US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims

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

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless

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

Seal of the National Security Agency

Seal of the National Security Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awesome Technical Capabilities

Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)

In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA.  These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.

Packets: Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end.

To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver Internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the network to route data.

When email packets leave the U.S., the other “Five Eyes” countries (the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and the seven or eight additional countries participating with the U.S. in bulk-collection of everything on the planet would also have a record of where those email packets went after leaving the U.S.

These collection resources are extensive [see attached NSA slides 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.

The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.

The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.

The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.

As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in the communications arena. Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact. In sum, given what we know of NSA’s existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a U.S. election by hacking.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

188 comments for “US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims

  1. December 21, 2016 at 02:29

    It moves me that there are honest individuals who will come forward and set the record straight. In reality you/we are battling propaganda set forth by the Democrat party and the US government via the democrat party.

    Let us be optimistic that truth will continue to prevail. As long as information transfers between us we can count on truth continuing. No censorship. Fake news is a ruse to censor the net. #Farenheit451

  2. SidVicious
    December 17, 2016 at 21:11

    These are former NSA operatives. The current NSA says that Russia is behind the attacks, and as you said, they can track anything.

    • December 21, 2016 at 02:36

      No they did not. They said its not Russia. So did the FBI even if the CIA is claiming that fbi agrees. The CIA is an arm of the presidency and is 100% behind this false narrative. Clinton gave rise to this red scare. McCarthyism.

  3. PJ London
    December 17, 2016 at 04:45

    Hillary won!
    This whole “Russia” nonsense was to take the attention away from the CONTENT of the leaked e-mails.
    The machinations and lies and deceit of the DNC was exposed and if the discussion had been on what was shown, the DNC could never allow the Bernie supporters to see what they had done to put Hillary in as the delegate. Bernie’s people would have stayed away from the election in disgust.
    So they poisoned the messenger.
    Every time the e-mails were mentioned, the DNC and MSM went hysterical about “Russia did it”, and successfully diverted any discussion from the content.
    They lost anyway, had they won, then it would have died a natural death.
    Now they are dreaming that they can mount a legal challenge based on ‘Foreign Interference” ain’t going to happen, but then most of their attempts in the last 12 months have failed.
    Obama’s strategy :
    Plan A : win vote
    Plan B : win recount
    Plan C : win Electoral College
    Plan D : win court challenge on “foreign intervention”
    Plan E : declare war on Russia
    Plan F : play golf (oh yes, get CIA to shoot Bill and Hill before they can pin the blame on me.)

  4. ray jones
    December 16, 2016 at 22:03

    we are all phucked ayway so just do what you are gonna do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. brad becker
    December 16, 2016 at 18:47

    This is what Assange has been saying for months. Assange won’t say who it is, even if knows who it is which he may not. The persons life would be in Jeopardy and his carrier would be over. We need Patriotic Americans who see some thing that’s this crooked to be able to leak the truth.

  6. Jay
    December 16, 2016 at 17:38

    Conspiracy theorists?
    Oh, you mean the people who believe that the Russians conspired to hack the election and make Trump win, or are we talking about the people who used Hillarys email server to give top secret national security information to the Russians?

    Not quite clear on that.

    • Sustainable Abundancy
      December 17, 2016 at 01:06

      Jay: So, you haven’t read the letter, eh? If not (or since not), then you’re probably “not quite clear on” much more… ;-).

  7. fuster
    December 16, 2016 at 02:31

    this memo from McGovern et al is utter crap

    • Realist
      December 16, 2016 at 04:28

      That’s either high sarcasm, or you don’t believe in providing evidence any more than the CIA does.

  8. Gregory Kruse
    December 15, 2016 at 19:13

    MSNBC was talking about “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” that the Russians “hacked” the emails. I can’t even listen Chris Hayes anymore.

  9. Geoffrey de Galles
    December 15, 2016 at 15:12

    Some icing on the cake for concerned readers:- Bill Binney and Ray McGovern have just now given excellent interviews to Brian Becker for his “Loud and Clear” show on Sputnik Radio (@ Wash DC), both of them posted on YouTube today (go find!). A query:- Is it conceivable that the documents published by Wikileaks were both a hack and a leak, as it were? Seeing as not just the NSA but also the snooping organizations of the other four ‘Five Eyes’ nations have access to the bulk of the NSA’s data-base, couldn’t it well have been that, e.g., an employee at the UK’s GCHQ in Cheltenham, animated by some kind of intense personal animus against Hillary Clinton, hacked the Podesta & DNC emails, downloaded them onto a thumb-drive, and delivered the latter physically to some kinda place like the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? (Here one has to factor in the fact that, understandably enough, HRC has been much feared & loathed way beyond the shores of the US; also, no doubt, that GCHQ has a significant number of US citizens in its employ.) Why do I focus here on GCHQ? Only because former British Ambassador Craig Murray, resident in the UK, has recently asserted that he has met personally the Podesta + DNC leaker — which could well have occurred when in September he visited Wash DC to present the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence to John Kiriakou, or may just as well have occurred somewhere back in the UK, where after all his good buddy Assange is resident (… well, sort of). — But my real point, in the spirit of a thought-experiment, is simply to raise this hypothesis as exemplary of any number of such notional rival hypotheses, only with the definitive elimination of which could the CIA, in lieu of having any kind of ‘smoking gun’, rationally point a finger at Russia (and Putin) as having been the actual author of the putative ‘hacks’. — Pray tell me, by the way, is epistemology 101 not taught any more at US universities?

    • Geoffrey de Galles
      December 15, 2016 at 16:14

      Good Lord Above! Esteemed editor Robert Parry has just now, during the past hour or so, posted his latest: “Making Russia ‘The Enemy'”, from which it appears that my speculation re: Craig Murray may not be nearly so wacko after all. For there CM is quoted having stated that, back in late September @ the USA, he served as conduit for a deeply disgruntled, disgusted, pro-Bernie Democrat — presumably, then, in undertaking to pass on material to his buddy Assange back in London. I can’t right now reconstruct the chronology of the Guccifer / DCLeaks / Wikileaks publications to see how such a putative event might or might not fit in; but the assertion, coming from a bloke of some real integrity, has surely to be given some real weight. — And thanks Mr. Parry for your latest!

      • Sustainable Abundancy
        December 15, 2016 at 18:25

        Parry’s analysis of the probable anti-Russia Status-Quo-preserving fallout from NeoCons & liberal hawks is very good.

        Don’t know whether a September 2015 date would be sufficient to account for all DNC/Podesta emails that WikiLeaks received.

        Much additional intel/info is still unpublished. However, what is published so far is “bullshit,” as Craig Murray rightfully says. intel veterans are still saying that Russians DID participate — but NOT in the DNC/Podesta WikiLeaks stuff.

      • Sustainable Abundancy
        December 15, 2016 at 21:48

        Geoffrey: Craig Murray was NOT WikiLeaks’ source for more recent (post-Sept-15) DNC emails — despite Craig’s ‘confession.’

        Some if not many DNC emails are from 2016 (e.g., an 18 May 2016 email featured yesterday on The Young Turks).

        Therefore: (1) CM was NOT the ONLY WikiLeaks emails source; OR (2) CM was NOT WikiLeaks’ emails source (at all).

      • December 16, 2016 at 10:43

        Dear Sir,
        Good comment, but it seems the media have not reported correctly what Murray says. For instance, the meeting with the “source” occured in Sept 2016!

        Here is what I wrote on my blog: DNC & Podesta Emails Were Leaked by US ‘Insiders’, as well as Hacked by Russia!

        Best, L

        • Sustainable Abundancy
          December 17, 2016 at 02:17

          Ludwig: Thank you for the additional info and your blog, all of which I checked. However, a September 26, 2016 transfer date from the “source” to Craig Murray is also problematic for at least three reasons:

          (1) WikiLeaks released 40,000+ DNC emails on July 22, 2016 (before the July 25 DNC Convention);

          (2) If Craig Murray was barred from entering the U.S. in September 2016 (as per the link in your blog), how was Craig able to be present at a meeting near American University to receive the transfer of emails and/or related files? and

          (3) In the Craig Murray podcast, Murray says that he was NOT the source of 40K+ DNC emails released in July 2016 but did “have a small role to play” (in & after September 2016).

          To Ludwig or to anyone else who knows, please address the above three (3) points. Thanx.

    • Sustainable Abundancy
      December 15, 2016 at 18:48

      Geoffrey: Thanks for the heads-up on Ray’s & Bill’s interviews. Regarding the 5-eyes intel agencies, another possibility to consider is that NSA also shares RAW intel with Israel. Of course, Bibi is elated that his “asset of Israel” Trump will now be U.S. Prez.

      What no U.S. intel agency or MSM outlet is discussing (for understandable reasons) is the possibility/probability that Bibi & Co. also wanted Trump — and would do whatever it took to get Trump elected. Before the election, (VT) intel veterans very explicitly made this allegation — namely, that Bibi & Co. were involved in the DNC/Podesta email “leaks” received by WikiLeaks.

      Immediately after election (within a day or so), these same VT intel vets also alleged that Russians directly participated in hacks of voting & tabulating computers and/or related software — in concerted election skewing, hacking & rigging efforts with Bibi & Co.

      • Geoffrey de Galles
        December 17, 2016 at 07:14

        Thanks, Sustab. I myself am always ready to consider the izzis4realies capable of just about anything that they perceive might advance their own avaricious interests; but in this case I happen to be rather more sympathetic to somewhat more parsimonious down-at-the-ranch viewpoints. Here to venture just one wild hypothesis, albeit admittedly a bit extravagant, as to why, currently, the CIA might be so very anxious and impassioned, or one might even say desperate, as to brand the Podesta/DNC leaks Russian hacks (- and, at that, an hypothesis which, you never know these days, might one day even turn out to be pretty much the truth):- That a CIA agent, blessed with insider information yet operating as more or less of a free-lance in the service of the HRC machine, was actually responsible @ Wash DC for the on-the-street and deep-in-the-night shooting death of young Seth Rich, the DNC factotum, in the conviction — be it true or only imagined — that he, of all people, must be (or must have been) DNCLeaks’ and/or Wikileaks’ source. If I remember right, the poor fellow copped all of four bullets in the back, and ended up assassinated with wallet and wrist-watch still on his person. Yeah, yeah, yeah — some kinda “attempted robbery”.

        • Sustainable Abundancy
          December 17, 2016 at 18:27

          Geoffrey: You’re welcome. And Thank You! Unfortunately for Seth Rich, his family & friends, Seth’s murder may have been nothing more than a Red Herring to cover the trail of those who actually leaked the DNC/Podesta emails. WikiLeaks released some DNC/Podesta emails long after the murder of Seth Rich (with email dates after his murder).

          As indicated above, the September 2016 ‘transfer’ to Craig Murray could NOT have been responsible for the July 2016 WikiLeaks leak of the DNC emails; and Murray said that he “only played a minor role”… Another Red Herring?

 asserts that pro-Trump Bibi & Co. were the source of the DNC/Podesta emails transfer to WikiLeaks (in part due to Israelis getting RAW intel from NSA), which is congruent with but not bolstered by the above VIPS letter.

  10. Clovie C. Quick
    December 15, 2016 at 13:17

    We know that the DemocRATS are liers/ Hillery sold jobs to foreigners for millions, that she has lied to everybody about everything,that she, Hussein Obama, and Sorros are trying to destroy this country. I have always heard that people vote for the one most like them. That being the case there are a lot of people out there who would like to see a liar, cheat, traitor,etc in the Presidential office.
    The people trying to overturn Trumps election are saying that the 400 + million voters that voted for trump are to stupid to know what’s best for them, only the DemocRATS are the ones who will know. That,s an insult to each and every individual that voted for Trump. Getting that many people very angry with the people trying to do a “hatchet job” on President elect Trump could create problems too big for all of them to handle.

    Clovie C. Quick

  11. Mike
    December 15, 2016 at 10:29

    I appreciate this article, esp. the distinction between hacking and leaking. However, still difficult for me to know what to believe. From other reporting, it seems the agencies and security firms DO have the info supporting a hack by, or from Russia.

    Would you please followup or expand on this, particularly, would you please specifically address this article in NYT By ERIC LIPTON, DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE DEC. 13, 2016?

  12. Mark H
    December 15, 2016 at 10:11

    How can NSA trace if multiple VPN are used, that go in part through countries where there is no juristiction, also using hacked Devices in multiple countries, which also use multiple VPN in multiple countries to do the hack, ultimately ending up going in a circle back to the source, leaving a copy where ever the data traversed.

    A hacker could also deposit the data on ever increasing number of devices, spreading it like a virus, world wide. It could be encrypted also so only intended hacker could read it. The device doing the initial hack could be a pre hacked zombie device in unfreindly nation or the USA its self.

    Where theres a will theres a way it would be impossible to say who did the hacking and any country could be set up like they did it.

    • Sustainable Abundancy
      December 15, 2016 at 14:03

      Mark: What VIPS credibly say is that WikiLeaks received the DNC/Podesta emails due to a “leak” — NOT a “hack.”

    • Jagger
      December 15, 2016 at 16:34

      I was going to ask :
      1) can we really be sure that “The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward”
      2) are we really sure “this could be done without any danger to sources and methods” ?

      I think you and Sustainable Abundancy answered my question #1 and pretty sure there is no way to asses the veracity of an intelligence agency claiming “danger to sources and methods “

      • Sustainable Abundancy
        December 15, 2016 at 19:01

        Jagger: For one answer to your Q#1, you’re welcome. Re Q#2, others with clearances can easily determine any danger to “sources & methods.”

        Regardless, both anti-Russia NeoCon hawks & liberal hawks in Congress appear to want to drag out investigations & hearings — to stop Trump from working with Russia to eliminate ALL terrorist groups in Mideast & elsewhere and on trade issues & sanctions elimination, both of which have great potential to benefit U.S. & other workers & businesses.

    • Miles
      December 16, 2016 at 17:27

      I agree; this article seems distressingly specious. It’s founded entirely on the assumption that (1) the NSA would know if packets went to Russia (which just raises another question, what if Russians did the hacking from a different country?); and (2) the NSA would tell us if it did. This totally ignores basic computer technology like VPNs, spoofing,and other measures that intelligent computer programmers can use to falsify or hide packet routing. The first thing I’d do if I was going to steal a bunch of computer data would be to make it look like someone on the inside released the data.

      There are so many problems with this article from the standpoint of the state of computer technology and general logic that I question not just its veracity, but the reason for its existence. It’s incredibly poorly-researched and falls apart by the introduction of simple logic. This is the first time I’ve read anything here, and will probably be the last.

  13. James
    December 15, 2016 at 04:48

    Poor technical knowledge demonstrated here. the 5 eyes an see the data while it is in transit from sender to receiver, but NOT if a hacker broke in remotely and transferred the files out using some other protocol(no one would hack in and email shit out….LUNACY) also, hackers tend to hide their trail with proxies and vpns, proxies make it more difficult to trace, but not impossible, but vpns, especially chained, it’s gonna be a lot harder to trace with certainty. Email may be broken wide open for them, but ssh and other methods of obscuring packet contents exist, widely.

    • Sustainable Abundancy
      December 15, 2016 at 13:59

      James: No one said that hackers “would hack in and email shit out.” In fact, VIPS & Veterans Today (VT) say that the DNC/Podesta emails were a “leak” — NOT a “hack.” Based on open & accepted sourcing, VT says that Israel gets much RAW intel data directly from NSA. VT says that NSA & Israelis are the original & proximate sources (respectively) of the DNC/Podesta emails for WikiLeaks.

      Yes, intel agencies & hacker groups use proxies & VPNs etc. to hide their hacking — very effectively. However, WikiLeaks possession of the DNC/Podesta emails were almost undoubtedly due to a “leak,” not a hack (as said).

      Use of hacker code names such as “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” appear to be (or at least might be) a concerted effort to cast aspersions on the Russian “bear.” Definitive public intel on who did what to whom (and when) is not yet available.

  14. Mysdiot
    December 14, 2016 at 22:19

    I don’t mean to sound skeptical because I’m not but would this information in fact contradict any claims that they know about the hacks, can trace them to a server, but don’t know where it went after that? Once it leaves US servers, can they still trace the packets? I think that’s the claim isn’t it? I could be wrong so please do correct and/or infom me if I am.

    • Thomas J Mattingly
      December 14, 2016 at 23:11

      Given former ownership of a telecom company and my work with intel veterans (who are not necessarily sane) related to the above letter, I’ll give you a first bite at an answer — and encourage more knowledgeable folks to provide you with a more definitive answer…

      NSA & “Five Eyes” intel agencies can track sender & receiver of most data streams in most if not all countries — especially something as large as the DNC/Podesta emails. There are NO public claims (so far) that CIA/NSA can trace this data to a specific (email) server.

      What the six (6) VIPS signatories say is that CIA is overreaching when CIA says ‘Russia did the DNC/Podesta email hacks’ (or something close). What others say that CIA says is NOT consistent with any such intel, analysis & conclusion — and CANNOT be (for technical reasons — having nothing to do with “sources & methods”).

      See my comment (above) for additional info, intel, analyses & conclusions.

      • James
        December 15, 2016 at 04:49

        shit bud, i didn’t see your reply, scrolled down to bottom just to find the comment box.,. but yes, i support wholeheartedly your assessment :) i made a slightly lower energy reply saying basically the same thing! lol :)

        • Thomas J Mattingly
          December 15, 2016 at 13:41

          “See my comment (above)” was a reference to the comment by Sustainable Abundancy. A mistaken assertion = “my.”

  15. Sustainable Abundancy
    December 14, 2016 at 20:28

    What VIPS are saying is consistent with what (VT) editors & writers have been saying since BEFORE the election — namely, that the DNC/Podesta email leaks to WikiLeaks MUST have been a leak (not a hack). VT asserts that the WikiLeaks source was an NSA leak via the Israelis, who receive much/most RAW intel data from NSA. As per Brzezinski & VT, WikiLeaks has strong Israeli influences & sourcing. WikiLeaks rarely if ever publishes anything damaging to Israel’s reputation.

    However, what VT also alleges — based on VT intel & direct confirmation by high-level Russians & others — is that Russians were actually involved in election hacking & rigging — of voting & tabulating computers and election-related software.

    The most recent VT article is “Intel Drop, December 13, 2016” by Gordon Duff at However, there are many more intel revealing VT articles, available by doing a Google site search of VT: >Russia Israel election Trump Hillary< (many published before & immediately after the election).

  16. Richard Coleman
    December 14, 2016 at 20:02

    Realist: You should be writing articles not comments!

  17. RAC
    December 14, 2016 at 18:56

    If Mr.Putin had all the email material before the election why would he give it to Wikileaks? It would surely be better to hold onto it for use as required after Mrs. Clinton had been elected. Had she become an irritation to him he could have dropped a few choice pages into the mix, when the furore was subsiding drop a few more in. He could have kept her term of government in a constant paralysis of scandal maybe even impeachment. No, giving them to Wikileaks would have been a waste of valuable assets from his point of view. He never had them, perhaps wished he had.

  18. James Mooney
    December 14, 2016 at 16:10

    I’ve been saying it’s paranoid, conspiracist horseshit, and no I’m not a Paid Russian Troll. I just know bullshit when I see it. It’s good to get some confirmation. I’ve even been unfriended for daring to point out rationality to some dems, including “intelligent” ones, who have very sadly descended into the Red Scare nightmareland that used to be only populated by Republicans.

  19. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
    December 14, 2016 at 15:29

    Given the fact that Politics in AMERICA is no more than a CIRCUS to keep the public FOOLED BY AND FOR THE ELITE, can anyone please tell me what is the difference between having Trump in the White House versus having Hillary back in it?! Can anyone in his or her right mind see a difference between Obama and Dick Cheney for God Sake?!

    America is a system run by and for the top 1%…..the rest is just waste of time and part of the ENTERTAINMENT………Bill Clinton brought GOLDMAN SACHS into the system on the Democrats Side……..Trump is doing the same….what is the difference?1…..It is the BANKERS, stupid…………..

  20. John Doe II
    December 14, 2016 at 12:10

    Your basic American citizen, highly educated or High School grad, is largely deficient in history. It’s the sad and maddening reality.
    — This is why/how our citizenry is so easily manipulated.

    (a case in point)— Realist – “Read your history of how most of Eastern Europe became communist after World War 2. It was not through force of arms, but through rigging or overturning elections.”


    The USSR and the USA signed an agreement to split Western and Eastern Europe. It’s termed The Warsau Pact.
    It’s agreement is based on Russia’s great human loss derived in it’s fight to defeat Nazi Germany.

    • John Doe II
      December 14, 2016 at 12:23

      addendum; In 1949 the US formed NATO (western Europe). The Russians formed the Warsau Pact (eastern Europe).

      • Brad Owen
        December 14, 2016 at 15:20

        It may also be worth remembering that Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria were allied to the Axis Powers, as was a big part of Ukraine, Chekoslovakia, Austria, parts of Yugoslavia, and Finland, (after the west failed to come to their aid to repel a Soviet invasion). Stalin was not going to leave blood-thirsty enemies in place, stretching from Ukraine-to-Berlin.

    • Realist
      December 14, 2016 at 16:51

      I’m well aware that Roosevelt and Stalin agreed to divvy up the map of Europe into Soviet and Western spheres of influence at Yalta. However, I was speaking of how the specific puppets in each Eastern European country were put into place. The populations of, for example, Poland and Czechoslovakia were not enthusiastic about putting hard core Marxists in office, however, they ended up with them anyway by manipulation of the electoral process (or assassination through an orchestrated “suicide” in Prague). This resistance was made abundantly clear by the revolutions (bloody or muted) that happened later in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and later still throughout the Warsaw Pact countries leading to Gorbachev’s renunciation of force to hold his satellites in orbit.

      But right after the war, when the Soviets cemented their control over the East, the preferred weapon was the ballot not the bullet, probably because not many had a stomach for yet more bloodshed. There was even a country (Austria) which was intended by the great powers to be under Soviet control in which they were unable to leverage the electoral process and remained with the West. By the same token, the communists tried hard to win control in Greece and Italy at the ballot box but could not succeed whether by hook or by crook.

      An election does not imply fair tactics were used, but is often used as window dressing to legitimize leaders other than the people’s choice. And, just to complicate matters even further, both Yugoslavia and Albania deliberately “chose” (at any rate, ended up with) communist governments, but not under the aegis of the Soviet Union. I think most Americans, indoctrinated by their own government, believe that Russian troops simply installed puppets through force of arms in each of these countries and are still trying to do so based on the hysterical whining done in places like Poland today.

      Neocons would fight for Poland to the last Pole, just as they are fighting for Syria to the last Syrian, rather than accept stability that does not give them total hegemony. Read Dmitry Orlov or the Saker: they’ll give you a thousand reasons why Russia has no intention of dominating, let alone invading, Eastern Europe today, or tomorrow, or the next day… Cultivated hysteria is not a good foundation for American foreign policy.

      • John Doe II
        December 14, 2016 at 18:00

        “I was speaking of how the specific puppets in each Eastern European country were put into place.”

        ( remember the chess masters. )

      • Brad Owen
        December 15, 2016 at 08:14

        The silliness of this whole hyteria is that all those post-war machinations were SOVIET machinations and they no longer exist. The communist party no longer rules; they’re just one of several smaller parties now, in Russia. There is no longer any basis for a “Cold War”, and, in-so-far as the entire fascist/NAZI Movement (international in scope) was an attempt (by ancient Imperial families and their loyal Managerial Elite in banks and corporations) to strongly oppose and destroy the Communist Movement, that mission was accomplished through self-destruction (the typical end-game to all Empires). The “NAZI Internationale” still exists somewhat; now they go after lesser targets like labor movements and social democratic movements and progressive movements. We’ve seen as much in this election.

  21. Coleen Rowley
    December 14, 2016 at 11:40

    It’s great that this piece has initiated such great questions and deep thinking about the various issues involved in what may or may not have happened, especially since our mainstream media reporters–most recently NYT reporters Lipton, Sanger and Shane–mostly just simply regurgitate what their CIA officials are green-lighted to “leak” to them in hushed tones as “Operation Mockingbird” has been revived.

    By the way, my decision not to sign the above piece had nothing to do with political partisanship as one comment suggests. I agree with many of the comments that suggest we actually should realize there are more questions than we have answers for. If only our mainstream media would probe their CIA (and NSA) handlers a little to find out such things as why, if the two groups–“Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” hackers—were both working under the direction of the Russian Govt and military, then why did they step on each others’ toes so much and not coordinate anything, if in fact they were being “directed” from on high as part of nation spycraft? If the DNC is so critical to US democracy and infrastructure, why is it not given any cyber-security assistance? There are many more questions that should be asked and answered before CIA conclusions are blindly accepted.

    • Abe
      December 14, 2016 at 13:48

      CrowdStrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California, gained notoriety for allegedly outing nation state actors conducting economic espionage and IP theft. The Democratic National Committee hired CrowdStrike to investigate a possible breach of their system in May 2016.

      In June 2016, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, presented findings that alleged “two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries” dubbed “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” had penetrated the DNC network in May.

      Seldom reported is the fact that Alperovitch is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council “regime change” think tank.

    • December 14, 2016 at 15:19

      Coleen I did post a comment about partisan politics but in no way meant to include you in the statement. Any one who has been attacked by Sean Hannity has to be truly on the up and up. I commend you on your whistleblowing and also note that you speak out on other causes regardless of party affiliation. When Julian Assange leaks information only on Democrats he is showing partisan politics. When James Comey released information on e-mails just prior to the election I considered that Partisan. Having worked at the FBI would you say that there are divisions within the Bureau? What could his justification have been for doing so?

  22. stefan
    December 14, 2016 at 11:39

    All great powers devote significant resources to probing one another’s cyberspaces. This is necessarily done under cover. Some of these probes are detected, some are not. Some are discovered only later, some anticipated in advance. Naturally, when covers are used, deception is in play, and great efforts will be made to confuse the enemy, including playing dumb, using the shape of the enemy, feinting left and going right, etc.—in short, all of the deceptions used in sports, love, and war.

    The VIPs are only guessing here, because not all the intel has been made public. But they seem to be saying that they can always tell the difference between a hack and a leak. I doubt this.

    They could be right about one thing though. This could just as well be the work of the NSA as of the Russians. Indeed, there is no way to be certain about anyone’s identity unless you manage to break into the room where the fat man is sitting on the bed, and he happens to have his passport with him.

  23. John XYZ
    December 13, 2016 at 23:34

    I tend to agree with the conclusions of the article – that the info was leaked rather than hacked, and that the effort to blame Russia was McCarthyist in nature – if only for intuitive reasons.

    I don’t think the reasoning given in the article is clear-cut, though:

    Yes, the NSA probably has a much clearer picture than it has shown, giving people a reason to expect a more convincing case than an argument from authority. But it’s not as strange that the CIA is the one making allegations, if the NSA is in the role of preparing the research and the CIA is taking the responsibility of presenting it.

    Yes, the NSA and all of its appendages have very sophisticated mechanisms for monitoring Internet traffic when it’s a system they care about, but who’s to say that the DNC records never passed through some “don’t care” zone? Just taking Clinton as an example, it’s clear that security isn’t a top priority within highly political circles, and while the NSA is likely to monitor many things, even they might be uninterested in recording every detail of terrabytes upon terrabytes of packets of kitten videos and the like, and if they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to call upon the information later if an incident occurred. If a packet falls down in a subnet and nobody’s there to record it, does it make a sound?

    Yes, a normal packet is traceable, but if it hits an anonymizing network or a proxy the trail could be lost. Maybe the NSA is shooting for some kind of surveillance at all ends, but if you encrypt or reconstruct the packet along the way, it will be harder to tell that it’s the same packet unless you’re also able to compare the contents of the message. And there are possible countermeasures to that, too.

    Yes, under normal circumstances each packet is its own visible entity, so a large stream of packets going in some unexpected direction would be noticeable, but a sophisticated hacker would spend effort to obscure their activities. If they can compromise many machines, or disassemble messages into many small pieces which can piggyback on legitimate messages, the promise of a tell-tale packet containing a hack becomes more tenuous.

    Yes, blame-the-Russians is a tedious propaganda ploy of the desperate, but it’d be next to impossible to establish that no technically competent individual with some association with Russia (hey, it’s a big country) made any effort to cyber-influence the election, and it’s certainly well within the realm of the plausible that one superpower would try to exert some influence over another.

    Yes, a leak isn’t the same thing as a hack, but it doesn’t mean that a would-be leaker can’t be affiliated with Russia, and the distinction between a leak and a hack is probably lost on the general public.

    • Realist
      December 14, 2016 at 01:31

      Alright, say for the sake of argument that the American geek squad over at the NSA has a foolproof way to trace, with absolute certainty, the origin of any hack attempt. Would anyone have the gall to suggest that such a skillset is not actively being used by our people to spy on others all over the world? Why else would it have been developed? The simple fact is, you can’t know if I’m spying on you unless you spy on me. In essence, a proper interpretation of the CIA’s accusations against Russia is that… “we’ve been spying on you big time!” (“Just like we spy on all our own citizens and other sovereign leaders throughout the world.”)

      • John XYZ
        December 14, 2016 at 09:46

        Of course, but to the casual observer, the “we’ve been spying on you big time” we see here is indistinguishable from a bluff. In America, the majority of people prefer to think that America won the cold war, so when someone insinuates that Russia might have done something devious, then popular opinion rushes to agree. That’s more than enough if the goal is to serve some political sentiment, and the underlying issue this time couldn’t be any more of a political perception issue.

        Part of my reason for thinking that this might be the case is that in ordinary, day-to-day life, I’ve had to face down “haha, we got you”s which have completely missed the mark and missed my intentions, and I’ve faced it with uncomfortable frequency. So if ordinary people are pulling that kind of nonsense, it’s reasonable to suspect that the CIA might be doing similar things.

      • John XYZ
        December 14, 2016 at 14:13

        A couple of other nitpicks: there *are* ways to figure out if someone is spying on you without spying on them. Like for example, you could troll or plant false leads that only someone spying could see, and if the opposing county’s national policy suddenly and unexpectedly goes full retard, then it’s a good bet that they took the bait.

        Also, all nations have spies, but they don’t have the same priorities about what they spy on. There are things which may matter to one country but not to another. To take a canned example, some tech companies maybe very protective of the secrets of their software and hardware, while at the same time using corporate spies to see what their competitors are doing. Others may not have the same philosophy, which is why we see open source software and open patents. It would make sense that one would be spying on the same things which the other is not.

  24. Dwight
    December 13, 2016 at 23:15

    Couldn’t there have been a hack of the DNC server to send the data to a computer somewhere (anywhere) for transfer to a physical device that would end the trace route trail? I could well be missing something as I am no expert on these matters, but the argument here does not persuade me one way or the other. I would like to see an end to this interference in our election by the CIA, which is illegitimate regardless of where Wikileaks got the DNC emails, but hesitate to cite this article without knowing it is conclusive.

  25. Antiwar7
    December 13, 2016 at 20:50

    Question: What if the hacked payload was encrypted and sent over some anonomyzing network like Tor? Wouldn’t it be hard for the NSA to track it then, if it was hacked in that way?

  26. Lee Jenkins
    December 13, 2016 at 19:58

    Devil’s advocate – Logical miss.

    Cliff’s Notes: Great tech data, but author’s arguments boil down to a non-tech distinction: “Why wouldn’t they KNOW instead of ‘guess’?”

    Potential Consistent Answer: If it’s a political thing, then there’s motivation to withhold politically inconvenient details.

    Longer version: They would not WANT to give details if this is a political move to disgrace Trump or stop his inauguration, and details damaged his election opponent. If details emphasized (and so brought greater coverage to) HRC’s servers lacking proper security (never mind she shouldn’t have had them to begin with), then brings down HRC legitimacy as much or more as it does Trump’s. Therefore, LACK of detail (Internal convo: “It was hacked, but don’t give details because they implicate bad security by Obama and HRC… instead just use implication to try to delegitimize election results).

  27. Godfrey Daniel
    December 13, 2016 at 19:16

    Conspicuous by its absence is any concern by the govt. or media about cyber intrusions by a sovereign country, which the US had only recently defined as no less than an act of war. I have not read of any calls for retaliation, defensive measures or even an investigation as to how.

  28. Betty Crider
    December 13, 2016 at 18:50

    Whether leaked or hacked, the DNC was the victim of a cyber Watergate that favored Republicans, Donald Trump, and his Russian buddy Putin. Julian Assange, meanwhile, is certainly the known factor in this criminal activity. The first two had means, motive, and opportunity in the use of technology or false flag operations to supply Assange. Has anyone who is critical of the media reports of CIA statements regarding this issue and possible hacking of voting machines actually seen the classified information? Of course, there would be a question of sources and methods for any report to be published openly. In any case, I remain as skeptical about your analysis as you do about that of the CIA analysis at this point.

    Betty Crider
    Retired CIA Analyst

    • Richard Coleman
      December 14, 2016 at 19:55

      Betty Crider. Hmm, so Putin is Trump’s Russian buddy. When Nixon went to China in 1972, he met with Mao Zedong. Were they buddies?

      • Betty Crider
        December 15, 2016 at 01:16

        Mr. Coleman, the two situations are not the same. We already have existing diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, I do believe Mr. Nixon did not make statements in his presidential campaign that he admired Mao’s skills as a dictator and knew him personally (and later denied it); he did not make a trip to China regarding a Miss Universe competition before he campaigned for the presidency; he did not send his children to China to seek business opportunities; he did not seek financial backing from Chinese banks; and last, but not least, he did not encourage the Chinese government to find allegedly missing documents of his Democratic opponent while campaigning.

        However, Republican President Richard Nixon was guilty of ordering and overseeing the break-in of the DNC Washington headquarters in the Watergate complex during his re-election campaign. You may have forgotten that a Congressional bi-partisan investigation eventually led to Nixon’s resignation. My reference to a cyber Watergate is related to this event.

    • Mysdiot
      December 14, 2016 at 22:35

      Where has there been any suggestion of hacking voting machines?

  29. Stiv
    December 13, 2016 at 18:46

    I’m seeing more and more troll-type ( See Roch ) commentaries on Consortium these days. I’m wondering….

    Looking for calm, level-headed analysis from this page…not name calling or trotting out the same “election level” discourse. Luckily, there are more reasoned voices here, and that’s much appreciated.

    Question to folks here…I read/heard “somewhere” that the “digital fingerprints” on the hacked email servers at DNC showed tools used that are considered rather rudimentary, available to and from a variety of sources ( read Wikileaks ) and most likely NOT be used by the sophisticated Russian security services. Have you heard any of this?

    That would not mean that Russia wasn’t involved…in providing these tools as camoflage or otherwise encouraging other quasi-linked organizations to do something like this.

    However, if it’s true that there is NO signature what-so-ever, I could see the point of it being a leak instead.

    Just trying to this a leak, hack or do “our” security services actually know the truth but will hold it over the head of “The Donald” lest he not “fly right”.

    I’m definitely not GOP or Demo..mostly “anti-fascist” which would be to say anti-corporatist as Benito would describe. Funny that I would have no problem with the military arresting Trump and his cronies for high treason, should it be necessary. Until then, The Donald will need to EARN my respect. So far, I think he’s human garbage and I will be doing all I can that is truthful and upfront to counter his ego driven and fascist agenda. ~~

  30. Marc
    December 13, 2016 at 18:04

    Not that I credit the official claims that the Russians hacked the E-mails, but the Intel vets do not make their case. I understand that the NSA can know where things come from and where they are addressed to, but my understanding is that it is easy to send the hacked info to an intermediate address, which then forwards the info without the NSA obtaining the forwarding address.
    And in any case, the DNC E-mails were a big nothing. Moreover, Hillary’s use of a private server amounted to almost nothing. But Trump! With his horrendous record of bankruptcies, stiffing his employees, multiple divorces, tax avoidance, and looming conflicts of interests, Trump was the juiciest target of all time. His transgressions barely made a ripple, while Hillary was continually pilloried for her E-mails. And why is Comey getting a free pass. His November surprise letters to Congress might well have tipped the election to Trump, yet all the news is the Russkies.

  31. Marc
    December 13, 2016 at 18:03

    Not that I credit the official claims that the Russians hacked the E-mails, but the Intel vets do not make their case. I understand that the NSA can know where things come from and where they are addressed to, but my understanding is that it is easy to send the hacked info to an intermediate address, which then forwards the info without the NSA obtaining the forwarding address.
    And in any caase, the DNC E-mails were a big nothing. Moreover, Hillary’s use of a private server amounted to almost nothing. But Trump! With his horrendous record of bankruptcies, stiffing his employees, multiple divorces, tax avoidance, and looming conflicts of interests, Trump was the juiciest target of all time. His transgressions barely made a ripple, while Hillary was continually pilloried for her E-mails. And why is Comey getting a free pass. His November surprise letters to Congress might well have tipped the election to Trump, yet all the news is the Russkies.

  32. Abe
    December 13, 2016 at 17:27

    The CIA’s apparent lack of direct reporting from a source inside the Kremlin or an electronic intercept points to an internal threat to US security.

    The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

    The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

    Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

    US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

    The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally.

    Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

    The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

    US offensive cyber warfare operations work in tandem with aggressive US and NATO propaganda efforts against the governments of Iran, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Russia and China.

    The US perpetually seeks to portray these governments as human rights violators against whom an oppressed population has risen in defiance.

    Despite its clumsiness, a good portion of the Western public has found the US/NATO propaganda persuasive. Western factions critical of Russia will find new complaints about “Russian hacking” credible.

    The recent memorandum by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) concerning the baseless allegations of hacking highlights a critical point:

    “As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in the communications arena.”

    Journalists are encouraged to investigate NSA involvement in domestic offensive cyber warfare operations.

    • Abe
      December 13, 2016 at 17:49

      Former intelligence contractor and National Security Agency-whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a great deal about the NSA’s partnership with Israeli intelligence.

      Be sure to check the document links in this article:

    • December 13, 2016 at 17:49

      “Cyber Gladio” !!

  33. Aren Haich
    December 13, 2016 at 17:16

    When Americans talk of Russian interference in the US elections, they should remember what happened in Russia in 1996.
    President Yeltsin’s public opinion was at a historical low point, a fifth place among presidential candidates, with only 8 percent support, while Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov was in the lead with 21 percent just before the 1996 elections.
    Then an American team of four experts in PR arrived in Moscow and turned the whole thing around and Yeltsin won the presidency.,8599,2107565,00.html

  34. VG
    December 13, 2016 at 16:59

    Another weakness in this Russian hackers story is that someone was trying to tip the election in favor of Trump. But the real revelation from the DNC emails was how the party leadership conspired to thwart Sanders. If anyone was trying to ‘tip’ the election they would have released this information during the primaries where they just might have pushed the Sanders campaign over the top.

    The Wall Street speech emails again might have been fatal for Clinton if they had been released during a key primary stretch when Bernie was gaining momentum. Hillary’s relationship with Wall Street was a central issue for the Sanders campaign, but was barely mentioned by Trump since he and Clinton both had cozy relations with the banks. In other words, the motive and the means simply don’t match up.

  35. Roch
    December 13, 2016 at 16:37

    CrookdClintons have long mentioned the existence of “a right-wing conspiracy against” them.
    This is true to the fact that the right-wing is going to be very vigilant to their doings to not let any error escpe innoticed.
    But again, this is an example of CrookdClintonsRedefinitions to suit their purpose: by definition, a conspiracy is a secret plan by teo or more to do something 1, harmful or 2, unlawful to hurt someone.
    All of CrookdClintons actions were harm that SHE AND HERS DID TO THEMSELVES!
    Was it revelealed? Yes, but revelations are not acts of conspiracy.
    This is the final WrapUpBow on the RightWingConspiracy theory.
    Not sure what you would call CrookdClinton etal actions against SenSanders?– NOW THAT IS A CONSPIRACY, PAR EXCELLENCE!

  36. December 13, 2016 at 16:11

    To begin my 2-Cents worth, “Senate Intelligence” Committee is an oxymoron.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the majority of US analysts that work in our intelligence agencies. Most of them are hard working honest men and women who most often make solid analysis of the situations they are studying. It is the people above them who as often take good intelligence and politicize it for their own purposes.

    This became quite blatant during the Reagan (Bush Sr. was involved in this) and Bush Jr. administrations but undoubtedly has occurred in every administration. The people on the Senate Intelligence Committee, especially in today’s rancid political atmosphere, are probably not that far removed from such duplicity


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

    Second, I am very surprised that William Binney would sign off on a letter that promotes the idea that transferring data from any machine to any device could possibly hide such activity from the activity logs. There are many activity tracking programs in the public domain that do just this job alone (ie:, which are used to monitor such activity in US corporations. I am quite sure that our intelligence agencies have their own versions of such software.

    As a result, it is highly unlikely that such data would be easily taken out of an intelligence center unless one of two things occurred; one, such programs are not implemented on all workstations and servers where certain personnel may not be under such restrictions, which is highly unlikely, or two, a person in the intelligence agencies was able to get around such restrictions prior to making the copies of such data, which is a possibility given the nature of sophistication that hackers today have let alone agency technical personnel. The people who have the minds to build such software know how to bypass it as well.

    The more likely scenario was that such data was leaked by a person that routinely gets such information as part of a larger group where such tracking restrictions cannot apply to hard copy data though the names of such people are registered.

    If however, the data ‘leaked” was from a person inside one our intelligence agencies than that person would have to perform some level of a “hack” in order to get around any activity tracking software (this includes using an administrator password he or she may have stolen or have gotten through legitimate means that overrides any activity tracking) and then “leak” the data.

    Anything else would have simply been pure sloppiness on the part of the intelligence agencies, which is quite possible considering that Mr. Binney and an associate (If I remember correctly) developed probably one of the finest data analysis programs in computer history only to have their efforts thrown away so that agency heads could spend billions more on similar but completely useless software…

    Steve Naidamast
    Sr. Software Engineer

  37. Roch
    December 13, 2016 at 15:46

    Hacking is an electronic BandE; leaking is a donation.

  38. Drew Hunkins
    December 13, 2016 at 15:03

    Over at Commondreams there are a few posters who even attempt to disparage this wonderful piece by Intel Vets for Sanity that debunks much of the delusional hysteria.

  39. John Doe II
    December 13, 2016 at 14:38

    Chronology: The ’Blame Russia’ Operation for Election Interference Is a British Fraud

    Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS)—The current hysteria to blame Russia for hacking and interfering in U.S. elections is no civic vigilence, but a classic British fraud operation, for the Queen to protect her Obama and avert the dumping of his failed London/Wall Street policies. It should be seen in the widest international context, of the collapse of the U.S. economic and political system, as well as the potential break-away from this collapse by populations around the world, from the Philippines, to Italy, to Bulgaria, to Moldova, to the U.S., to the Brexit voters, and more.

    The chronology below shows the beginnings of the fraud, with the July 2016 Clinton campaign charges against Russia, made after leaks showed that the Democratic National Committee was secretly acting in Hillary’s favor against Bernie Sanders, her principal Democratic opponent. Next, the Obama Administration itself jumped in to make accusations against Russia, as voters started lining up against Clinton. Then, after the electorate went for Trump, Obama formally called for an investigation of Russian involvement. Now there are calls for delaying the Electoral College vote altogether, and even for a re-election, plus denunciations of Russian President Vladimir Putin for hijacking the

  40. Bill Bodden
    December 13, 2016 at 13:24

    Apparently the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the FBI are not sold on the CIA’s case.

    Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources By Mark Hosenball and Jonathan Landay –

  41. Wm. Boyce
    December 13, 2016 at 12:11

    Thank you for this article. The clear explanation was very helpful.

    I don’t know why all of this is going on, but it doesn’t bode well (as usual) for common citizens.

  42. December 13, 2016 at 12:00

    Thanks to former Intel people for this informative article. These days we cannot believe anything that comes from government or the media. Will the media even report this? I see the irresponsible attempt by Democrats to blame Russia for Hillary’s loss as an attempt to regain power and to deflect blame from themselves for running the wrong candidate; and an attempt by Republicans to escalate warmongering. The Dems supported the electoral college until she lost. Nothing was done by either party to insure voting accuracy until she lost. Both parties had a part in gerrymandering, and in voter suppression. We have now what we let develop.

    Of course we need to correct our political and electoral system and make it trustworthy. We need a truth and reconciliation commission to do this, not quick fixes and fear incitement to benefit one side or the other. This is what people should demand and it should include people of all persuasions who are concerned about our country, but maybe not the self-serving political establishment. Is everything we and our friends do and have okay, but verbotten to the rest of the world? We need to look at ourselves and our double standards before throwing stones. Let’s try to do it in a constitutional way.

  43. December 13, 2016 at 11:42

    The word OUT OF CONTROL doesn’t do justice anymore to what is going on with the human animals in the USA, just learned that the Teachers Union Pension Fund in the USA invest their pension money in the killing machinery manufacturing companies in the USA.
    Think about this people that have young children being under the daily control five days a week the first 10-years of their initial development with these lunatics teachers.

  44. Drew Hunkins
    December 13, 2016 at 11:29

    Over at Commondreams I’ve been called “hysterical and delusional” for flat out disbelieving that Russia hacked the election to favoer Trump.

    To buy into this claptrap is akin to believing Comet Pizza ran a child sex trafficking ring.

  45. Tannenhouser
    December 13, 2016 at 10:30

    Seth Rich.

    • Guy
      December 13, 2016 at 13:25

      That is a good possibility and I have suggested same myself on other forums .But how will we ever know ?

    • R. Merrill
      December 14, 2016 at 16:07

      This is the problem with someone like Craig Murray saying he’s met the leaker. He will be demanded to prove it by naming the guy. Assange, too. If they say anything that might build a case against someone inside the Clinton campaign team, we’ll have another Seth Rich.

  46. Steve
    December 13, 2016 at 09:06

    Here’s a quote that tends to reinforce what was stated in this article —

    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.”

    • December 13, 2016 at 12:15

      Last May a group of members of the VIPS (a lot more than have signed onto this letter/story) ran a story about what was taking place about the e-mails released by Assange. They referred to the e-mails as being “hacked”. Now they insist that they weren’t hacked they were only leaked. They now claim that there is no Russian involvement because of their word change. Call it what you like it did take place and you provide no proof that Russia was not involved. Provide names of people who have proof that Russia has not been involved. There are many on this site that claim to have knowledge of who is really involved. “Where there is smoke there is usually fire”?

      • Guy
        December 13, 2016 at 13:24

        But there is no smoke , just propaganda fed to the public .This is what you consider smoke.How can you prove that you did not commit a crime ,that is an impossibility .So Daniel , you need to do some mental gymnastics and rephrase your comment.

        • December 13, 2016 at 16:03

          Guy, If you did not notice there was a question mark at the end of my quote on smoke and fire. The same applies to the general feeling of many on this site who have suggested that Hillary has committed just about any crime you can imagine. My point was that the memo did not have the signatures of all those who signed the one I mentioned that was written in May. Do you disbelieve what the CIA is now saying? If so what part do you disagree with? I haven’t seen it it’s classified. So I don’t think you have any idea either. Did you read the article I quoted? I don’t think you read that either.

          • Guy
            December 13, 2016 at 21:35

            ” Provide names of people who have proof that Russia has not been involved”
            That is in your statement isn’t it ?
            You blame the Russians by stating that there is no proof that they were not responsible.
            Again I repeat ” mental gymnastics ”
            My statement:
            “This is what you consider smoke.How can you prove that you did not commit a crime ,that is an impossibility “

        • December 14, 2016 at 08:48

          It’s about “reading comprehension”. Read the post above mine. It mentions Craig Murray. He knows who did the hacking according to Assange. I doubt that you read the other posting by the VIPS, there were a lot more VIPS signing on to that post. Maybe, just maybe they don’t all agree with the latest VIPS post. Here’s a shocker: there might be partisan politics on both sides of this issue.

  47. Brendan
    December 13, 2016 at 07:56

    There seems to be no limit to the hysteria about alleged Russian interference in the US elections. Apparently the latest rant by Keith Olbermann about Russia’s government coup in Washington is real and not a spoof. At about 5:30 he even talks about “Russian scum”.

    • Joe Tedesky
      December 13, 2016 at 17:21

      Wow, Brendan that was riveting. I would like to recommend that we armor up Keith Olbermann, tell him to lock and load, and send him in on the first wave against the Russians on a ground assault, and let Keith whip their Russian asses…or will he be wiping his own? (sorry for the bad visual but there is no other way to describe his nuttiness) Seriously, do you think Olbermann puts to much sugar in his 12 cups of coffee? Although Olbermann’s video rant could be his new audition for his return to MSNBC….maybe?? It was also good of Keith to define what is a traitor to us. I would also like to apologize for America, and tell the Russian people that we in America don’t all consider them scum. What is happening in America is more proof of why we should all eat organic food, or watch less cable news.

      • Realist
        December 14, 2016 at 21:46

        That was scary. The man has definitely become unhinged.

        Meanwhile, the CIA keeps raising the ante, saying today that they have the personal words of spies in the Kremlin that Putin personally ordered the meddling in our election. Apparently they will say or do anything to start a war with Russia. There are at least two people, including an ambassador from Great Britain who says he received personal word that it was a Washington insider who leaked, not hacked, the emails. Now the confrontation has escalated from who has hacked whom to who has personally spied upon whom. Normally, such an affront would become a casus belli and the everyday citizens of both countries would suffer the bloody consequences. I think that events have gone beyond the control of any American president and the deep state (through the agency of the CIA) is taking command and may soon be ordering the war to end all civilisation. Obama is just a chump taking orders. I have no idea what they will do to Trump.

    • Abe
      December 13, 2016 at 19:32

      Olbermann’s latest riveting Apocalyptic rant:

      “Because just as in Churchill’s time, we have a Hitler. No, it’s not Trump, not yet… Trump is Neville Chamberlain.”

      See VIDEO minutes 5:25-6:25

      And Hillary is a “British Bulldog”?

  48. Brendan
    December 13, 2016 at 06:48

    Craig Murray and Julian Assange are two of the the very few people with access to the source of the DNC leak. They have stated the same thing that VIPs have figured out.

    “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.”

  49. December 13, 2016 at 05:57

    All this in an attempt to influence the December 19th Electorial Vote to favor of Hillary Clinton?.

  50. Chet Roman
    December 13, 2016 at 03:15

    If it was an inside job at the DNC there’s one suspect that comes to mind. Unfortunately, he was killed in the early morning when the streets were empty by a robber that didn’t steal anything. The same guy who Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward leading to the capture of the killer.

    • Janet Masleid
      December 15, 2016 at 03:07

      Well, Chet.. there is one person who actually says he met with the leaker of the emails. (At least this is what I am getting out of this.)
      Glenn Greenwald (Pulitzer Prize winner and co-founder of The Intercept) quotes Mr. Murray as well.

      ”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.”

      They haven’t had any real knowledge about ‘Russian hacking’ all summer and they still don’t. HRC hasn’t had special security briefings and hasn’t even held office. This is all circumstantial ‘evidence’ and pretty sure we are meant to fear the Russians at the end of the day no matter what.

      Unless something changed, as of the weekend of December 11, 2016, there was a conversation between Jake Tapper and RNC chair, Reince Preibus with Preibus basically yelling at Tapper insisting that he had personally been assured by the FBI that no hacking (or leaking) of RNC emails had occurred. So… this talk of treason that is being promoted… good Heavens. Actually, there was quite a bit of yelling… to get his point across and be heard. How odd that MSM has come to this? How odd that we are being directed as to who we can and cannot listen to (”fake news”). How sad and frightening that MSM cannot fathom for themselves what is their own fake news. How easily will we allow ourselves to be manipulated?

      Manufactured Consent. It is what they require from us.

      Who are these opinionated people any way? Isn’t Clapper the one who is retiring and who stood there and lied to Congress’ face about there not being any spy program against us U.S. citizens–until wikileaks and Edward Snowden proved otherwise (about the presence of the N.S.A. program?) And isn’t the CIA the same outfit that kept having the documents ‘massaged’ until they found the wording suitably inflammatory to be used to show (haha) ‘evidence’ of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

      I mean, really!

      Any way, here is former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and what he has to say about the so-called Russian ‘evidence.’ He is quite the fellow.

      Thank you!

      • Janet Masleid
        December 15, 2016 at 06:18

        I just read this article on the NYT’s. They are Hell bent on accusing Putin/Kremlin of having ‘military’ hackers alter our elections. It looks like numerous parties were phishing. .not even in a coordinated fashion at times. So maybe everyone wanted to leak info?
        Thought I’d post it here as it has great links in it. The comments on the NYT’s are always interesting. Apparently CrowdStrike has the proof behind the claims for some of this. Perhaps only Assange et al will ever really know who all the players are who gave this information.

        Did exposing unpleasant truths actually subvert our democracy? Are we really going to ”blame the Russians” for all of the many issues that we as a nation have with our election process? Are we going to pretend that the Russians are so magical that they could physically access our electronic voting machines and corrupt the output (as has been suggested in past elections). Electronic voting machines do not need to be proprietary and off limits.

  51. Joe Tedesky
    December 13, 2016 at 02:51

    Obviously there is a gigantic war going on between the elites, and with the information provided here by the VIP’s this VIP knowledge becomes of value for just to know what could or isn’t being done to clear the air. What worries me the most is what has our congress stuffed inside of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017, that could end our first amendment right of freedom of speech. Are we the public going to suffer due to Hillary’s poor strategy to gain the most electoral votes? It’s starting to look that way watching congress act, along with the rhetoric being thrown around about Russian election tampering.

    On a side note; if Trump is squaring off with the CIA, then it may do him well to make friends with the Russians, and have on his side the FBI and the KGB….JFK could have used that kind of protective alliance.

    • Realist
      December 13, 2016 at 03:41

      Yes, the way censorship of “fake” news is being threatened by congress scares me, and probably scares the authors on these sites even more.

      The constitution is certainly being violated with respect to the 4th amendment, and now they want to extend that to the 1st amendment. The problem lies in the “originalist” interpretation that nutty Scalia brought to the court.

      Because the founding fathers didn’t have electronic devices at their disposal, the originalists say that our phone conversations, emails, and internet browser searches are not protected by the 4th amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”).
      Apparently, phones and computers are not even considered personal “effects.” And, so the NSA can surveil you without limit. Warrants have also become quaint under the Patriot Act.

      Now, I suppose that congress will say the 1st amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) doesn’t apply if the speech is transmitted electronically, allowing blogs on the internet to be censored for “fake news.” There is no way they could censor the printed word because the word “press” is specifically mentioned. They even allow pornography. According to the Supremes money is speech and corporations are people, both with full constitutional protections. But political speech will become strictly controlled if the talking monkeys in the Capitol have their way.

      Curious that the originalists exempt modern technology from constitutional protections except in the case of revolvers, semi-automatic handguns, shotguns and other “arms” that did not exist at the time the 2nd amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) was written.

      • Kurt H. Grimm
        December 18, 2016 at 02:36

        Censorship is already starting by the Libs: Mark Zuck is implementing censoring on Facebook against what “they” deem fake news!

        All you socialists here are really off base on a lot of points – it is true what they say “if you repeat the lies long enough, even you will believe them” (Goebles) and the corrupt collusion the left has had with the MSM for decades and came to light recently hadn’t changed any other them or any of the left. Funny how, again, if you don’t agree with a lib they bully you and when exposed for what they really are (morally corrupt and mentally bankrupt) they throw a smoke show and spin more deceit to steer you away from the truth (and there is no denying the truth that has come out about the left elitists in the last 12-24 months). Last item, stop listening to the Obama’s (both Mr & Mrs) rhetoric on his 2 terms and so called success – lots of real data disproving his “no scandals, improved economy, more jobs, low unemployment, great universal healthcare, ad nauseam!

        • Realist
          December 19, 2016 at 05:14

          If you haven’t noticed a huge number of liberals here are saying the same things about bullying and intellectual dishonesty that you are. Who do you think are the most vocal critics of Mrs. Clinton, her campaign, and her recent attempt to hijack the office of the presidency after having lost the election? I’ll tell you who, a multitude of liberals who voted for Obama and feel betrayed by him and his former secretary of state. And what Zuckerman is doing at Facebook in response to the bogus claim of “fake news” which was just a campaign ploy by Hillary, well that is so very wrong too. Personally, I think most of what he does at that website is intrusive, manipulative and blatantly political, hence I refuse to register with it, so I am locked out of most discussions on forums across the internet for which Facebook has become sine quo non. To me, and I think to most liberals who post here, to be a liberal means to be independent, a totally free agent not bound to some organisation or ideology that cowtows to some self-proclaimed authority. So, we feel free to agree with you and bash Hillary, Zuckerman, Obama and whoever else gets in the way of liberty and imposes dysfunctional groupthink upon the country. Basically, it comes down to the establishment (comprised of oligarchs supporting both major parties, their political pawns and their propagandist media) who want order and control in society and independent free thinkers who want freedom, justice and economic opportunity for everyone. How about focusing on issues rather than groups and labels, because you’ll find a lot of liberals (whom you want to call “socialists”) who agree with you on numerous issues–though maybe not all. There is no “pure” political ideology any more than there is a “pure” race, religion or anything else.

      • stinkpiggy
        December 18, 2016 at 09:05

        Just an aside, here, not to detract from your remarkable insights.
        I’ve come to the vague notion, based largely on the pervasiveness of pornography and the apparent enthusiasm for it in various countries, that it is likely a manufactured tool for social control, given that it distracts the segment of the population traditionally most inclined to violent overthrows of political systems, the 18-34 year old male. Coincidentally, this group is also responsible for the lion’s share of profits, amounting to well over a billion dollars a year, of the alcohol industry.
        Carry on!!

    • Brad Owen
      December 13, 2016 at 15:11

      Yeah, the war between elite Factions sort of reminds me of Mark Lane’s “Yankee vs. Cowboy” ideas. I just had a gloomy idea; What if the Elites are really on the same page concerning policies towards Russia and China, BUT, one Faction favors out-right confrontation in a cold, or even hot, war; while the other Faction favors seduction and “buttering up” Putin and the Russians, trying to revive their neo-liberal oligarch circles within Russia, and trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China, as they’re deemed too powerful together to oppose (meanwhile The City is seducing China via their Hong Kong asset; a “Wall Street” of the East)?

      • Joe Tedesky
        December 13, 2016 at 17:01

        Brad, someone on this site not long ago brought up an interesting change of events, that is worth contemplating. Remember how Nixon went to China, and then Russia? Well that was genius to makes friends with both of these countries, and this strategy put the U.S. in between the two rivals, China and Russia. This was a good place to be, and left the U.S. with a fair amount of control to go between these two other superpowers. Then came Hillary’s Pivot to Asia, and with that there goes the warmth of China. This alone shouldn’t be a big deal, as long as we keep Russia in our safe place. Well then came the Kiev putsch, and there goes Russia. So now Russia and China are for once cooperating with each other.

        I could see a U.S. game plan, whereas the U.S. will unite with Russia, and there by leave China in the lurch. On the other hand if America were to get off of this world hegemony kick, and join in with the many other nations who wish to retain their sovereignty this would be a wonderful way to turn back the hands on the doomsday clock. I guess we will all just need to wait and see what does come out of a Trump Administration.

        • Brad Owen
          December 14, 2016 at 07:22

          Yeah Joe, I agree that there is much more to be gained by cooperating with Russia and China on their gigantic development and infrastructure plans and projects for all the nations of the World. We can retool for building transport and construction equipment instead of military equipment, with “armies” of workers instead of soldiers. We can retool for a gigantic space program intending to set up bases and automated factories on the Moon, and terra-forming settlements on Mars (this will give some big bucks to the former MIC, now S[pace]IC). The development of Fusion powerplants (fueled by He3 isotope mined on the Moon), would reduce a trip to Mars from 7 or 8 months to a week or so, AND enable the Fusion Torch to be made, recycling 100% of all waste and refuse. Maybe appealing to Trump’s money-making instincts will tip the scales towards cooperation and away from the vain pursuits of hegemony. The World Land Bridge Project will present awesome opportunities in the real estate market on Alaska’s West Coast, rivaling NYC and Los Angeles properties. Maybe this real estate mogul-turned-President will take the bait…trillions to be made up there.

        • Janet Masleid
          December 15, 2016 at 02:33

          What is a stake: “are fundamental rivalries within the US establishment marked by the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency.” (Ibid)

          Please read this fantastic article. It is written by Professor Michel Chossudovsky who is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]


      • Richard Coleman
        December 14, 2016 at 19:42

        Brad, “The Yankee and Cowboy War” was written by Carl Oglesby, not Mark Lane. Both opposed and were denounced by the supporters of the Warren Commission lone-nut myth.

        • Brad Owen
          December 15, 2016 at 07:55

          Thanks. I was just trying to recall from memory…shoulda googled.

      • Bart in Virginia
        December 15, 2016 at 10:01

        Speaking of Russia and China, why is it fine for Gov. Branstad, soon to be ambassador to China, to be chummy with China’s leadership, but bad for Tillerson, soon to be SecState, to be the same with Putin?

        • Brad Owen
          December 15, 2016 at 13:10

          I think it is fine. I’m an E.I.R. fan, and a fan of BRICS, Silk Road Policies, a fan of Helga LaRouche whom the Chinese call “the Silk Road lady”, and such. I see Putin as a good and sane statesman. The fact that Trump has put forth friends of Ru and Ch, gives me the one glimmer of hope that Trump will actually (for whatever poorly-understood, greedy, bass-ackwards reasons) stumble us into FDR’s plans for the peaceful management of the post-war World, using essentially us, the Russians and the Chinese, as guarantors of the peaceful transition from “Warring Empires and their captured colonies” to sovereign U.N. Nations with Marshall Plan-type development programs for all Nations. In FDR’s time, it was understood that the real problems were the Imperial Brits, French, Dutch, Spaniards, Portuguese, Belgians with their Congo, ad nauseum, NOT the Union of Socialist REPUBLICS, nor the REPUBLIC of China, who, along with the U.S. REPUBLIC, would get this job done. Coyote Trickster leading us every step of the way…heluva way to run a railroad, but it is running (hopefully-with-fingers-crossed).

  52. Realist
    December 13, 2016 at 02:22

    Hillary Clinton herself first used the “Russian hackers” as a campaign ploy, along with the “Trump is Putin’s puppet” meme around the time of the conventions. It got no traction, as most people thought the notion was ludicrous. Moreover, if the intelligence agencies entertained it seriously they either bungled any investigation or put such an investigation on the back burner for any number of legitimate or nefarious reasons. This assumes that, even if real, the public actually read and paid any mind to the wikileaks emails. How many of you ever read a single such email? We may have read accounts of them, but who read the actual documents, and, amongst those who did, how many were swayed to cast their vote based, even partially, on them? The emails were such a low profile issue in the campaign that it seemed over the top (at least to me) when Hillary went to the bother of claiming that they were “faked,” along with most of the news and analysis not coming from the prostituted “mainstream” media that was (and still is) totally in the bag for her. Already she was plotting an attack on freedom of speech and confabulating an excuse and the pretext of a soft coup just in case she lost an election in which she was given a 98% chance of winning by most analysts.

    The actions of most politicians, like Hillary, and state governments, like that of Russia, are governed by probabilities. If she didn’t think she’d have an excellent chance of winning, she wouldn’t have run, unless she also thought that a little cheating (as perpetrated against Bernie Sanders) could improve her odds. In fact, I would submit that, in addition to taking actions to hold Sanders back, the Clinton campaign probably did everything in their power to increase the probably that a candidate with the high unfavorability ratings of Trump would be her opponent in the general election. I know that the mainstream media did everything to enhance Trump’s chances during the primaries, always covering his every move and portraying his series of wins to be history in the making. It seemed like they were hand-picking Hillary’s opponent as yet another favor to her. Hillary seemed like a sure thing and Trump seemed like a guy being set up to lose, like the Washington Generals do without fail to the Harlem Globetrotters.

    With all those probabilities in mind, what would it gain Putin to risk alienating the anticipated future American president by hacking her emails and putting them on display to the world? Apparently, he’s reaped the downside of such subterfuge without even a shred of evidence that he ordered it, or that any Russian, even a free-lancer, was involved. Or that, as those who suggest that the emails were leaked rather than hacked by a Washington insider (perhaps someone from the NSA, the CIA or the FBI), he received any benefit whatsoever from the release of this information which was mostly ignored or actually used as a cudgel against Trump by Hillary herself. Hillary people most likely leaked the “pussy gate” tapes on Trump, and they didn’t seem to be determinative in the election. Why should Russia expect that they could swing the election to a huge underdog in Trump on the basis of evidence that was already being condemned as “fake” or “illgotten goods” by Hillary herself and was largely ignored by the public? Putin is usually very smart, why would he be so reckless for such little in return in this one instance? That would be very un-Putin-like. In fact, it sounds much more Hillary-like, as we’ve already established that she cheated against Bernie in the primaries. I am sure that Putin also realises that just having damning information against Hillary would in no way give him the power to stuff American ballot boxes or to hack the actual voting machines (even if such were possible) which are not interfaced with the internet. Even internal American political partisans have yet to find a way to hack the machines without setting hands on them. In fact, they rely more on various voter suppression laws–all nice and legal which rarely get overturned by the courts. So, unless Lindsey Graham and the rest of the Republican establishment work for Putin, the Russians did nothing to change the outcome of this election. Nor could they. The idea is risible: this is not Ukraine.

    Now that the election is history, and a result more shocking than “Dewey defeats Truman” is in the record, Hillary, her blind followers, the establishment elites, the power structures of both political parties and the “mainstream” media are grasping for a mechanism by which to explain her loss, absolve her of political malpractice, and actually reverse the results through the process of a soft coup. You’ve read about their hopes that electors will prove faithless, congress will negate the election, courts will negate the election, Obama will declare marshal law, Michael Moore will lead a promised riot and obstruct Trump’s inauguration, and someone will either order a new election or name Hillary the winner. This is all crazy talk, the fantasies of unhinged lunatics, which apparently now encompasses the White House, the congress, the media and several million registered Democrats who still think its “her turn” in spite of her hawkish policies which, frankly, scared away millions of liberals and independents who had previously voted for Obama. I am in that latter camp, and we didn’t need Putin to tell us that all out war with Russia over who governs Syria and sundry oblasts in Ukraine was not a fair bargain. We didn’t let Hillary steal the election by purveying Russophobic fear. Let’s not allow her to steal the constitution and the office of the presidency after that fact through this blatant coup attempt. Read your history of how most of Eastern Europe became communist after World War 2. It was not through force of arms, but through rigging or overturning elections. It was all nice and legal, just as they plan to make this coup if we let them.

    • Josh Laudermilk
      December 13, 2016 at 05:00


      I like you. It was a pleasure reading your write-up here. Not a case of, what’s it called? Tl;dr? I hope you comment more. Consortium is one of the few news sources I rely on, though I’m fully aware it is extremely biased toward President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party writ large. A political party which I consider to be one of the most corrupt in all the modern world and Consortium is very soft on President Obama. I don’t consider the Democratic Party to be a solution, but part of a systemic problem. I sincerely regret voting for President Obama. I am happy I didn’t vote for, at the very last second, Jill Stein. I had every intention of voting for Jill Stein as I support the Green Party, but Jill Stein is hellbent on putting Hillary Clinton in power, having raised more money (to the tune of more than $6.7 million USD) to throw the election for Hillary Clinton than she did for her own fucking presidential campaign. It has destroyed any trust I had in the Green Party, as I now see the Greens being little more than an accessory to the DNC. So, I find myself in political exile once more. Formerly a Democrat, formerly a Green, now lost and jaded as fuck. I still want to hear (or read, rather) more of what you have to say. Your commentary is powerful, informative and on target.

      • elmerfudzie
        December 14, 2016 at 13:24

        Josh Laudermilk, don’t blow a fuse. If the citizenry at large cannot find acceptable leadership among the current election choices then we’ll accomplish our goals with tools such as the BDS movement. It doesn’t always have to be about Israel, however I have been persuaded that unless we start targeting the pocketbooks of warmongering corporate entities, the people stand little chance for shaping the political direction of our country. Our citizen’s cannot change the “hidden hand” that has consumed all three branches of government. This dilemma just may come to, “No Taxation Without Representation” movements. Observe the Koch brothers, they have directed most of their time and money towards manipulating local government agencies; school boards, county commissioners offices and the like. Ask yourself why?

    • December 13, 2016 at 07:20

      Dear Realist,
      Thanks so much for your…your, well, your realistic and very instructive comment.

    • Joe Tedesky
      December 13, 2016 at 10:30

      Excellent analysis Realist, it was fun to read.

      The MSM sure did slant their coverage of Trump’s Republican Primary rivals. Jeb was on film displaying his ‘low energy’, Cruz was a bumbler as he knocked Fiorina off the stage, and little Marco had small hands. Mean while how can we all forget the 24/7 uninterrupted news coverage of every Trump speech the media could squeeze into their programming…it was a fun time for all, and Donald won.

      Yeah, it was all fun until the General Election, and then Donald became the pussy grabbing monster that he was…hide the woman, and Billy Bush was toast. Oh, and by the way, the Sanders supporters were nowhere to be found, but who needs them when the Kagan’s and Bush’s send their love and endorsement. Celebrity after celebrity came out, and Hillary’s commercials demonizing Trump were a work of art…truly award winning commercials….we were all entertained. How could she lose?

      Technically Hillary did well (if she didn’t cheat) getting the popular vote. What Hillary did overlook was her zeroing in on the Electoral College votes. She didn’t help herself by telling coal miners that the coal business was over, and her allegiance to the minority voter overlooked that out of work union worker who was so disappointed with their twice voting for Obama, that anyone, even Trump was going to get their vote.

      Good comment Realist, did Putin influence your post?

      • Realist
        December 13, 2016 at 15:19

        Hush, Joe! We don’t want him hacking our emails to get complementary posts on CN! Ha, ha, ha…!

    • Roch
      December 13, 2016 at 16:07

      Thank you, very well-said. The CrookdClintonsObama tro are indebted to WS. They are all just very very DISHONEST.
      You cannot blame the russians– or anyone else for what happened on Clifornis to SenSanders– that was in-house!
      This is of he same childish idiocy that thinks you can cover up criminal acts by saying “iamsorry” and hiding behind pseudonyms!!

    • oluwa
      December 14, 2016 at 02:44

      Wow. You are officially declared a genius.

    • Richard Steven Hack
      December 20, 2016 at 18:02

      You hit the nail on the head. Russia wouldn’t do this sort of thing for two reasons:

      1) The likelihood that ANYTHING Russia would do in terms of intervening in the US election would be less likely to swing the election than the actions of the candidates themselves would be known to the Russians. Thus the effort would have to be equally massive and thus equally likely to be discovered and attributed.

      In fact, how would Russia even KNOW that there was something of value to be discovered through hacking? They would have to go through the immense effort to do the hacking just to discover something useful that might or might not be enough to swing the election.

      2) Given the risk of being discovered and blamed for intervening. Russia would have to weigh the likelihood of such intervention being effective against the cost of being discovered. Given that Russia has already been blamed despite no evidence of their actual involvement, this clearly shows that Russia would have been aware of this risk. Worsening relations with the US hardly justifies influencing the election either way. The only way that would work would be if Trump actually was a “Putin agent” – for which there is zero evidence. And even if Trump was, most of the people he has appointed are not, and he would also have to contend with the hostility of Congress in any event.

      In short, it makes no common sense at all that Russia would put any significant effort into trying to influence the US election. Russia is not the US – which influences elections in countries by establishing NGO’s and pouring money and assistance to specific political parties in the country involved. Where are the Russian NGO’s in the US? Where is the Russian money – if you don’t count the $25 million the CLINTON – NOT Trump – campaign officer received for his business dealings in Russia? All the Democrats can come up with as an alternative is the lame concept of “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” – as if any of the alternative media cited reaches more than a couple percent of the US population in comparison with the mainstream US media.

      Stepping back and considering the issue makes it clear that the entire “Russian intervention” story makes no sense.

  53. CitizenOne
    December 13, 2016 at 00:19

    Perhaps the power brokers who are responsible for the torrid amounts of cash Uncle Sam spends on Defense are longing for the old Cold War days when Russia was our enemy and we justified a huge military budget on our Russian enemy. Making friends might be a gloomy outlook for Neocons who have lots of stock in the defense industries and who have a need to prop up their share values. Eisenhower warned of the confluence military industries and political war hawks he termed the Military Industrial Complex. He warned us to be vigilant about it. Then he skipped town. Johnson had the same ominous tone as he stated he would not seek nor accept nomination to the presidency as he caught a bus bound for Texas. Enter the Neocons in the Reagan administration followed by the Bushes with Cheney, the architect of privatization of the military and a ginned up war supported by the media and you can see what they were worried about now that Trump has questioned military spending. The media will never tell us about PNAC and the Carlyle Group or their massive profits gained through a fake war. If the Russians did hack the election, it might have been to prevent a disastrous Clinton campaign which would have relaunched a new cold war. She sure did a number on Ukraine. Now the republicans are worried that making nice to the Russians by Trump will undermine the need to fund the military with many expensive projects. Trump has already alluded to the F35 fighter in both of its variants as a unified fighter platform for the Air force and Navy as a waste of money. Surely defense contractors are reeling at the news and the lobby groups and intelligence and defense organizations are building a case against a president who might cut military funding.

    Trump reminds me of Bill Clinton who in his first 100 days simultaneously managed to piss off Health Care, Insurance, Pharmaceutical and Defense corporations. That was the beginning of the end for him.

    We may see a similar attack mounted against Trump as he tries to apply logic and reason to the out of control situation. In fact, I think that is likely. He may be more easily swayed not to do this and these recent shots across the bow might cause him to heel. Time will tell. He might use Steve Bannon as an attack dog on Washington elites and try to smear them into submission. I think that is why he has him. He is a real good attack dog. We will have to see.

    One thing is clear. He did not come under attack when he asked Russia to help expose Hillary in his campaign speeches but now he is facing investigations by none other than Mitch McConnell since his proclamations about military waste.

    It will be interesting to see how his chameleon like nature morphs to adapt to the circumstances he now faces. Hard to see how this will play out. My guess is he will attempt to assure the military he won’t cut spending and the whole issue about hacks by Russians will evaporate. Just a hunch. This whole episode seems tied to defense spending and recent statements by Trump. We all know how easy it is for him to walk back issues and get instant forgiveness from everyone. That is what I would do if I were him.

    Mitch McConnell might just as well say “keep your hands off the defense budget or else”. The rest is theater.

  54. FobosDeimos
    December 12, 2016 at 23:27

    It is simply incredible that this hysteria about Russian “hackers” has reached such proportions. The way they phrase these accusations (or the headlines) it sounds as if Russia had actually hacked the electronic voting machines!!! However, as the authors explain, what the NYT and the rest of the pathetic MSM are insinuating seems to be that Russia is somehow responsible for having disclosed or helped disclose (leaked) a ton of emails that show the criminal machinations of the DNC when they sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and HRC’s true nature as a warmonger and corporate puppet. In other words, “Russia” would be responsible for allowing the American voters to gain access to such vital true FACTS through Wikileaks, which were eventually published by the media (as they had no other choice). None of these red bashers even try to insinuate that the leaked emails contained “fake news”. On the contrary, they are pissed off because Wikileaks spoiled their plans to retain power through the Clinton machine. I don’t think that Russia is behind this very refreshing and welcome turn of events, while it is obvious that the NYT, the Washington Post and most of the media worked 24/7 at full speed to “tilt” the US elections in favor of Hillary, by publishing and airing non-stop diatribes and insults against Trump and his voters.

    • Bill Bodden
      December 13, 2016 at 00:34

      It is simply incredible that this hysteria about Russian “hackers” has reached such proportions.

      Assuming by “incredible” you mean not credible instead of astonishing or some other synonym it is perfectly credible or believable that there is so much ranting and raving about alleged Russian hackers. This spreading of malicious accusations has been part of American politics (think the Maine and McCarthy) and religion (think the Salem Witch Trials) since the colonists gained a foothold on what is now the lower 48. Given the poor education of the masses, these questionable accusations will very likely land on fertile soil.

      • Hobuk
        December 14, 2016 at 13:00

        I hope you’re wrong. But there are two things that are different now: the Internet and independent media. The masses now have access to counter propaganda. The question is which one will be heard the loudest, and which one will be perceived as the utterly surreal attempt to avoid the inevitable?

      • Moe Whalen
        December 17, 2016 at 21:29

        Anything to get America worked up about going to war against Russia. Like Hillary says:. War is good for business

    • Jeffrey Minson
      December 13, 2016 at 19:32

      Criminal machinations of the DNC? This body is not like an electoral commission, and moreover political parties are private associations not not public bodies. The DN Committee is tasked first and foremost with getting a Democratic Party presidential candidate elected to national office. There is therefore nothing illegitimate let alone criminal about the DNC’s acting on the not unreasonable supposition that HRC was their most electable candidate.

      • Ben
        December 14, 2016 at 16:36

        Minor parties in the US can be characterized as private, non-public bodies, but the DNC and RNC not so much. The two parties have staked a claim to be the only game in town.

        To wit: a) the FEC is mandated to be half Democrats and half Republicans; b) the Commission on Presidential Debates is co-chaired by Republican and Democrat leaders; c) in many states, registering as a Republican or Democrat is easy, while registering as Green, Libertarian, or whatever else technically registers you as independent or unaffiliated; 4) my ballot did not have a straight-ticket voting option for any party besides the two major parties. Having achieved this functional duopoly cartel on the maintenance and oversight of election matters, neither party can any longer claim to be private organizations.
        Finally, states fund the primary and caucus nomination processes for each major party–these are publicly run elections and are subject to election laws, which are quite stringent against election officials demonstrating partiality towards candidates. Sanders’ lawsuit was not just for fun.

      • Jodi
        December 14, 2016 at 23:52

        As a Bernie supporter, I feel like the DNC completely misrepresented itself to its members. They repeatedly insisted that they were neutral in this process (even when accused of bias based on evidence on the ground). How is this not fraud committed against those who invested in the campaign (both in time and money) as well as the candidate? I believe the emails also showed coordination of the campaign with Super PACs. That’s why so many people had to resign.

      • Janet Masleid
        December 15, 2016 at 02:23

        How very ethical Mr. Minson. This continued arrogance and/or utter ignorance is why our party will never recover.

      • Diana
        December 19, 2016 at 07:16

        The DNC violated the Charter of the Democratic Party, Article 5, Section 4:

        “In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

    • Rob
      December 13, 2016 at 20:03

      While I am highly skeptical of the Russian hacking story, there is no way that I can consider the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the presidency along with his band of fascistic billionaires and religious fanatics as “refreshing” and “welcome.” Hillary would have been bad enough, but Trump and Pence (the real president-elect) will be far worse.

      • Drifter
        December 16, 2016 at 17:27

        He completely lost me with his picks and his support of stop and frisk and water boarding.

        He may well be worse than Hilarity Klingon. …but we may at least avoid WWIII

      • Lolana
        December 16, 2016 at 19:38

        You just said exactly my thoughts.

        Things are surreal with all this. And beating war drums against a nuclear superpower during a changing of the guard in the WH bothers me.

  55. James O'Neill
    December 12, 2016 at 21:23

    Thanks to VIPS for this. Unfortunately it may be largely in vain as there is obviously a determined effort being made to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election. There could only be one purpose behind that: to install Clinton in his place. In most of the world that would be known as a coup.

    • Zachary Smith
      December 13, 2016 at 01:14

      What’s more disturbing is that both parties are involved. Now who in the world can order both US political parties around just like a drill sergeant does new recruits?

      BTW, I link to the wretched neocon NYT only because it was at the top of the Google News site as I post this.

      • Taras77
        December 13, 2016 at 02:54

        This is just a wild ass guess (WAG) but I think McConnell was turned from initial skepticism because his wife is in proposed trump cabinet. I’ve seen hysterical references to treason, employment bribes, etc. related to her designation. Again, it is a WAG but his turning is indicative at how serious this hysteria and manipulation really is.

        This nuance may be overly charitable to a politician such as Mcconnell but it may be a factor.

        BTW, a sincere salute to VIPS for this effort.

      • b.grand
        December 13, 2016 at 06:35

        Zachary – ” Now who in the world can order both US political parties around just like a drill sergeant does new recruits?”

        Who, indeed?
        (Alison Weir)

        • Roch
          December 13, 2016 at 15:55

          Yes, UNDER xian leadership. There are relatively few buddhists and the rest of the muslims didnot say much–see how the syrians, saudis, and turks kill each other?
          The Iraq hell made a lot of xians wealthy.

          • Drifter
            December 16, 2016 at 17:05


      • December 13, 2016 at 23:37

        By: Juan Reynoso, WTP – activist – [email protected] STAND FOR AMERICA
        “Americas must realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. Self-examination is not disloyalty.”
        We the people, must stop the Washington establishment and the Neocon warmongers.
        Lies and deception it is not going to change the results. We the people voted for Donald Trump not because he was the best candidate to be the president of our country; but because this corrupt Washington establishment leave us without a choice. The Democratic and Republican elections machinery that is control of the oligarch’s owners of the IMF, The Federal Reserve Bank; the financial system and the multinational corporations used their propaganda machinery “The corporate News Media” to get Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Carson and other out of the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton and continue their globalization agenda and the expansion of neo-liberalism to control the world’s economic at the expenses of the world’s working people; but their plan didn’t work, so now they has to destroy Donald Trump.
        This is the fact we the people was place in the position to elect “Hillary Clinton” a known corrupt pathological liar, sycophant war monger or “Donald Trump”. a known business person product of the neo-liberalism economic and political system, that took advantage of the system to get rich at the expenses of the American taxpayers and his employees.
        Russia intervention in our election is a lie and deception push on us by the neo-con war mongers that want a Russian, US conflict to cover-up the coming economic catastrophe and blame it on the Russians and wash their hands clean, like they did it in 2001 with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Our Government Hypocrisy is an old problem that we the people fail to stop. Regarding government election corruption and intervention we are the world’s number one actors of this illegal and criminal elections interventions and foreign governments overthrowing. Here are the facts.
        The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere
        CIA’s Gold Standard for Influencing Foreign Elections
        The U.S. Has Been Meddling In Other Countries’ Elections For A Century. It Doesn’t Feel Good.

        • Richard Ong
          December 17, 2016 at 14:25

          ** that [sic] took advantage of the system to get rich at the expenses [sic] of the American taxpayers and his employees. **

          GMAB. In a capitalist, mostly free market system you get rich by providing superior products and services. You don’t “take advantage of the system”; that IS the system.

          Go ahead and make your case based on specifics and be sure to show how other people in his same business could thread their way through the maze of statist regulations and payoffs with their virginity intact.

          There’s no evidence that DT exploits his employees. By all means enlighten me to the contrary.

        • Moe Whalen
          December 17, 2016 at 21:39

          Agree totally with you Juan. America is a mess, needs rebuilding it’s new history and needs new direction away from the corporate corrupters, if that’s possible. Clean house!!

      • Susan Sunflower
        December 14, 2016 at 11:06

        Significant that the only “cure” here is transparency from the top, and that’s NOT what we’re likely to get any time soon-enough ….

        Obama has demanded a report whose findings are due 01/20/2017 — too late to do anything but keep Obama out of the food fight to follow — Because Obama tacitly promoted the “Russians are helping Trump” meme (I suspect his statement was carefully worded for future plausible deniability, as usual) …

        The Clintoniites complained about Comey’s “intereference” and while they had POTUS standing up with them as they made their claims against Trump.

        This is very dirty politics … conceivably even the “slow moving coup” that some right wingers claim … the war-mongerers are bipartisan and thought Clinton was their ticket to ride …. this election may become more historically significant due to their machinations (and/or attempted machinations) than the horror that Trump represents wrt to the American electorate. Baby, bathwater …. “too much democracy” when the “wrong side” wins — Shades of Tom Leherer.

        • CAnative
          December 16, 2016 at 09:15

          Always predict the worst and you’ll be hailed as a prophet.

          • Drifter
            December 16, 2016 at 17:09

            I always expect the worst, that way I won’t be disappointed

    • Michael Hurst
      December 13, 2016 at 14:49

      No, it is to install ANYBODY ELSE in his place.

      • Sentient
        December 15, 2016 at 12:49

        The “wet work” to create a 4-4 Supreme Court was put in place > a year ago. They didn’t do that on behalf of Jeb/Kasich.

    • Paul Easton
      December 13, 2016 at 17:08

      This just boggles my mind. A conspiracy by the Permanent Government spearheaded by the CIA to undermine the results of an election that was no less legitimate than is customary, and the fake ‘liberal left’ is cheerleading for the coup. The CIA is sticking its neck way out. If Trump gets in charge their heads will roll. It seems they must be confident that he won’t be allowed to take office unless he agrees to follow orders. This will complete the US transition fo a full fledged banana republic, and the D party is leading the way. Who said Trump was worse than Clinton? Who is the fascist now?

      • Drifter
        December 16, 2016 at 17:11

        If you look at Trump’s picks, you realize that he is already “following orders” or was a Judas goat all along

    • David Myers
      December 13, 2016 at 19:40

      There already was a coup . . . by Trump, Putin, and the FBI!

      • Hobuk
        December 14, 2016 at 12:13

        The emails were clearly leaked from the inside and the murder of Seth Rich would seem to corroborate it. Julian Assange said the leak wasn’t from the Russians, so this case is closed. Any electorates who fall for this B.S. should be disqualified. Their job is to vote what the people decided. Nevertheless, the source of the emails is not the issue. What is important is what the emails reveal about the DNC’s massive fraud and corruption, Hillary’s morally bankrupt leadership, and the corporate media’s (struggling to be relevant) collusion in the corruption. This reckless administration is risking a civil war with all this nonsense.

    • elmerfudzie
      December 13, 2016 at 22:06

      James O’Neil, The following remarks are not meant to sound flippant. The “coup” you identified is a coin toss, a coin with a single beast in it, one face female, the other male. That beast destroys lives for the sake of profit and domination, I reference here, Ray McGoverns article, CONSORTIUMNEWS readers can visit Veteran’s Today at Clinton is the final catalyst in a brew of ingredients that will precipitate WW III and Trump spells an end to all domestic social order not seen since Pre-WW II Italy. Actually folks, the comparisons to present day USA and Italy then are astonishingly similar! For example; the minimizing or dissolution of organized labor, societal benefits; SSA, Welfare-what’s left of it, health care ( a national, single payer), an end to middle class wages, the right of assembly, marches or public protests and protections against unjust searches or seizures. Mussolini has finally come to Rome-the District of Columbia. Trump has performed his successful march…Alas, dear friends, two more wars to fight, one at home for basic food/shelter/clothing and again for some yet to be announced, totally inconsequential island some-wheres, or will it be an oil field in a country we poles never heard of..I say to my fellow countrymen, keep your powder dry. No church leader or elected official stands shoulder to shoulder with the hoi polloi, not back then, not now or tomorrow.

      • elmerfudzie
        December 14, 2016 at 12:44

        Senior moment (again)…. proles not poles, sorry about that.

      • Drifter
        December 16, 2016 at 17:14

        Finally, someone as cynical as I am.


    • December 13, 2016 at 23:24

      A plague on both corporate oligarchs. See what the Jill Stein recount effort has dug up ( despite being blocked at several doorways to knowledge. Just for starters, a ballot box that had duct tape for “security,” and then a ballot box that was literally a garbage pail!

      • Drifter
        December 16, 2016 at 17:16

        Jill Stein/gold/berg….. and people wonder!

    • Richard Coleman
      December 14, 2016 at 18:53

      ” There could only be one purpose behind that: to install Clinton in his place.”

      Nah. This hacking bullshit started because the Dems can’t believe or face up to a disaster they caused. So they’re lashing out at any and all targets: Bernie, Jill, the Russians, Putin…..yada yada yada. The new cold war started long before this, the Dems just exploited it and now it has taken on a momentum of it’s own. Don’t forget the neocon long term ambition for regime change in Russia. And who now controls most of the major media?

      Actually, the Trumpistas set this up by screaming that they wouldn’t accept the results and the system is rigged. Which is true, except they’re the ones who rigged it! See Greg Palast. They are playing the Dems like violins and the neocon warmongers must be drooling in anticipation.

    • Moe Whalen
      December 17, 2016 at 21:27

      Agree James

  56. Zachary Smith
    December 12, 2016 at 21:07

    Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact.

    Not if you have on your tin-foil hat. Consider this headline:

    Electoral College Members Demand Russia-Trump Intelligence Briefing Before Vote Next Week

    The letter also demands from Trump “conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.”

    Remember how the neocons demanded that Iraq “prove” it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction? What I’m seeing is a fantasy story being constructed and put out on the Corporate Media as we watch in real time. Is the target date for when the Electors vote? Sometime before Trump is sworn in? Or are they willing to wait and use their imaginary tale to take down Putin’s Manchurian Candidate through impeachment?

    The first two would put Hillary into office, but I’d imagine Israel and the neocons would be quite happy with President Pence. That man is at least as warmongering as Hillary!

    The worst part of the latter scenario is that the Republicans would probably assist the Democrats, for Senators and Representatives of both parties are totally in bed with Holy Israel. And the TPP treaty would suddenly be a slam-dunk again.

    • Patricia Ormond
      December 13, 2016 at 10:12

      And you believe Mr Trump is not in bed with Israel?

      • Roch
        December 13, 2016 at 15:49

        OT, who cares?

      • Tammy
        December 15, 2016 at 16:00

        No, sweetie he’said not. If you look at what is really happening world wide you will slowly start to understand that this whole thing is to keep Trump out of office. Not because he can’t do the job but because he can and they are about to go to prison for their acts of Treason and war crimes they have committed on multiple countries. Like Syria whom I bet you believe Russian forces are helping to kill little babies? Well that’s also falacy. Do some research please before you say something you have no truth about.

        • Serico
          December 15, 2016 at 19:04

          Funny about your sentence structure: “Well that’s also falacy. Do some research please before you say something you have no truth about.” It sounds like your native language is slavic. Maybe you work for Sputnik International?

          • Temporarily Sane
            December 16, 2016 at 08:48

            “It sounds like your native language is slavic. Maybe you work for Sputnik International?”

            You’re a native English speaker or learned the language as a young child child, correct? Maybe you are employed by a CIA front operation? It’s possible so it must be true. My opinions are as good as facts.Twice as good. My feverish paranoid fantasies are rock solid like the laws of physics and you can’t prove otherwise “Serico”. We are on to you pal. Stay safe now.

        • Carol Hooper
          December 16, 2016 at 16:42

          SPOT ON!! ;)

        • Church
          December 16, 2016 at 21:09

          Absolutely correct, Tammy. What you say ties into burying Pizzagate — crimes so appalling, so criminal, these sickos who constitute virtually the entire Federal government from Congress, CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, DEA, D’ED, etc., etc., would rather BLOW UP EARTH than to have to face true justice and have all their crimes come to light. Yes, these people, just like Hitler, would kill themselves and everyone else with them to make it so no one from here on out would ever find out.

          • Moe Whalen
            December 17, 2016 at 21:24

            No, Putin and Assad are liked by the Syrians. Hillary wanted to take over Syria, kill Assad, and go to war with Russia, Obama too. Money money money , control, bring Syria down, OIL

        • Moe Whalen
          December 17, 2016 at 21:21

          No, Putin and Assad are liked by the Syrians. Hillary wanted to take over Syria, kill Assad, and go to war with Russia, Obama too. Money money money , control, bring Syria down, OIL

      • Drifter
        December 16, 2016 at 16:58

        They all are….Zionists run the show lock stock and barrel.

      • Carlo
        December 17, 2016 at 00:16

        I certainly hope he is. They are one our best allies.

    • Guy
      December 13, 2016 at 13:01

      In other words , prove that you are innocent .Proving a negative is an old trick that the Israelis use , and impossible to prove.They used in Iraq ,they used in Iran etc.etc.
      If indeed he is in bed with Israel , he will wake up or he will continue with the Eretz Israel mandate .
      We shall see ,but one thing at a time shall we.

      • Susan Sunflower
        December 14, 2016 at 10:58

        It’s quite interesting this rush to “disqualify” Trump when — in addition to the questions raised above — there’s is no indication I’ve seen that he was aware of or complicit in the (alleged) acts of others …
        The precedent of such a “disqualification” — being the (alleged) beneficiary of the unsolicited acts of others — is worth avoiding …
        Apparently Bolton is championing something I’ve contended which is that this leak actually gave Clinton her #1 talking point to use AGAINST Trump — that he was Putin’s puppet — for months.

    • Thomas J Mattingly
      December 14, 2016 at 23:53

      Zachary Smith: What you say above is consistent with and contingent on Hillary being the candidate of The Cabal and Trump being the anti-Cabal candidate. Not necessarily true (as per editors & authors at [VT] & elsewhere).

      If or Since Trump is an ‘asset of Israel’ (as per Bibi, post-election), and if or since Russians did in fact participate in directly hacking & rigging voting & tabulating computers and related software (as a junior partner to Bibi & Co.), and if the DNC/Podesta “LEAKS” (mischaracterized as “hacks” by CIA) were only a distraction to cover direct election hacking & rigging, then ‘The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung.’ These are assertions of intel veterans at (usually quite accurate — but not always in favor of sanity).

      VT took this info & intel to Obama, Hillary, Dems & Co., who did not take any action — and are now suffering the consequences. On a more positive note, what may happen next is that Trump, Republithugs & Dummycrooks may get caught up in paroxysms of partisan bickering — so heated and so prolonged that voters & others may soon demand what Trump only sloganeered: “Drain The Swamp.”

    • Point Blank
      December 15, 2016 at 06:15

      The ramped up accusations against Russia seemed well orchestrated and perfectly timed in conjunction with what is happening in Aleppo, with western media running story of civilian killings as fact although, once again, not a shred of evidence produced…

      What we seeing is a complete meltdown of the existing cabal as Trump makes his way to the Whitehouse… A complete slide into MccArthyism as the outgoing regime, very noticeably reluctant, hands over power…

      Stay tuned.

      • December 16, 2016 at 11:36

        @ “What we seeing is a complete meltdown of the existing cabal …”

        I think it’s better viewed as a noteworthy battle between competing factions. The Establishment has not been monolithic at least since World War II. See e.g., Carl Oglesby’s 1977 “Yankee-Cowboy War.” . There are factions within factions within factions within …ad infinitum.

        I think Moon of Alabama has it about right, although I’m not so sure about the prediction of armed insurrection if Trump isn’t sworn in as President. On the other hand, I have seen some discussion going that way among the alt-right.

  57. Sally Snyder
    December 12, 2016 at 20:59

    Here is an article that looks at the latest move by Congress to foil alleged Russian interference in American political theatre:

    Slowly but surely, Washington is returning to the McCarthy era.

    • si
      December 14, 2016 at 18:02

      Certainly not slowly but surely. I’d warrant very fucking quickly. They’re stuffed.

      Depends on which Corporations have funded the Russian Military ascendance. Likely to be linked to the same ones who funded Hitler etc. see .. (Anthony C.Sutton)

      • James Charles
        December 17, 2016 at 05:18

        “In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.
        . . . Because 50 years of dealings with the Soviets has been an economic success for the USSR and a political failure for the United States. It has not stopped war, it has not given us peace.
        The United States is spending $80 billion a year on defense against an enemy built by the United States and West Europe.
        Even stranger, the U.S. apparently wants to make sure this enemy remains in the business of being an enemy.“
        “Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system
        The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs.
        An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”

        • Beard682
          December 20, 2016 at 19:11

          Lol. US needs to pay Russia to go to the Internstional Space Station. US technology? When will we be able to manufacturer the latest igadget

    • Eckbachs
      December 16, 2016 at 23:38

      Not really, because McCarthy was absolutely correct.

      • December 18, 2016 at 18:48

        Echbachs. Yes he was. He just focused on the wrong enemy. The true enemy was capitalism.

        • AlanMacDonald
          December 22, 2016 at 10:24

          Phantasy, the true enemy includes “capitalism”, as you rightly say, but is more than just capitalism, and the whole enemy is this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which has ‘captured’, controls, and now nearly fully “Occupies” our former country as its own nominal global HQ, and merely ‘poses’ as, the country PKA (previously known as) America.

        • Dex
          December 23, 2016 at 00:31

          Corporations were Never meant to become immortal “persons” with tremendous wealth & power. They were originally chartered for a specific public good and only for a very limited period of time. Now, they control what we see, hear, eat, drink, breath….

      • Dex
        December 23, 2016 at 00:25

        McCarthy was a lying scumbag who destroyed thousands of lives & careers for the sake of magnifying his personal power & influence

    • December 17, 2016 at 03:27

      So I guess just He was aware of the so called leak. If so, who did it & why? Seems like a wash to me. That makes Obama’s dept look stupid. Ask Obama about what he proposes that occurred. I trust Obama, you, you are the fake media & are full of shit. I bet your coerciom media crap will forego a talk with Obama about the bullshit you spread. Your “deplorables” believe this shit. I’m educated.

      • James
        December 17, 2016 at 15:48

        Fake news is “hands up don’t shoot”. It used to called propaganda. You must be a product of government schools.
        At least, now we know for sure who is hateful and divisive. ” My way or the highway” libs are out in droves.

      • TimN
        December 17, 2016 at 23:36

        Hmm, your educated, eh, Arturos? Sure don’t sound like it.

    • Richard Ong
      December 17, 2016 at 13:54

      You are correct that we are returning to the McCarthy era if by that you mean returning to a period in which alarming truths about the dereliction of duty and betrayal by “American” politicians and citizens were revealed by patriots, and scurrilous, hysterical attacks on them were mounted by communists and communist sympathizers. Substitute globalists and ultra-leftists colluding with Muslim invaders for communists and their sympathizers and we’re good to go.

    • Moe Whalen
      December 17, 2016 at 21:15

      Like how many countries has America invaded for the benefit of elites???

Comments are closed.