Tag: CLINTON FOUNDATION

Joe Biden’s Former IT Director, Warren Flood, Implicated in ‘Russia Hacked the DNC Email’ Narrative

CAP

by Joe Hoft March 9, 2020

On June 16, 2019, we presented arguments against the Mueller gang’s assertion that the DNC was hacked by Russians. Cyber expert Yaacov Apelbaum posted an incredible report with information basically proving that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians.

Today we have support implicating an IT Direct0r, Warren Flood, connected to Joe Biden.  Flood is linked to the ‘Russia hacked the DNC hoax’.

Last year we reported a series of arguments proving that there is no proof that Russians hacked the DNC.  These arguments came from cyber expert Yaacov Apelbaum whose first argument was this –

According to the WaPo (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek who allegedly crafted a malware called X-Agent and used it to get into the network and install keystroke loggers on several PCs. This allowed them to see what the employees were typing and take screenshots of the employees’ computer.

This is pretty detailed information, but if this was the case, then how did the DOJ learn all of these ‘details’ and use them in the indictments without the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC/HRC computers? And since when does the DOJ, an organization that only speaks the language of indictments use hearsay and 3rd parties like the British national Matt Tait (a former GCHQ collector and a connoisseur of all things related to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or any other evidence lacking chain of custody certification as a primary source for prosecution?

A second point by Apelbaum was –

… that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ wanted list were allegedly working concurrently on multiple non-related projects like interfering with the 2016 United States elections (both HRC and DNC) while at the same time they were also allegedly hacking anti-doping agencies.

Above are pictures of the individuals the FBI says were working on both the DNC/HRC email hacking and the Olympic doping projects.

The same guys were working on both projects which is all but impossible. (Do we really know if they’re even Russians?)

Apelbaum argues –

The fact that the three had multiple concurrent high impact and high visibility project assignments is odd because this is not how typical offensive cyber intelligence teams operate. These units tend to be compartmentalized, they are assigned to a specific mission, and the taskforce stays together for the entire duration of the project.

Next Apelbaum questioned the Mueller gang’s assertion that the ‘hacker’ named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian –

Any evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian should be evaluated while keeping these points in mind:

  1. He used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address, but did not use TOR. Using a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] agencies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]

  2. He used the AOL email service that captured and forwarded his IP address and the same AOL email to contact various media outlets on the same day of the attack. This is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and seems like a deliberate attempt to leave traceable breadcrumbs.

  3. He named his Office User account Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Dzerzhinsky), after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Devices and accounts used in offensive cyberspace operations use random names to prevent tractability and identification. Why would anyone in the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the obvious reason) is beyond comprehension.

  4. He copied the original Trump opposition research document and pasted it into a new .dotm template (with an editing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the “Last Modified by” field from “Warren Flood” to “Феликс Эдмундович” and the creation of additional Russian metadata in the document. Why waste the time and effort doing this?

  5. About 4 hours after creating the ‘Russian’ version of the document, he exported it to a PDF using LibreOffice 4.2 (in the process he lost/removed about 20 of the original pages). This was most likely done to show additional ‘Russian fingerprints’ in the form of broken hyperlink error messages in Russian (Images 4 and 5). Why bother with re-formatting and converting the source documents? Why not just get the raw data out in the original format ASAP?

Apelbaum next discussed Guccifer 2.0 –

In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed a person who identified himself as “Guccifer 2.0”. During their on-line chat session, the individual claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview below). His poor Romanian language skills were later used to unmask his Russian identify.

…I’m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know where to find one if my life depended on it, but I’m certain that you can’t reliably determine nationality based on someone impersonating another language or from the use of fake metadata in files. This elaborate theory also has the obvious flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence services are dumb enough to show up to an interview posing as Romanians without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian.

Yesterday we noted that based on the process itself, it is highly unlikely Russians hacked the DNC:

Esteemed NSA whistleblower Bill Binney reported in June 2019 that there was no way Russians hacked the DNC based on the speed of the transfer of the data that was hacked. But according to Apelbaum the transfer speeds is a minor issue here. It’s just an indicator that it would have been difficult for Guccifer 2 who was sitting in Romania to access the DNC system remotely.

Per an illustration from Apelbaum, Guccifer 2 is depicted as the red devil icon below:

CAP

This illustration shows the Crowdstrike was obviously false in its claims that Russia hacked the DNC.

This is because:

1. If Guccifer 2 did it from Romania (the red devil icon on the left of the illustration), he needed a 23 Mbit/s transfer rate. At the time of this hack in 2016, Romania was only supporting 16Mbit/s speeds. But to do that he had to go through all of the red hell in the middle of the illustration, which I don’t believe he did based on the poor technical skill set he demonstrated during his interview with Motherboard vice.

2. If the leak came from the inside (the half green half red icon in the right side of illustration), he had the full 23 Mbit/s transfer rate because he just plugged-in a USB drive to the computer. He also didn’t need any hacking skills because he most likely had full system access.

The Russian story doesn’t stick, Apelbaum closed with this –

The bottom line is that if we want to go beyond the speculative trivia, the pseudo science, and the bombastic unverified claims, we have to ask the real tough questions, mainly: is Guccifer 2.0 even the real attacker and how did he circumvent all of the logs during several weeks of repeated visits while downloading close to 2 GB of data?

We also know that WikiLeaks stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange stated that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.

But of course the Mueller gang never interviewed WikiLeaks in an effort to determine how they received the Clinton emails. Of course the Mueller team could not risk WikiLeaks saying the emails were not received from Russia which would destroy their Russia hacked the DNC fairy tale.

Today we identify Warren Flood, a Biden protege who appears to have helped create the ‘Russia Hacked the DNC’ narrative:

Apelbaum obtained a parts of the Word and PDF versions of the purported DNC Opposition research document showing the original English template and the pasted version into a Russian template and resulting subsequent broken hyperlink error messages in Russian:

CAP

In the image above, on the left it shows the Word doc properties of the document created at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016. The Company name is given as GSA. This appears to be the General Services Administration (US gov agency), which shows as the Company for MS Office documents created via GSA-contracted copies of MS Word.

(Note that the DNC server wasn’t supposed to be using a GSA-contracted MS Office suite. A number of Democratic politicians and aides (e.g,, many members of the US House of Representatives) had DNC email accounts, but the DNC is a private entity and should not have hosted GSA-contracted software.)

The supposed author of this document is Warren Flood as is noted at the bottom left of the diagram above.  He was Vice President Joe Biden’s IT Director at the White House (which does use GSA registered software).

CAP

But interestingly, if you cross-reference this document to the same document in the verified Wikileaks dump, the original author is Lauren Dillon. Lauren Dillon was the DNC Research Director in charge of GOP/Trump research.

Considering the document’s timestamp of June 15th, 2016, it appears that a user on a computer registered to Warren Flood (GSA) opened the DNC document (authored by Lauren Dillon), copied it, and pasted it to a new document.  Then the user on the Warren Flood computer set the theme language to Russian and modified the document’s ‘Author’ field to Феликс Эдмундович.  After this the user likely uploaded the modified document to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website and published it to various media outlets.  (Remember as noted above, Guccifer 2.0 is likely made up.)

Based on the document metadata there is little doubt that either Warren Flood (who BTW, speaks Russian), or someone using his GSA licensed MS Word software created the Russian fingerprint. Also, it’s important to note that several other documents also show this type of manipulation, but they were created by users named “Blake” and “jbs836”.

In terms of the big picture, it is possible that whoever added the Russian fingerprint did this as part of laying the ground work or for future unmasking. We know that in June 2016 the Obama administration (via people like Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Samantha Power) started unmasking Trump campaign officials on the pretext of ‘Russian interference’.  This June 2016 activity overlaps with dates of the Guccifer 2.0 saga.

So, it is possible that Guccifer 2.0 and MSM outlets like the NYTimes who promoted him were part of a larger campaign to affirm Russian interference with the DNC hacks.

If this is indeed the case, then it means that the DNC email leak could implicate Obama administration officials who were doing all this document manipulation on government time and on GSA registered computers all in an effort to tie Russia to the DNC email heist.

Based on information available today, there is no way Russians hacked the DNC. This was made up from the start.  Now we know that the Obama White House, and specifically Warren Flood, is involved in the Russian hoax.

0

Democrats failed to impeach Trump, but they won’t give up trying – it’s all they’ve got

CAP

by Nebojsa Malic

Even before President Donald Trump was elected US president, Democrats began talking about impeachment. Now that it has failed, will they finally accept the result of the 2016 election? Don’t get your hopes up.

Trump’s acquittal in the Senate on Wednesday was a foregone conclusion, given as it takes two thirds of the senators present to convict. The only way for 20 Republicans to switch sides was for the House case to be open and shut – something that only Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) and ‘Russiagate’ truthers in the media actually believed.

In the end, the sole Republican to break ranks was Mitt Romney, and only on one of the articles. Not guilty, exonerated, case closed, let’s “move on” – as Democrats themselves advised in 1999, after the same thing happened to Bill Clinton.

Not so fast. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has rejected the verdict, calling it “meaningless” because what happened in the Senate “wasn’t a trial.” It’s a retreat to last week’s talking points, arguing that the Senate should have called additional witnesses and documents that the House didn’t care to obtain before rushing to impeach back in December.

Never mind that doing this would have meant the House process was flawed, fatally undercut the second article – “obstruction of Congress” – or that the House managers themselves objected to any new evidence being introduced. If you’re expecting logic rather than lawfare, you’re in the wrong town.

Democrats began talking impeachment from the second Trump took office, having failed to prevent that from happening through a variety of long-shot schemes such as “Hamilton electors.” Their initial strategy was to allege “emoluments” and harp on Trump’s undisclosed tax returns, before settling on “Russiagate.” Then the Mueller Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Under tremendous pressure to find something – anything – to impeach Trump over, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turned to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, a fellow Californian. Schiff seized upon a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he was told about by staffers in touch with their former colleagues inside the intelligence community.

Schiff seized on Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s bragging about getting a corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, to claim that this amounted to “soliciting foreign interference” in the 2020 election, since Barack Obama’s former VP was the front-runner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

While Schiff and his crew did their best to conjure a crazy conspiracy involving Trump holding up military aid for political leverage – mind-reading and inventing fake transcripts along the way – their case was ultimately smoke and mirrors. Zelensky himself said he was not being extorted, and the parade of other witnesses from within the very bureaucracy Trump had sworn to purge (but obviously hadn’t) had only their personal, anti-Trump opinions to offer.

Paradoxically, impeachment only made Trump stronger – and more popular, if the latest polls are anything to go by. By contrast, Democrats have gone from one defeat to the next this week, starting with Monday’s fiasco at the Iowa caucuses and continuing with Pelosi’s tantrum at Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday.

“This impeachment was a destructive debacle in every conceivable respect, but don’t worry I’m sure [Democrats] will change their behavior moving forward, they have a well-established track record of taking responsibility for failure,” quipped political journalist Michael Tracey after the Senate acquittal.

If Trump wins re-election in November – which increasingly looks like it might happen – expect the Democrats to try to impeach him again. What for? It doesn’t matter, any excuse will do.

CAP

Simply put, they have to. In retrospect, impeachment seems to have always been a coping mechanism for 2016, the election that neither Hillary Clinton nor her party ever recovered from losing.

Clinton herself offered more proof of that on Wednesday, accusing 52 Senate Republicans of betraying their oath to the Constitution and saying the US was “entering dangerous territory for our democracy.”

She’s actually correct about that, though not in a sense she may have intended. Democracy works only so long as all participants agree to abide by electoral results. Refusing to accept defeat and attempting to rules-lawyer one’s way out would be bothersome enough at a board game night, but is downright toxic when it infects national politics.

Kaiser Report co-host Stacy Herbert summed it up best, calling the last three years “one horrible remake of ‘Goodbye, Lenin’ in which the entire political and media classes have constructed an elaborate alternative reality so as to avoid having Hillary encounter any further distress which might compound her humiliation.”

Unlike in the 2003 German film, nothing so far has been capable of bursting this particular delusion bubble – which means that America’s long national nightmare is nowhere near over.

 

0

Not a great look: Failed Iowa caucus app is deeply linked to self-declared winner Buttigieg… and Hillary Clinton

CAP

By Danielle Ryan

An app supposedly meant to ensure quick reporting of the Iowa caucus results was developed by a firm deeply tied to the Democratic establishment and went kaputt at the crucial moment. What are the chances?

It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but Americans can be excused for their distrust of the system after what happened in 2016 – and the facts that have been dug up on the group behind the failed Iowa app won’t do much to quell their suspicions.

The firm in question, rather ironically, is called Shadow Inc. —  and, according to Federal Election Commission filings, it was paid thousands of dollars by Pete Buttigieg’s campaign for “software rights and subscriptions” in July 2019.

CAP

Fast-forward to February 2020, and the app has failed to deliver any reliable results in Iowa, Buttigieg has prematurely declared himself the winner — and #MayorCheat is trending on Twitter.

CAP

Adding to the suspicions surrounding the Iowa debacle is the fact that the company’s CEO, CTO and COO, among others, all previously worked for Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign, according to their LinkedIn profiles. For supporters of Sanders, convinced the DNC is attempting to rig the primary process against him for a second time, the conspiracy theory writes itself.

CAP

Shadow Inc was launched in 2019 by ACRONYM, a digital non-profit founded by one Tara McGowan, who happens to be a huge fan of Buttigieg, tweeting her excitement over his candidacy back in January 2019.

Despite declaring that it“launched” Shadow last year, ACRONYM has suddenly tried to distance itself from the company in the midst of the Iowa debacle. Yet, only a couple of weeks before the caucus disaster, McGowan herself was tweeting proudly about what ACRONYM was “building” together with Shadow. McGowan, by the way, is married to a top Buttigieg advisor.

Raising even more questions, there are rumors that Clinton’s former 2016 campaign manager, Robby Mook, was indirectly involved with the Shadow app. While Mook himself says he doesn’t “know anything” about it and there is no indication that he was involved in its actual development, investigative journalist Lee Fang tweeted that it was Mook’s security company, Defending Digital Democracy, which “vetted” the Iowa caucus app for “integrity.” The New York Times also reported that Mook’s company was involved in testing the app.

Iowa caucus disaster: ‘Technical glitch’ spawns conspiracy theories & Democrats have only themselves to blame

CAP

It’s not like Sanders supporters haven’t been burned by this sort of thing before. It is now widely accepted that the DNC was secretly working to thwart Sanders’ campaign in 2016, in an effort to ensure establishment favorite Hillary Clinton would face off against Trump. It is perfectly plausible to assume the party apparatus might try to do the same again in 2020, albeit with different tactics.

The utter contempt for Sanders among the establishment ranks of the DNC should not be underestimated. Despite the fact that Sanders ultimately supported Clinton in 2016, Clinton herself initially refused to say she would back Sanders if he became the party’s nominee in 2020 — and declared that “nobody likes” the Democratic socialist, who consistently ranks as the most popular politician in the country, but whose socialist-style politics are anathema to corporate centrists.

The Iowa drama is reminiscent of the controversy surrounding the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC in 2016. The determination that Moscow hacked the organization to harm Clinton’s campaign was made almost instantly by Crowdstrike, a private Democratic party contractor with links to an arms manufacturer-funded think tank. You couldn’t even make it up.

For progressive Democrats expecting a Sanders win in Iowa (that prediction based on recent polls in which he enjoyed significant leads), this all looks like blatant, bare-faced corruption. Or, as journalist Kyle Kulinski put it: “This is either record breaking incompetence or it’s an attempt to game the results. Those are the only two options.”

As of the time of writing, it has been 14 hours since the Iowa polls closed, there are still no official results available and Shadow Inc has assured everyone that it sincerely regrets the delay. While Buttigieg has declared victory based on limited data covering only his own campaign, Sanders’ camp has released data covering all candidates, indicating that he won the night.

With such a mess made of the Iowa caucus, and suspicions swirling about Shadow’s mysterious app, whether Sanders won or he didn’t, the DNC has once again ignited a rage in his supporters that it may come to regret.

Progressive Democrats were expecting yesterday’s caucus to potentially get messy, but “Shady app crashes and Pete Buttigieg declares victory before the result” probably wasn’t on anyone’s Iowa bingo card.

0

WATCH: MSNBC Panel Featuring John Brennan Calls for State of the Union to Be Cancelled

by Cassandra Fairbanks January 28, 2020

An MSNBC panel discussion led by anchor Chuck Todd and featuring disgraced CIA Director turned NBC News analyst John Brennan called for the annual State of the Union address to be cancelled over the impeachment.

Brennan claimed that President Donald Trump speaking would be “embarrassing” and “very destructive to the image of the United States worldwide.”

President Bill Clinton also gave a State of the Union address during his impeachment, but that doesn’t seem to matter to these partisan hacks.

“And you know, one of the things that I really worry about is that we’re going to have a State of the Union very shortly, while all of this is going on,” Brennan said during the panel.

Todd quickly jumped in, mockingly saying “State of our union is strong,’ who the hell is going to say that?”

“I just cannot imagine. It’s not just embarrassing, but also I think it’s very destructive to the image of the United States worldwide to have this going on and have Mr. Trump up there,” Brennan stated.

“And you can imagine he’s going to use that State of the Union address not to address the state of the union, but to address the state of Donald Trump. And he is going to, I think, be on the offensive there. So I question whether or not it makes sense to hold that at this point,” Brennan continued.

MSNBC is akin to allowing Pravda to operate on our shores at the height of the cold war.

 

0

CNN’s Don Lemon & Panelists Mock Trump’s ‘Boomer Rube’ Voters

CAP

By Newswars.com Sunday, January 26, 2020

CNN host Don Lemon burst into laughter as his guests ridiculed the intellect of both President Trump and his “boomer rube” supporters.

During CNN Tonight on Saturday, Lemon touched on reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to quiz NPR anchor Mary Louise Kelly by asking her to find Ukraine on a map.

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cnn-panelists-laugh-trumps-boomer-rube-supporters

“First of all, Kelly has a masters degree in European Studies from Cambridge University. Also, he (Mike Pompeo) doesn’t really say that she couldn’t identify Ukraine on a map, he insinuates it’s just a — it’s just a petty attempt to put her down, right? Is that what this is?” he asked Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

Wilson responded by deriding the intelligence of Trump and his base.

“Of course — of course. He’s just trying to demean her, and obviously it’s false,” Wilson said. “And, look, he also knows, deep In his heart, that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter “U” and the picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is a, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world, and so that’s part of him playing to their base and playing to their audience, you know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump — that wants to think that ‘Donald Trump’s the smart one, and y’all — y’all elitists are dumb!’”

Lemon barreled over laughing as Wilson and liberal CNN contributor Wajahat Ali took turns bashing Trump supporters.

“You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling!” Ali said.

“Your math and your reading!” Wilson replied.

“Yeah, your reading, you know, your geography, knowing other countries, sipping your latte!”

“All those lines on the map!” Wilson said.

“Only them elitists know where Ukraine is!” Ali said.

After Lemon wiped the tears from his face, he said: “Oh, my God! Hold on — hold on — hold on. That was good, sorry. Rick, that was a good one — I needed that.”

This is just par for the course for the left, who think that mocking half the country is the path forward to winning a presidential election.

2016 presidential loser Hillary Clinton sure thought so!

 

 

0

Larry C. Johnson: Did John Brennan’s CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks?

Guest post by Larry C. Johnson

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia’s military intelligence organization, the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie.

Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Brennan’s CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Let me explain why.

Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA–the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following explanation about methodology:

When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment

To be clear, the phrase,“We assess”, is intel community jargon for “opinion”. If there was actual evidence or source material for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, “According to a reliable source” or “knowledgeable source” or “documentary evidence.”

Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

    • Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
    • Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June.

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU–Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com.

Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan.

Here’s Mueller’s take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):

DCLeaks

“The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter. Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and later made unrestricted to the public.


Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts (in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence related to the“Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140


GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141 The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142


GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account dcleaksproject@gmail.com to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144


The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017.”

Guccifer 2.0

On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as “Fancy Bear”) were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including “some hundred sheets,” “illuminati,” and “worldwide known.” Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146

That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.

The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.


Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering to provide “exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton’s staff.”148 The GRU later sent the reporter a password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 “That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150

The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate’s opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement.153”

Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.

0

Democrats’ push to impeach Trump is just the latest chapter of US Civil War 2.0

CAP

By Robert Bridge

The US is more divided today than at any time since the historic war between North and South, and whether or not the Democrats vote to impeach Trump, Americans won’t be spared a political storm looming on the horizon.

Today, millions of Washington watchers around the world are asking the same question: What happens if the Democrats go ahead and bring articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump? The answer is twofold, and just might be the shortest story ever told: At first nothing, and then, everything. The end.

The reason nothing will happen immediately requires no degree in political science to appreciate. Should the Democrats commit the mother of all political screw-ups by voting to impeach Trump, all on the basis of hearsay, gossip and maybe reading tea leaves, the circus moves next door to the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority. This is where House efforts to impeach Trump will inevitably smack into a brick wall and disintegrate.

That much was made clear earlier this week when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded to call current and former White House officials to appear on the witness stand for stage two of the Democratic show trials. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was having none of it.

“I’m not an impartial juror,” McConnell retorted to applause from Senators, many of whom were thwarted in their own efforts to call witnesses and ask questions when the Democrats controlled the hearings. “This is a political process,” he added.

CAP

So, if the inevitable prospect of certain defeat in the Senate won’t stop the Democratic impeachment train, then maybe the knowledge that the majority of Americans oppose their plans will make them reconsider, right? Think again. Not even a USA Today/Suffolk University poll, which shows that Americans oppose by 51-45% any effort by the Senate to remove Trump, up from October when the margin was 47-46%, has deterred the Democrats from their witch hunt.

Trump practically thanked the Democrats for the early Christmas gift when he said impeachment is “a very sad thing for our country, but it seems to be very good for me politically.” Indeed it has been. If elections were held today, Trump would likely emerge victorious against any of his Democratic rivals.

With regards to the economy, Wall Street appears to be on steroids, smashing records almost weekly. All of this points to smooth sailing for Trump up to the 2020 presidential elections.

Despite things looking favorably, Trump is not out of the woods just yet. The reason is because the Democrats, due to their chummy relationship with the media, are still able to control the narrative. That much is clear considering how House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has been dominating the impeachment proceedings without much criticism from the press. The initial impeachment inquiry was held without transparency in the dank basement of Congress, far away from public scrutiny. He also staunchly refused to release the identity of the so-called whistleblower, who is alleged to have heard secondhand information about the now-famous call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

However, since any impeachment trial promises to be a major televised event, the Democrats will not be able to leak to the media their handpicked breadcrumbs of information. Everything will be out in the open and discussed 24/7.

CAP

How to explain the Democrat obsession with removing Trump?

First, the Democrats’ chances of removing Trump from office are somewhere between zero and none, and they are certainly aware of that fact. Second, impeachment is proving unpopular with the majority of Americans, and that must be particularly worrisome in a major election season. Finally, the Democrats risk throwing their top presidential contender, Joe Biden, under the bus by their efforts.

Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans will certainly investigate how Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, for example, had come to serve on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, reportedly being paid up to $50,000 a month despite having no experience in the Ukrainian energy sector. No less interesting is the fact that Joe Biden essentially forced Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general as a precondition for releasing $1 billion dollars in US aid. In the event that Ukrainian officials are called to testify in the Senate during the impeachment trial, it could turn out to be very ugly for the Biden clan.

CAP

Considering that the Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain by trying to impeach Trump, another possible motive must be considered, which is that the Democrats are desperately trying to protect themselves. Unknown to many, high-level Democrats, intelligence officers, and former White House officials have been under investigation for many months by Attorney General Will Barr and federal prosecutor John Durham. The reason has little to do with Ukraine, and everything to do with Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp.”

In a nutshell, Barr and Dunham will soon be releasing their highly anticipated attorney general’s report, which will determine whether the FBI had submitted false documents for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump administration in 2016. The word ‘treason’ is even being whispered on Capitol Hill. The investigation involves a mind boggling array of top characters who played a role in creating the Steele Dossier (home of the famous pee tape), a largely debunked ‘intelligence’ document that ultimately failed to prove a link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Last week, after Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a preliminary report that shows the FBI committed numerous mistakes in applying for the FISA warrant, including falsifying a document, former FBI Director James Comey back-pedaled on his earlier claims that the FBI had acted appropriately. “I was wrong. I was overconfident in our procedures. It’s important that a leader be accountable and transparent,” he told Chris Wallace of Fox News.

But that is not the end of the story. Not by a long shot.

Durham, who has had access to foreign governments and US intelligence agencies not available to Horowitz, played down the IG report, suggesting fireworks down the road when he commented “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

CAP

Needless to say, Barr and Durham’s report has got a lot of people in high places very nervous. This could make the impeachment process a top priority in that it provides cover and would look as if Trump were attacking the Democrats simply out of rage if he acts. Clearly, the Democrats, with their groundless Russiagate theories and now an impeachment scandal, are desperately trying to buy time to avoid their own impending doom.

In other words, there is a real civil war taking place behind the scenes in Washington, and Trump’s impeachment is just one small part of the action. What is happening now in Washington DC between the Republicans and Democrats is just mere dress rehearsal for far more disasters down the road.

I just hope the costumes don’t end up being blue and gray, once again.

 

0

SEX CRIME – Former Bill Clinton Pilot Charged with Aggravated Child Molestation, Sodomy and Statutory Rape

The rabbit hole goes deep.

By Shane Trejo – 11/22/2019

Steven Robert Setzer, a former U.S. Marine Corps pilot who once escorted former President Bill Clinton on the crew of the Marine One, is facing years in prison after being hit with child sex charges.

Setzer was put behind bars in May with sexual exploitation of a minor, sodomy, enticing a child for indecent purposes, statutory rape, and aggravated child molestation. He has been forced to shut down his aircraft charter company, Strategic Moves, due to loss of clients after his incarceration.

On Thursday, WBTV in Rowan County, NC broke the news of Setzer’s arrest and associated charges. This report was only revealed due to the shuttering of Setzer’s company, an entire six months after Setzer was accused of the heinous victimization of minors.

Strategic Moves made the announcement that they were shuttering on their website: “Thank you for your patronage and loyalty over the last 15 years as clients of Strategic Moves. Strategic Moves has discontinued operations as of 10/31/2019. Many of our clients have transitioned to Davinci Jets who are capable and excited to provide an excellent level of service.”

According to Setzer’s biography, he learned quite a bit while helping Clinton jetset throughout the world. Setzer claimed that he learned precise attention to detail, which assisted him in being able to achieve excellence for the VIPs who obtained his services. One can only wonder what details Slick Willy wanted Setzer to handle while they were aboard the Marine One.

Setzer is not the only cretin with whom Clinton has shared an aircraft. Clinton was among the most high-profile companions of deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein aboard his infamous “Lolita Express.” Clinton is one of the powerful individuals who allegedly participated in Epstein’s illicit child sex trafficking network.

Big League Politics reported earlier this year on how Clinton had flown on the “Lolita Express” during on least 26 separate occasions:

One man who might be particularly concerned is former President Bill Clinton, who reportedly traveled on Epstein’s infamous ‘Lolita Express’ on a stunning 26 separate occasions.

Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s alleged child victims, claims she saw Clinton herself while traveling to St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Travel logs reviewed by Fox News indicate that Clinton traveled aboard Epstein’s jet to assorted locales such as Russia, Africa, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, the Azores, China, New York, Norway and Belgium.

Clinton also brought up to 10 secret service agents on board the plane with him while traveling on the Lolita Express, providing federal protection to Epstein’s illicit operation.

Epstein received a slap on the wrist when he was last brought to trial in 2008, after the federal government refused to charge him, only having to serve 13 months of confinement in the Palm Beach County stockade with work release that is usually barred for sex offenders.

The list of sexual predators and abusers connected to Democratic Party politics is seemingly limitless. It turns out that the swamp runs deeper than anyone could have imagined.

0

Nadler: “Possibility” Senate Will Vote To Remove Trump From Office

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/08/nadler_possibility_senate_will_vote_to_remove_trump_from_office.html?jwsource=cl

CAP

Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date November 8, 2019

In an interview on Thursday night on MSNBC, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told host Chris Hayes there is a “possibility” that the Senate will remove President Trump from office given the results of the off-year elections earlier this week.

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Do you see the process as possibly ending in the removal of the president of the United States? Is that a live possibility in your mind?

 

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): I think it is a possibility. I don’t know how to estimate the possibility, but I would certainly say it’s not a zero possibility. … I think it’s possible, depending how strong the evidence is, and depending on other political considerations, that maybe the Senate will act to remove the president. But I’m not going to give an estimate, and I can’t estimate that, but I will say I don’t think it’s a zero possibility. That’s a very cynical view that it’s a zero possibility. I also, to be political about it, I think some Republican senators may take a look at the election results the other day and start thinking, maybe I should be a little more fair and not dismissive.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑