Not Russian Hacking, Rather American Leaking = Seth Rich

Once again there is no evidence on the table that it was Russia who hacked the DNC, just opinion, just a feeling. There is not even evidence that hacking occurred. It is just as likely that it was a whistleblower that leaked documents. It’s just as likely it was Seth Rich.

The Gateway Pundit reports:

UK Diplomat: I’ve Met the DNC Wikileaks Leaker and the Person Is an Insider – Not Russian

assange hannityIn early November Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told reporter John Pilger in an exclusive interview that it wasn’t Russia who hacked into the DNC and Clinton staff emails.

Assange went on to say he “felt sorry” for Hillary Clinton.

Today former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Julian Assange, said he has met the DNC leaker and he’s not Russian.

Via Craig

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”


Naked Capitalism adds these cogent thoughts:

NSA Whistleblower: Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind DNC Email Hack

It’s remarkable to see the way the claim that the DNC hack was the doing of America’s Enemy Number One is being flogged on thin to non-existance evidence. This is reminiscent of the Sony hack, which was attributed to North Korea, a claim that was widely debunked on tech sites. Sony apparently had such terrible security that getting into its systems was on the order of walking through an open door. Yet Obama himself fronted for this story, which was even more bizarre given that Sony is not a strategically significant concern (ie, not a defense or intel company, does not provide critical products or services).

The mainstream media alleges that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC’s emails.

The media is parading out the usual suspects alleged experts to back up this claim.

Washington’s Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – what he thinks of such claims:

Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails:

But mainstream media say it couldn’t:

The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton’s character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g.

Who’s right?

Binney responded:

Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here’s what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (“VIPS” for short).]

Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I’m sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it “Wellgrounded.” NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of
code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo.

Binney explained to us:

 My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site.  I suspect that’s because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.

Of course, this brings up another question; if it’s a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it?  You can tell from the network log who is going into a site.  I used that on networks that I had.  I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things.  Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries.  But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software.  If the DNC and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don’t care to fix weakness probably because the want to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.

Why is this newsworthy?

Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it’s a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.

But there are other issues, as well …

For example, an allegation of hacking could literally lead to war.

So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven.


Finally Trent Lipinski says:

A government is attempting to manipulate and control this election, but it is not the Russians. It is the Obama administration.

Two days before the Presidential debate, the US government officially accused Russia of hacking, and interfering in the U.S. election. However, much like the Bush administration when accusing Iraq of having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) — which did not exist, the Obama administration has provided zero evidence for these accusations. They are trying to use their authority to convince the American people that Russia has something to do with Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign with no evidence.

The timing of the announcement was made the same day Wikileaks released the first set of e-mails from Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. This was not a coincidence, as no urgency was necessary to make said announcement other than to combat the leaks. In other words, the intention of the announcement was as propaganda to counter the Podesta e-mail leaks just before a Presidental debate, and had nothing to do with anything Russia might have done recently. The e-mails being released now are from data breaches that were confirmed in June/July of this year.

What is even more unusual about this, is the FBI claims there is no evidence the Russians or anyone else had access to Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. This means the FBI perhaps does not agree with the statement made by the Obama administration. This further suggests the likelihood of an insider being responsible for the leaks, such as murdered DNC Data Specialist Seth Rich (of which Wikileaks has offered a reward for any information leading to a conviction). There is also the possibility that someone within the U.S. intelligence community upset with Hillary Clinton’s illegal mishandling of classified information is responsible for the leaks.

So what do these accusations mean?

Considering tension between Russia and the U.S. has reached a tipping point recently over the handling of Syria, these accusations could result in cyber war, further sanctions, armed conflict, and if escalation occurs nuclear warfare. The Obama administration is risking various forms of war with Russia based on an accusation of which they have provided zero evidence in an attempt to discredit Wikileaks, and distract the American people from the leaks.

The facts as they stand at the time of writing this:

  1. The U.S. Government has not provided any evidence that Russia has hacked anything.
  2. The FBI has stated there is no evidence Russia or anyone else hacked Clinton’s private e-mail server.
  3. There is no evidence the Donald Trump campaign is working with the Russians.
  4. Wikileaks has a 10-year history, and perfect record of never releasing a single falsified document.
  5. There is no evidence Wikileaks and Julian Assange work for the Russian Government.
  6. Several Clinton staffers, including Clinton herself, have admitted to the authenticity of the past leaks.
  7. The latest leaks are from the same original data breach. They are not a new hack.
  8. The leaks themselves prove the collusion between the Clinton campaign and the main stream media.
  9. Recent main stream media reports of falsified documents being edited by the Russians are again just unproven accusations with no evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s