2014 that the U.S. military is not prepared for cyber war?
War with Russia will also be Obama’s perfect excuse to suspend the November election.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0