View allAll Photos Tagged Guccifer
TWITTER TESTIFIES BEFORE US CONGRESS --- 27SEPT-2017
Both DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, which spread the leaked emails and documents and were identified as having been created by Russian intelligence, used accounts that Twitter has not suspended, though they have been dormant for months. In some cases, the Russian exploitation of Facebook and Twitter was linked: “Heart of Texas,” a Facebook page advocating the secession of Texas that was identified as one of 470 fake profiles and pages linked to Russia, also had a Twitter feed — now suspended — called @itstimetosecede.
Experts on Russia inside and outside the government say President Vladimir V. Putin had multiple goals in last year’s campaign of hacking, leaking and stealth propaganda. He hoped to damage, if not defeat, Mrs. Clinton, whom he blamed for encouraging pro-democracy protests in Russia and neighboring states.
But Mr. Putin also sought to darken the image of the United States, making it a less attractive model for other countries and reducing its international influence, said Mark R. Jacobson, a Georgetown professor and co-author of a new report on Russian influence operations.
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/technology/twitter-russia-elec...
Representatives of Facebook, Google and Twitter faced tough questioning before a US Senate hearing on Oct. 31, 2017. Al Franken a Democratic senator demanded to know why the social network accepted political advertisements paid for in Russian rubles.
Anger over their role in Russian information operations is just one aspect of a rising tide of public discontent with Silicon Valley’s big tech firms. Once seen as the poster children for free market innovation, they now face scrutiny on both sides of the aisle for anti-competitive practices, tax avoidance and privacy-infringing data practices. In order to stave off regulation, tech firms have been pouring money into lobbying efforts in Washington to the point where they now outspend Wall Street two to one.
www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/31/americans-even...
via
Roger Stone releases his testimony that will be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee, setting the record straight and debunking the lies concerning Russia.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Committee members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and staff. My name is Roger J. Stone, Jr., and with me today are my counsel, Grant Smith and Robert Buschel.
I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, The Trump Campaign and the Russian state. I view this as a political proceeding because a number of members of this Committee have made irresponsible, indisputably, and provably false statements in order to create the impression of collusion with the Russian state
Stone Opening Statement without any evidence that would hold up in a US court of law or the court of public opinion.
I am no stranger to the slash and burn aspect of American politics today. I recognize that because of my long reputation and experience as a partisan warrior, I am a suitable scapegoat for those who would seek to persuade the public that there were wicked, international transgressions in the 2016 presidential election. I have a long history in this business: I strategize, I proselytize, I consult, I electioneer, I write, I advocate, and I prognosticate. I’m a New York Times bestselling author, I have a syndicated radio show and a weekly column, and I report for Infowars.com at 5 o’clock eastern every day.
While some may label me a dirty trickster, the members of this Committee could not point to any tactic that is outside the accepted norms of what political strategists and consultants do today. I do not engage in any illegal activities on behalf of my clients or the causes in which I support.
There is one “trick” that is not in my bag and that is treason. As someone whose political activism was born from the anti-communism of Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan; and whose freedom seeking family members were mowed-down by Russian tanks on the streets of Budapest in 1956, I deeply resent any allegation that I would collude with the oppressive Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
My colleague, Michael Caputo, voluntarily sat in this seat a couple of months ago, gave what I believe were candid and truthful answers to those who cared to sit in on the interview; and yet, when he was done, he was accused of perjury by a member who did not even have the pretention to show up for his interview. He was eviscerated by some Committee members and consequently, the press.
The most unfair aspect of this turn of events, and behavior by some Committee members, is that this Committee refuses, to this day, to release the transcripts of his testimony for the world to read and judge for themselves.
Roger Stone
Multiple members of this Committee have made false allegations against me in public session in order to ensure that these bogus charges received maximum media coverage. Now however, you deny me the opportunity to respond to these charges in the same open forum. This is cowardice. Fortunately, we will have the opportunity today to take the exact words of some members of this Committee and examine them in order to uncover the lies.
Members of this Committee as well as some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee aren’t alone in their irresponsibility. On January 20, 2017, the New York Times reported that the intelligence services were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts, which proved that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the benefit of Donald Trump. So, where are these records? Can this Committee or our intelligence agencies produce them? I didn’t think so.
Nor, is this irresponsibility entirely partisan. Sen. John McCain told CNN that I “…should be compelled to appear before the Senate to explain my ties to Yanukovych and the Russians.” This is very simple, Senator the answer is: “None” and “None.” In fact, I worked against Yanukovych’s party in the 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, and have no ties to any Russians.
Given this Committee’s consistent refusal to allow me to testify in a public session, in the interest of compromise, I have repeatedly requested that the transcript of mytestimony here today, be released immediately upon conclusion of today’s session. Even this constructive suggestion has been rejected. What is it you fear? Why do you oppose transparency? What is it you don’t want the public to know?
I can assure each of you, I will not let myself be a punching bag for people with ill intentions or political motives. Understand, I will expose the truth in every forum and on every platform available to me.
As a 40- year friend and advisor of Donald Trump, I had continually urged him to run for the presidency, beginning in 1988. When he decided in 2015 to become a serious candidate against a weak slate of opponents, I became one of the Trump campaign’s first consultants, reprising a role I played in 2012 when Donald Trump briefly considered a candidacy in that election. I performed consulting work for the campaign for five months and the consulting relationship ended in August 2015. I, however, didn’t go quietly into the night, I continued to work, write, and advocate on behalf of his candidacy because to this day, I believe he has the potential to be a truly transformative president and to make our nation great again.
These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks. No member of this Committee or intelligence agency can prove this assertion.
Because the DNC steadfastly refused to allow the FBI to examine their computer servers, this entire claim is based on a self-serving report by CloudStrike, a forensic IT company retained by, directed, and paid for by the DNC.
The Nation magazine recently reported on a study issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is comprised of numerous former high-level US intelligence officials. Based upon the VIPS study, The Nation concluded that, “There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5, 2016… not by the Russians and not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak- a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable datastorage device. In short, they reported it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the alleged initial “hack,” that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.” Additionally, these unproven allegations have led to a frivolous lawsuit filed by former Obama administration lawyers against me and the Trump campaign. In my motion to dismiss, I submitted a sworn declaration of Dr. Virgil Griffith, a cognitive computer graduate from the California Institute of Technology, who questioned the unproven assumptions that Russian hackers are responsible for theft of DNC emails and other data.
I recognize that those who believe that there was collusion between the Trump camp and the Russian state, now say Stone, “MUST HAVE” been involved, but that is not based on one shred of evidence. This is nothing more than conjecture, supposition, projection, allegation, and coincidence, none of it proven by evidence or fact. I understand the Committee’s interest in me, I use all clauses of the 1st Amendment to achieve my goals, I am out there, I am provocative and partisan, but let’s be clear, I have no involvement in the alleged activities that are within the publicly stated scope of this Committee’s investigation – collusion with the Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. I have every right to express my views in the public square. I actively participate in matters of great public concern. I also believe, and you should too, my friend, Tucker Carlson, who said last week, ‘You should never accept, uncritically, the imprecise conclusions of ….the “intel community.’’
The mantra-like repetition of the claim by our vaunted 17 intelligence agencies that the “Russians” colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the 2016 election, does not make it so. These are, after all, the same entities who insisted the North Koreans would not be able to launch a viable rocket for 3-5 years, that insisted Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib prison, and that the government had no bulk data collection program, until Edward Snowden revealed otherwise. Our intelligence agencies have been politicized. I realize they are deeply unhappy over President Trump’s refusal to expand the proxy war in Syria and their failure to obtain the no-fly zone promised to them by Hillary Clinton, which would be an open invitation for World War III. That the intelligence agencies have continued to leak, to the detriment of President Trump, in violation of the law, is proof positive of their politicization. Members of this Committee have made three basic assertions against me which must be rebutted here today.
Roger Stone and Donald Trump
The charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email,that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or that, my now public exchange with a persona that our intelligence agencies claim, but cannot prove, is a Russian asset, is anything but innocuous and are entirely false. Again, such assertions are conjecture, supposition,
projection, and allegations but none of them are facts.
For example, Mr. Schiff, the ranking member of this Committee asked, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that is private emails would be exposed?” I want to know where I predicted this. Can Mr. Schiff read us the exact quote and source from where I predicted the hacking or Mr. Podesta’s email? Can Mr. Schiff even come up with a documented quote where I use Podesta and email in the same sentence — before it happened?
My Tweet of August 21, 2016, in which I said, “Trust me, it will soon be the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary” Must be examined in context. I posted this at a time that my boyhood friend and colleague, Paul Manafort, had just resigned from the Trump campaign over allegations regarding his business activities in Ukraine. I thought it manifestly unfair that John Podesta not be held to the same standard. Note, that my Tweet of August 21,2016, makes no mention, whatsoever, of Mr. Podesta’s email, but does accurately predict that the Podesta
brothers’ business activities in Russia with the oligarchs around Putin, their uranium deal, their bank deal, and their Gazprom deal, would come under public scrutiny.
Podesta’s activities were later reported by media outlets as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. My extensive knowledge of the Podesta brothers’ business dealings in Russia was based on The Panama Papers, which were released in early 2016, which revealed that the Podesta brothers had extensive business dealings in Russia. The Tweet is also based on a comprehensive, early August opposition research briefing provided to me by investigative journalist, Dr. Jerome Corsi, which I then asked him to memorialize in a memo that he sent me on August 31st, all of which was culled from public records. There was no need to have John Podesta’s email to learn that he and his presidential candidate were in bed with the clique around
Putin.
In fact, FactCheck.org, a news organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation, reported, “There is nothing in the public record so far that proves Stone, a political operative and longtime Trump associate, predicted thePodesta email hack.”
Now, let me address the charge that I had advance knowledge of the timing, content and source of theWikiLeaks disclosures from the DNC. On June 12, 2016,WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange, announced that he was in possession of Clinton DNC emails. I learned this by reading it on Twitter. I asked a journalist who I knew had interviewed Assange to independently confirm this report, and he subsequently did.
This journalist assured me that WikiLeaks would release this information in October and continued to assure me of this throughout the balance of August and all of September. This information proved to be correct. I have referred publicly to this journalist as an, “intermediary”, “go-between” and “mutual friend.” All of these monikers are equally true.
In the March 20th public session of this Committee, Mr. Schiff asked former FBI Director Comey, “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” The way the question was asked was clearly designed to cast me in a bad light. I have never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my
communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist. Again, Mr. Schiff is guilty of a false assertion.
The fact is that during the March 20th Comey hearing and many times subsequent, members of this Committee, and even Democratic nominee for president, felt that theycould go into the public square and make similar charges without any substantiation or basis in fact. Congressman Heck of Washington, stated, for example, “… we’ve heard about quite a few individuals in the Trump orbit who fell somewhere on that spectrum from mere naïveté, disturbing enough if this naïveté is a feature of those (who) were supposed to be running our country and foreign policy, to unwitting Russian dupes, to willing blindness, to active coordination. This rogues gallery includes those already fired- Roger Stone, adviser to Donald Trump…” This is the worst sort of neo-McCarthyism. To be clear, I have never represented any Russian clients, have never been to Russia, and never had any communication with any Russians or individuals fronting for Russians, in connection with the 2016 presidential election.
To pile on, in an interview on MSNBC on May 19, 2017, Congresswoman Speier felt compelled to say: “I believe that Michael Caputo is part of this cabal including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, and others who had business relationships with Russia.” No, I do not have and I’ve never had any relationship with Russia or any Russian entity.
You have falsely accused me without any evidence – you should apologize today. One more apology I would demand in public, if she were here today, is from presidential runner-up, Hillary Clinton. Following the lead of the minority members of this Committee, in her new fiction book, she repeats the same false narratives about me as if they were the truth…they could not be further from the truth.1
And then there is Congressmen Eric Swalwell who, as reported in Newsmax, said, “From Roger Stone, we hope to learn the same things we learned from Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Don [Trump] Jr., and others who were particularly active in their dealings with Russians during the summer of 2016.” Has Mr. Swalwell read my exchange with the Twitter persona which he alleges constitutes collusion?
The exchange is innocuous at best. Since I had no other contact with Russians, what could he be referring to?
Finally, let me address this limited, benign, and now entirely public exchange with a persona on Twitter calling themselves Guccifer 2.0. While some in the intelligence community have claimed that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cutoutand that it is responsible for the hacking of the DNC servers, neither of these assertions can be proven by this Committee or the aforementioned intelligence community.
I wrote an article for Breitbart on August 5, 2016, in which I express my view that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset, at the same time reporting their claim taking credit for hacking the DNC. My only exchange with Guccifer 2.0 would begin on August 14, 2016, after my article appeared, and ran through September 9, 2016. Imagine my deep disappointment when Mr. Schiff purposefully conflated these dates before this Committee, reversing them to create the false impression that I had communicated with Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter prior to publication of the article questioning whether Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cut-out. Shame on you Mr. Schiff.
Now that more information is in the public domain, the very question of whether Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC must be revisited in light of the VIPS report cited by The Nation.
As they concluded, “Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source – claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.” I am left to conclude that the President is right when he calls this Congressional investigation a, “witchhunt.”
Based on what we know now, it is clear that there was a foreign nation which was colluding with a presidential campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome of the . Therefore, I strongly urge this Committee to investigate the numerous, publicly documented contacts between Ukraine and the Clinton campaign, particularly in light of recent public reports that Ukraine is now providing sophisticated missile technology to North Korea.
Please do not continue to perpetuate falsehoods here today.
View this document on Scribd
from Roger Stone – Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-official-statement-to-cong...
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/roger-stone-official...
via
FRUSTRATED THAT THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES CAN’T FIND ANY PROOF OF TRUMP-RUSSIAN COLLUSION, OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE SUING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MYSELF IN AN EFFORT TO HARASS AND DISTRACT
By Roger Stone
Yesterday I accepted service from an Obama controlled left wing front group called “Protect our Democracy”, who is suing the Trump campaign and myself, claiming that I violated the civil rights of three DNC donors who were identified by WikiLeaks. This is based on the false premise that I colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC email servers and deliver the material to Julian Assange.
Ironically, the lawsuit for invasion of privacy contained my home address in the caption that was posted online and emailed to virtually every reporter in America. Frankly I am tired of the death threats and daily vituperation my family is subjected to on social media and the net but I’ll never stop speaking out.
This ridiculous lawsuit offers no evidence nor proof of these wild allegations but merely strings together a series of publicly reported falsehoods regarding my contacts and alleged advance knowledge of the Wiki Leaks disclosures. It’s actually hard to believe that any reputable lawyer would put their name on this preposterous lawsuit and not realize that they are courting sanctions.
The left knows that any time and energy I have to spend to defend this bogus lawsuit is focus I cannot put on defeating the Deep State Coup D’état now taking place with the Generals seizing control of the White House and Robert Muller as the designated Lord High Executioner. This lawsuit is designed to be a pain in the ass, a distraction and an absurd abuse of the Judicial process.
The lawyers putting their name on this piece of crap include a former Federal Judge and several partners of prestigious white-shoe law firms. I can predict that each of them will be subject to complaints to their respective State Bars over this frivolous abuse of due process. These complaints cannot just be dismissed and hearings and bar investigation will be real.
It is notable that this nuisance lawsuit treats the claim that the DNC servers were hacked as an indisputable fact when in fact, only last week a number of experienced intelligence agency veterans came forward to say that the technological evidence indicates that the purloined material was not hacked at all but was most likely loaded to thumb drives and removed from the premises.
The British Diplomat Craig Murray publicly claimed that he received this data in a parking lot near Washington’s American University and passed it on to Wiki Leaks. Julian Assange has publicly confirmed this. There has been widespread speculation than the person who handed the thumb drive to Murray is none other than Seth Rich.
Why do all of those who think the polite thing to do is to stop asking who murdered Seth Rich ignore the fact that Julian Assange publicly offered a $25,000 reward for information that led to the capture of Rich’s murderer? Although Assange has declined to confirm that Seth Rich was indeed a source, it is notable that he has posted the links to numerous third-party stories that make this claim.
The Obama funded lawsuit relies upon the hacking of the DNC, and is therefore based on something that actually never happened. Isn’t it curious that DNC never let the FBI examine the so called hacked email servers? Instead the DNC used a private contractor, CrowdStrike to perpetuate an entirely false narrative about Russians hacking the DNC.
It doesn’t matter how many mindless Intelligence Agency bureaucrats or idiotic members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees repeat the mantra “the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee.” None of them can produce any actual proof that this happened. Neither can the lawyers behind this ludicrous harassment lawsuit.
Their lawsuit is a steaming bowl of shit. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after this, therefore because of this” is a fallacy as a legal premise. That I had some knowledge of the events that unfolded does not in any way prove that I made those things happen or that I colluded with agents of the Russian State or anyone else to tip the election to Donald Trump.
This poorly drafted harassment lawsuit recycles again the false claim that my tweets somehow prove that I had advance knowledge of the hacking of John Podesta’s email simply because I predicted that his business dealings with his brother Tony and the Clintons with the oligarchs around Putin were going to get scrutiny. In fact, the Uranium deal, the Joule banking deal and the lucrative Gazprom contract were all reported by the mainstream media in the fall.
Note I tweeted it the day my friend Paul Manafort stepped down over trumped up charges that he had done something improper in the campaigns of Victor Yanukovych. I knew from an opposition report by Dr. Jerome Corsi that I had read on August 1st, that Podesta was in tight with Putin and had money laundered funds from the Russian Mafia. I even wrote about it.
WikiLeaks themselves posted on their Twitter feed on July 21st the bold declaration that they had the goods on Hillary Clinton and that they would publish them in October. I most certainly had an independent source, a journalist who knows Assange confirmed that the tweet was accurate. I have at various times described this journalist as a “go between” “emissary” and “mutual friend.” Throughout August and September this journalist continued to assure me that WikiLeaks had and would publish devastating information that would severely harm Hillary Clinton’s prospects in the election. He was right.
None of this, however, proves that I had advanced knowledge of the content, format or source of any of the material, nor did I have any knowledge of where it came from. I speculated that much of the material would be related to the Clinton Foundation which actually turned out to be partially true.
Those who criticized WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for publishing material from whistle blowers or classified material are strongly urged to read the court’s decision in USA v. New York Times in The Pentagon Papers case. The Washington Post routinely publishes purloined material that’s classified. Bob Woodward has made a career of it. Julian Assange is a journalist who belongs to no party or ideology. He clearly sees the evil of the Deep State and the bi-partisan duopoly that has managed America for the last 30 years and presided over the erosion of our civil liberties and the destruction of our economy.
CIA Mike Pompeo continues to smear Julian Assange as a “Russian asset” which is false. Sources tell me that the Justice Department has convened a secret Grand Jury in order to secure an indictment against Julian Assange, although what law he has allegedly broken is not clear. It’s a slippery slope when you start jailing journalists.
This liberal hit job lawsuit against me and the Trump Campaign also recycles the misinformation about a now public exchange with Guccifer 2.0 a hacker the Intelligence Agency insists, again without proof that he is a Russian cut out. In fact, there is direct evidence showing that the computer program allegedly used by Guccifer 2.0 is actually registered to a Democratic National Employee. The simple fact is that my only exchange with Guccifer 2.0 was over the direct message function of Twitter and came almost six weeks after Wikileaks published the DNC material which Guccifer claims he hacked. Therefore, collusion by me would be impossible without a time machine. Any inference that this constituted collusion is disproved by the timing, content and context of the actual exchange
I have released the entire exchange publicly and it is banal and innocuous. In fact, when Guccifer 2.0 sends me a link to some kind of vote targeting program, which I later learned was stolen by some Florida Political Consultant, I entirely disregarded it as “pretty standard” and forwarded it to no one. He asks how he can help me and I ignore the offer.
Factcheck.org which is funded by the Walter Annenberg Foundation confirmed that there was no evidence that I knew about the hacking of Podesta’s emails or that I had advance knowledge of the content of the WikiLeaks Clinton October disclosures. They correctly point out the “coincidence” that was footnoted by the timing of some of my tweets.
This lawsuit which the Obama’s “Project for Democracy” is actively using for fund raising merely recycles the demonstrably false claims of the buffoons on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The lawsuit itself proves less than nothing. It’s clear that the Democrats, frustrated by the failure of either Congressional Committee to find evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign, would now like use this baseless lawsuit to conduct a “fishing expedition” and distract me from the fight to Make America Great Again.
Unfortunately, I have no choice but to defend against the suit by retaining an attorney admitted to the DC Bar. The costs of a long-drawn-out harassment lawsuit are more than my family can bare when coupled with the ongoing legal costs of negotiations with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, neither of whom want to allow me to testify in public for fear that I will humiliate them and expose the entire canard of Russian collusion. That’s why my friends have set up the Roger Stone Legal Defense Fund which you can find at: http://www.whoframedrogerstone.com/.
Sources:
unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/privacylawsuit/
www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/FactCheck-Misrepresen...
stonecoldtruth.com/russian-mafia-money-laundering-the-cli...
consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia...
fromhttps://stonecoldtruth.com/who-framed-roger-stone/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-framed-roger-stone.html
Prison tattoo? #RogerStone #AlexJones #TrampStamp #Guccifer #MuellerTime #PayTheSwamp #FollowTheBorscht #TrumpRussia #PutinsPuppet #Trump #GOP #RNC #MAGA #BoneSpurs #iWikeTwucks #PPOTUS #GOPEEPEE #StormyDaniels
via
(Consortiumnews.com)
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Executive Summary
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see hereand here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
* * *
Mr. President:
This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.
Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.
The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.
You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at the third debate with Republican nominee Donald Trump. (Photo credit: hillaryclinton.com)
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
“Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
from Roger Stone – Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evide...
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/intel-vets-challenge...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai
Carola Frediani
Stefania Maurizi
Andrei Soldatov
Nel giugno 2016 sulle elezioni americane si è abbattuta la tempesta delle mail hackerate, rilasciate da WikiLeaks. La diffusione e il sospetto che il Democratic National Committee – l’organo di governo del Partito Democratico Americano – abbia favorito la candidata alla primarie Hilary Clinton ha portato alle dimissioni della sua presidente, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. La Russia è stata davvero deus ex machina dell’operazione, come indicherebbe il rapporto congiunto di CIA, NSA ed FBI? Chi è Guccifer 2.0, il sedicente hacker rumeno che a ridosso dello scandalo ha rivendicato l’hacking? Wikileaks ha di fatto consegnato un pezzo di Casa Bianca a Donald Trump, lavorando a senso unico per danneggiare il Partito Democratico, o ha tenuto fede ai propri ideali?
In June 2016, the storm of hacked emails, released by WikiLeaks, hit the US elections. The diffusion and the suspicion that the Democratic National Committee – the governing body of the Democratic Party – had favored the primary candidate Hilary Clinton led to the resignation of its president, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Has Russia been really the deus ex machina of the operation, as stated by the joint report of the CIA, NSA and FBI? Who is Guccifer 2.0, the so-called Romanian hacker who claimed responsibility for the hacking? Did Wikileaks effectively deliver a piece of the White House to Donald Trump, working in only one direction to damage the Democratic Party, or has it lived up to its ideals?
video: media.journalismfestival.com/programme/2017/hacking-democ...
House Select Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
via
By Roger Stone
The New York Times considers itself the “newspaper of record” but the Old Grey Lady has had a difficult time of it recently. Not only did FBI director James Comey say that the Times story of February 14th, 2017 which alleged contacts between associates of Donald Trump and the Russian state was false but now The New York Times has compounded that error.
In a chart titled “How Seven Trump Associates Have Been Linked to Russia” by Jasmine C. Lee and Alicia Parlapiano which appeared Sunday, June 11th, 2017, the facts regarding my alleged contact with the Russians are entirely incorrect.
“Stone has said that he knew in advance of Russian hacked documents by Wikileaks” said the Times. In fact, I have never said that I knew in advance or predicted the hacking of any emails. Nor do I concede that the Russians are responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, a claim for which our intelligence services have provided no proof.
The NY Times says that I claimed to have “a perfectly legal communication” with Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder. Although on one occasion I did say that I had “communicated” with Assange through a mutual friend. I clarified that my communication was through this mutual friend who was my source in dozens of interviews. I have never had any direct communications with Julian Assange. I did say that such communications would be “perfectly legal” because they were.
The New York Times is correct when they say I had a brief exchange with the hacker Guccifer 2.0. I have subsequently released the entire text of this direct message exchange on Twitter. The inference that this limited communications with Guccifer 2.0 constitutes collusion is disproved by the content, timing in context of the exchange. The contents are entirely benign and the timing of the exchange is six weeks after the publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks making collusion between Guccifer 2.0 and myself in the purloining of those documents impossible.
I have repeatedly demanded that I be allowed to testify for the Senate and House Intelligence Committees to correct repeated misstatements by members of the committee regarding my statements and activities of 2016. I am prepared to testify voluntarily and without subpoena as well as requesting no immunity. I do insist that my testimony be taken in public since these misleading and inaccurate statements have been made about me by members of both committees in public sessions. The House committee has proposed closed door testimony saying that a transcript of the hearing would be released “sometime in the future”. Such an arrangement would allow mischaracterization about what is said behind closed doors and would lend itself to further distortions of the public record.
Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House committee, has specifically made a series of misleading and false statements about my 2016 activities as has Representative Eric Swalwell. It’s time for these ambitious politicians to stop hiding behind their committee lawyers and face the consequences of their recklessness
I note that Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee being held today is a public session. I deserve nothing less.
fromhttps://stonecoldtruth.com/the-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-new-york-times-gets-...
ift.tt/2drNM0w @ClintonFDN Server has a folder named "#PayToPlay"!! #ClintonFoundation documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0: ift.tt/2dQ5t9k We Are The New Media exposing the treasonous war against the people carried out by their infiltrated, controlled and manipulated Governments, Academia and Media. 👉 Check out WeAreTheNewMedia.com or WRTNM.com for 500+ Alt-media Websites! #WeAreTheNewMedia #WeAreChange #NewMedia #News ift.tt/2dde84e
via
Last Friday, the world found out that “DNC” no longer stands for Democratic National Committee. With the filing of its collusion delusion copycat lawsuit in federal court against Russia (yes, the whole country), Russia’s intelligence services, WikiLeaks, “Guccifer 2.0”, the Trump Campaign, Julian Assange, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a number of […]
from Roger Stone | Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/why-the-dnc-lawsuit-will-backfire/
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/why-the-dnc-lawsuit-...
George W. Bush's purported self-portrait, released this week by hacker known as "Guccifer."
Photo courtesy of The Smoking Gun.
Files published by a hacker utilizing the title “Guccifer two.0” are shedding mild on ties amongst tech sector lobbyists and Congress. Guccifer two. statements to have stolen the files from the Democratic National Committee, which announced very last week that it was a sufferer of a brea...
First 1000 businesses who contacts honestechs.com will receive a business mobile app and the development fee will be waived. Contact us today.
#electronics #technology #tech #electronic #device #gadget #gadgets #instatech #instagood #geek #techie #nerd #techy #photooftheday #computers #laptops #hack #screen
honestechs.com/2016/06/21/tech-sector-lobbyists-swept-up-...
EXCLUSIVE: Lone DNC Hacker' Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
www.biphoo.com/bipnews/news/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-guc...
www.biphoo.com/bipnews/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/exclusi...
#EXCLUSIVE:LoneDNCHacker'Guccifer2.0SlippedUpAndRevealedHeWasARussianIntelligenceOfficer, #LatestNewsHeadlines, #LatestUSNews, #USABreakingNewsAndLatestHeadlines, #USATodayNews
EXCLUSIVE: Lone DNC Hacker’ Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer
Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence ...
via The Daily Beast is 100% Fake News. Even if Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian hacker (pardon me if I don’t just take the Daily Beast’s word for it) and even if he did hack the DNC (unproven at best) there is no evidence that I colluded with him- my only, now entirely public exchange with […]
from
stonecoldtruth.com/no-collusion-no-game-changer-just-lies/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2018/03/no-collusion-no-game-cha...
via The Daily Beast published stories three days in a row claiming new evidence shows Guccifer 2.0 has been identified as a Russian and that he hacked the DNC e-mails and that a communication I had with him over twitter are somehow proof of collusion. This is all100 % fabricated fake news. You got to hand […]
from
stonecoldtruth.com/the-daily-beast-web-of-lies/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-daily-beast-web-of-l...
via
The Daily Beast is 100% Fake News. Even if Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian hacker (pardon me if I don’t just take the Daily Beast’s word for it) and even if he did hack the DNC (unproven at best) there is no evidence that I colluded with him- my only, now entirely public exchange with […]
from Roger Stone | Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/no-collusion-no-game-changer-just-lies/
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/no-collusion-no-game...