Saturday, July 29, 2017

ARCHIVE CIA COUP: Dec. 8, 2016 - July 29, 2017

To Live Blog. Includes #CIACoup "Russia hacked the election" #GoldenShowerGate, Senate Intel Committee probe

July 29, 2017


In a stunning op-ed in the Washington Post titled, “The Quest to Prove Collusion is Crumbling”, the writer actually admits that the whole Russian collusion narrative is ‘the story that never was’. Almost as stunning as the piece itself, the story was ignored by both the main stream media and independent media. Ed Rogers penned this piece following Jared Kushner’s testimony. Rogers said, instead of igniting the Russian collusion narrative, Jared Kusner’s testimony stifled it, causing the media to “quietly back out of the room unnoticed”. Excerpts from Rogers’ WaPo op-ed (More)

The so-called Trump Dossier appears to be something like the Rosetta Stone that will allow us to decipher the true story underlying the Trump/Russia “collusion” hysteria. The hysteria has been driven by the Democrats and their media adjunct to explain the shocking outcome of the 2016 election. Ishmael Jones argued the fraudulence of the Trump Dossier here on Power Line yesterday. The FBI apparently thought the Trump Dossier was the real deal. John Brennan and James Clapper disseminated it in briefings to Presidents Obama and Trump. Leaks to the media followed in due course. [A FISA warrant was issued based on "the dossier" - ed.]

The provenance of the Trump Dossier lies with GPS Fusion. GPS Fusion is the for-hire political outfit paid to dig up dirt on targets, as Kim Strassel put it in her Wall Street Journal Potomac Watch column yesterday. For whom was GPS Fusion working in the matter of the Trump Dossier? GPS Fusion isn’t saying. Strassel connects a few dots and offers a hypothesis or two:
We know that at the exact time Fusion was working with the Russians, the firm had also hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump. Mr. Steele compiled his material, according to his [Trump Dossier] memos, based on allegations from unnamed Kremlin insiders and other Russians. Many of the claims sound eerily similar to the sort of “oppo” [former Soviet counterintelligence officer] [Rinat] Akhmetshin peddled. [Akhmetshin attended the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.] 
We know that [GPS Fusion co-founder Glenn] Simpson is tight with Democrats. His current attorney, Joshua Levy, used to work in Congress as counsel to no less than Chuck Schumer. We know from a [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck] Grassley letter that Fusion has in the past sheltered its clients’ true identities by filtering money through law firms or shell companies (Bean LLC and Kernel LLC). Word is Mr. Simpson has made clear he will appear for a voluntary committee interview only if he is not specifically asked who hired him to dig dirt on Mr. Trump. Democrats are going to the mat for him over that demand. 
Those on the Judiciary Committee pointedly did not sign letters in which Mr. Grassley demanded that Fusion reveal who hired it. Here’s a thought: What if it was the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton’s campaign? What if that money flowed from a political entity on the left, to a private law firm, to Fusion, to a British spook, and then to Russian sources? Moreover, what if those Kremlin-tied sources already knew about this dirt-digging, tipped off by Mr. Akhmetshin? What if they specifically made up claims to dupe Mr. Steele, to trick him into writing this dossier?
Lee Smith has much more background on GPS Fusion in his Tablet column here. Ken Dilanian has more on Simpson in his NBC News report here. Bill Browder did business in Russia through Hermitage Capital Management, of which he is the chief executive officer; Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian auditor/attorney who represented Hermitage Capital. Magnitsky was arrested as a result of his work for Hermitage Capital and murdered in prison. On Thursday Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his close encounters with GPS Fusion (as did Thor Halvorssen (...)  (More)

July 27, 2017


In the live stream William Browder is testifying on Russia and the oppo sleeze factory called Fusion GPS hired by both the Democrats and Russian lawyer Veselnitzkaya, who had the meeting with Jon Jr. under false pretenses. Both Browder and Thor Halversson revealed recently the methods used by Fusion GPS. The long and short of it is, the Russians were playing both sides against each other. Only yesterday Democrats blocked Browder's testimony. (More) Scroll down to THE CABAL BEHIND THE FAKE RUSSIA "DOSSIER" on June 28, 2017.


July 27, 2017 Live Stream: William Browder Testifies before Senate Judiciary Hearing.

July 24, 2017


July 24, 2017 Live stream: Jared Kushner statement after closed Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing.

Jared Kushner's written statement to House and Senate Intel Committees (source). Tomorrow the President's son in law will answer questions of the House Ctee.

July 10, 2017


More than half of the memos created by former FBI Director James Comey of his private conversations with President Trump have been found to contain classified information, according to a new report. (Source) Four of seven memos Comey created had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, officials directly familiar with the matter told The Hill. The revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information “opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared,” it said. "This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election", it added. (More)

June 28, 2017


A Democratic Party-aligned opposition research firm is stonewalling Congressional investigators who are trying to ascertain exactly who financed the now-debunked “Russia dossier” – remember? The one that claimed germaphobe Trump enjoyed getting urinated on by Russian hookers? The New York Post’s Paul Sperry is out with another report about Fusion GPS (source), a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” But congressional sources say it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda." Fusion has refused to answer Senate investigators’ questions or provide records of communications that might help the panel identify who financed the error-ridden dossier.

Now, because of the firm's intransigence, it looks like the investigators might soon make good on their threats. “These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,” a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. “These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.” The firm was founded by Glenn Simpson, Thomas Catan and Peter Fritsch. Two of whom, Fritsch and Catan, have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch, a former Journal bureau chief in Mexico City, married to a Mexican woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican business magazine. Simpson, pictured below, is reported to have shared dark views of both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. Before joining Fusion GPS, Simpson did opposition research for a former Clinton White House operative. (More)

In separate news Sara Carter's latest revelation about the acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe suggests the FBI hunt on General Flynn may be rooted in a old gender discrimination case.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a central player in the Russia election case, is the focus of three separate federal administrative inquiries into allegations about his behavior as a senior bureau executive, according to documents and interviews. The allegations being reviewed range from sexual discrimination to improper political activity, the documents show. The inquiries remain open but so far there have not been any adverse findings against the senior FBI executive, who soared though the ranks the last few years to become deputy director and acting director since James Comey was fired. FBI officials and McCabe declined comment. Circa reported Monday that former supervisory special agent Robyn Gritz, a decorated counterterrorism agent, has filed a sexual discrimination and retaliation complaint that names McCabe and other top FBI officials. (More)

June 14, 2017


Michael Goodwin is looking back what leaks could can be attributed to Comey. There are at least three.
(...) By his actions, Comey reveals himself to be a fellow traveler with Never Trumpers. His firing brought him out of the shadows and into the open “resistance” to the president.  In hindsight, their clash was ­inevitable. (...) He admitted to the Senate he leaked just one memo criticizing Trump over the Gen. Michael Flynn case, asking a friend to give it to the New York Times. In its May 16 story, the paper identified its sources only as “two people who read the memo.” 
But that was not the first leak, for the Times had reported five days earlier on a separate, personal Comey memo attacking Trump for demanding “loyalty,” calling its anonymous sources “Mr. Comey’s associates.” Wait, that wasn’t the first leak, either. 
On March 5, one day after Trump accused President Barack Obama of wiretapping him at Trump Tower, the Times reported that Comey was furious at the charge. Its unnamed sources were “senior American officials.” 
All three stories carried the byline of Michael Schmidt, as did others describing intimate details of Comey’s dealings with Trump. Clearly, Schmidt had very, very good sources close to Comey. The Washington Post also had “Justice Department officials” as anonymous sources for a bombshell report saying attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions failed to disclose two meetings with the Russian ambassador. In calling Comey a “leaker,” Trump may have made the first understatement of his life. My bet is that Comey was a fountain of leaks, and didn’t show interest in prosecuting others because of his own guilt. (More)

The testimony of AG Jeff Sessions serves as a model for demoralized RINOs how to fight back against Democrat loonies and bullies. A new revelation by Circa references a document the existence of which has been in dispute for some time. If it exists is however immaterial. Comey believed it existed. Circa describes Loretta Lynch's reaction when Comey confronted her with the information.
Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter. (...) During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton. (More

June 13, 2017


Jun 13, 2017 RSBN Live Stream Atty. General Jeff Sessions testifies in open session before Senate Intelligence Committee.

June 11, 2017


Not only has Comey possibly incriminated himself, it has been established that he's been leaked before. The moral sins of James Comey are almost too many to mention. John Nolte tried anyway. (More) And then there is the matter of the tapes. And the NYT reporting on Comey's memos before the FBI director's nightly epiphany; and Comey in essence claiming he leaked the memo in response to a tweet that wouldn't happen until a day later? All shall be revealed in the course of the next few months. Tuesday June 13 his former boss, AG Jeff Sessions is going to testify before the committee.

June 9, 2017


Jun 9, 2017 Joint Press Conference with the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis planned for 2:45PM ET. 

Later today President Trump is holding a joint press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis in which he is expected to comment further on yesterday's testimony by former FBI director James Comey. The President is said to be lodging a formal complaint with the Department of Justice's Inspector General's Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee against Comey. (More)


Jun 8, 2017 Hannity and guests analyse Comey testifimony before the Senate Intel Ctee. 

The former FBI's Director's subjective testimony, high on feelings and anxiety, caused a small earth quake. Not only was the President never the target of any FBI Russia investigation, Comey himself was outed as a weak, small minded bureaucrat who leaked to the media when he was sacked. He caved to Obama's AG Lynch when she corrupted the investigation against Hillary insisting he should call it instead "a matter". Comey exonerated Hillary in a prime time presser, but refused to state in public that President Trump was not the target of an investigation. That double standard is probably what John McCain tried to convey in an erratic questioning session. The President never stood in the way of the Russia investigation and in fact offered his full cooperation if one of his satellites turned out to be involved. Comey volunteered all that information without any embarrassment, proving he has no moral standard. Indeed, Comey was unashamed when he pretended to be stunned that the President 'hoped' he could let Flynn go, yet failed to report his shock  upstairs.

Comey knew ahead that Trump's AG would recuse himself. But more astonishing he also calculated correctly that his leaked memo would trigger the installation of a Special Counsel! Calling the President a liar on the basis of a subjective qualification (the mess at the FBI) is proof of weak logic. No doubt, Comey is a prototype Peter Principle, a man in a position that is a few notches above his actual pay grade and Trump was justified in firing him. The Democrats on the committee were trying to build a case for obstruction of justice, setting up a quid pro quo in which Comey might keep his job in return for letting Flynn go. But nothing came of it.

The President never asked for Comey's loyalty. Like respect, you can't ask loyalty: you either have it, or you don't. In view of the leaks the president said he 'needed' loyalty; it was then for Comey to resign if he felt he could not meet that standard. In the meantime it is becoming clear that Comey's memos are considered work product and that FBI employee contracts prohibit leaking information. But perhaps the top brass is exempted. They often are.

The identity of Comey's friend in the Columbia Law School Professor, turns out to be Daniel C. Richman. He is a former federal prosecutor who served as chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and has served as a consultant to the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury on federal criminal matters. He confirmed to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters. (More)

June 8, 2017


Jun 8, 2017 Live Stream: James Comey, the former FBI director fired by President Trump will testify before a public session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

June 7, 2017


Former FBI Director James Comey will tell the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that President Donald Trump did not ask him to close the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Comey’s prepared statement (source) for the panel was made public early Wednesday afternoon. In the course of his statement, the former director recounts his recollection of a conversation he had with the president in the Oval Office on Feb. 14. Media accounts of this meeting have suggested that Trump asked him to close his probe of possible collaboration between campaign aides and elements of the Russian government. The former director disputes that characterization (More)

June 7, 2017


June 7, 2017 Live Stream: Senate Intel Committee question Rod Rosenstein, Dan Coats and other Intel Chiefs.

Today  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, DNI Director Dan Coats, NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers, and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Unmasking and 702 will certainly be a subject of testimony. The Democracts are at this stage almost desperate to nail the President. Earlier today, the Washington Post dropped a FakeNews story reporting that in March President Trump asked a top intelligence official if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, or so "officials" had told WaPo "associates". Both Coats and Rogers denied being or feeling pressured by the President in any way. They would have been obliged to report it.

May 11, 2017


May 11, 2017 Live Stream: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe Testifies Before Senate Intel Ctee instead fired Director James Comey on the subject of world wide threats. 

May 10, 2017


Just hours after Trump dropped the hammer on James Comey, Federal prosecutors issued Grand Jury subpoenas to associates of Michael Flynn and others involved with the Trump campaign. Here’s the full story from The Hill: “Federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas as part of the ongoing probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to a new report. The subpoenas to associates of former national security adviser Michael Flynn are seeking business records, CNN said Tuesday. CNN confirmed with people familiar with the matter that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, Va., issued the subpoenas in recent weeks. (...)

Sources told CNN that the subpoenas went to associates who worked with Flynn on contracts following his firing as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014. Investigators are reportedly examining possible wrongdoing with Flynn’s handling of payment disclosures from clients tied to foreign governments. Officials briefed on the matter told CNN that the overseas governments include Russia and Turkey. (More)

Targeted in widening investigations of his foreign entanglements, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, is at odds with his former Turkish client over two unusual payments totaling $80,000 that Flynn’s firm sent back last year to the client. The disagreement points to inconsistencies in Flynn’s accounts to the U.S. government about his work for foreign interests. (...)

The difference matters because Flynn’s foreign business relationships and the veracity of his disclosures are under scrutiny by congressional, military and intelligence inquiries. Congressional committees and the Pentagon’s inspector general are separately examining whether Flynn was fully forthcoming about his foreign contacts and earnings from organizations linked to the governments of Russia and Turkey.

His firm’s Turkish work occurred while he was a top Trump campaign adviser. On Monday, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told senators that Flynn’s misstatements about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. raised concerns that he could be targeted for blackmail. Yates also cited the possibility that Flynn could have broken federal law by operating as a paid foreign agent for the Turkish client without U.S. government permission. (More)

May 8, 2017


May 8, 2017 Live Stream: Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing. 

Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper are testifying before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee today, where they will discuss what she knows about the alleged collusion between Russian officials and President Trump‘s campaign team.

May 4, 2017


Senator Diane Feinstein shocked herself as well as Wolf Blitzer blurting out during a CNN interview that there is still no shred of evidence "at this time" of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians in spite of various investigations over the course of many months! But like the blood hounds they are, they just haven't found it yet. In the meantime in a defamation lawsuit brought by Aleksej Gubarev, chief executive of the network solutions firm XBT there's this is on the infamous "dossier":
Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified. In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government. Mr. Steele has not spoken publicly about his disputed opposition research project, but for the first time he is being forced to talk in a London court through his attorneys. Barristers for Mr. Steele and his Orbis Business Intelligence firm filed their first defense against. (More)

April 4, 2017


Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey demanding the story behind the FBI's reported plan to pay the author of a lurid and unsubstantiated dossier on candidate Donald Trump. In particular, Grassley appears to be zeroing in on the FBI's deputy director, Andrew McCabe, indicating Senate investigators want to learn more about McCabe's role in a key aspect of the Trump-Russia affair. Grassley began his investigation after the Washington Post reported on February 28 that the FBI, "a few weeks before the election," agreed to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to investigate Trump. Prior to that, supporters of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign had paid Steele to gather intelligence on Clinton's Republican rival. In the end, the FBI did not pay Steele, the Post reported, after the dossier "became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials." (...)

But the most noteworthy thing about Grassley's letter is its focus on McCabe. Grassley noted that McCabe is already under investigation by the FBI's inspector general for playing a top role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation even though McCabe's wife accepted nearly $700,000 in political donations arranged by a close Clinton friend, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, for her run for state senate in Virginia. "While Mr. McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia…he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation," Grassley wrote, "despite the appearance of a conflict created by his wife's campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the investigation." Now, Grassley wrote, there could be a problem with McCabe's participation in the Trump-Russia probe. If McCabe had a conflict being too close to Clinton, how could he then investigate Trump? (More)

March 31, 2017


While very interesting from a historical perspective, this probe by the Senate Intel Ctee is so obviously a propaganda exercise, it's hard to understand why any Republican would support it. But then, the party has a large (globalist) establishment base that historically distrusts anything Russian. It is therefore no surprise the hearing silently descends into an old fogeys club that sees reds under every bed as if time stopped in 1989 with the falling of the wall. And then there is the Neocon NeverTrump tribe that is politically invested in the "Russia Hacked the Elections" narrative. A Wikileaks tweet is reminding us that the Hillary campaign had been pursuing that line since April 2016, and probably even earlier than that. And then there is the Flynn connection.

The media are trying to suggest that "testimony for immunity" is somehow an admission of guilt. Let's remind ourselves that to date there is no thred of evidence, except of the fact that Flynn was illegally outed and leaked. Flynn is simply offering to tell his end of the story (with Trump's blessing), just like Carter Page (tweet), former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Trump council and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. It is doubtful that the committee will want to hear what they have to say.

Update on 1pm ET: Both the Senate and the House Intel Ctees are at this time deny having received the Flynn testimony statement.

March 30, 2017


Mar 30, 2017 Live Stream: Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian intelligence activities. 

This is evidently a globalist exercise. The globalist cabal is obviously clueless about technology. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Director of Russia & Eurasia program Eugene Rumer, Georgetown University Professor of Government Emeritus Roy Godson & Foreign Policy Research Institute Program on National Security Senior fellow Clint Watts testify. Do they know the Soviet Union stopped to exist some time ago?

Mar 29, 2017 US Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:  20 individuals are to be questioned.


Obama nixed it: he needed Russia for the Iran appeasement operation; Hillary would win in any case.

FBI Director James Comey wanted to go public with information about alleged Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election but was blocked by the Obama administration, according to a report. Comey had floated the idea of writing an op-ed about the interference in June or July, Newsweek reported Wednesday, citing two unidentified sources. The U.S. intelligence community eventually did publicly state that Kremlin-backed actors attempted to influence the election toward President Trump’s victory by releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee. Cybersecurity experts believed the hack stemmed from Russia soon after the emails were released in July, though the Obama administration did not formally accuse its former Cold War foe until early October. (More)


Mar 28, 2017 Peter Schweizer: the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign manager John Podesta may have violated federal law.

On the day the Senate Intel Ctee starts hearing some 20 witnesses to argue that "Russia hacked the elections to elect Trump". In the meantime news is breaking of Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta's Russian relations.
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Breitbart editor at large Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” detailed how the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign John Podesta may have violated federal law by failing to disclose stock shares he owned from a Kremlin-funded company. Schweizer said, “In 2011, John Podesta joins the board of this very small energy company called Joule Energy based out of Massachusetts. About two months after he joins the board of a Russian entity called Rusnano, puts a billion rubles which is about 35-million-dollar into John Podesta’s company. Now, what is Rusnano? 
It’s not a private company, Steve. It is a fund directly funded by the Kremlin. In fact, the Russian science minister called Rusnano, Putin’s child. So you have the Russian government investing in one John Podesta’s businesses in 2011, while he is an advisor to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.” He continued, “So then in 2013, he goes to the White House, to be a special counselor to Barack Obama, and that requires that you, you know, have financial disclosures every year. In his financial disclosure form in 2013, he not only fails to disclose these 75,000 shares of stock that he has in Joule Energy which is funded in part by the Russian government. He also fails to disclose that he is on one of the three corporate board that this entity has. It’s got this very complex ownership structure. 
He discloses he is on the company in Massachusetts, that is he on the board of a company in the Netherlands, but he fails to disclose that he is also on the executive order of the holding company. That’s a clear violation of the disclosure rules that needs to be looked at.” He added, “What makes the Podesta case clear is there was a transfer of money and there was a transfer of a lot of money that stood to make John Podesta a lot of money. That is unique and that’s extremely troubling because at the time that transfer is taking place he is advising Hillary Clinton at the State Department. We know that from the Podesta emails that he is helping her make personnel decisions, speech decisions, policy decisions. He is meeting with her monthly. It’s a transfer of money from a foreign government, at the time, that is he was advising America’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton.”

March 20, 2017


The Republicans allowed the Democrats to turn the House Intelligence Committee hearing into a political show trial reminiscent of the USSR. The Republicans are wholly unprepared to deal with these street fights against the Democrats. The Democrats have a two pronged duty: 1. divert attention away from the fact they owe Americans an explanation, why the disclosure of their emails by #Wikileaks was so damaging to them; and 2. to delegitimize Donald Trump's presidency. Trump should fire Comey. He hasn't even bothered to find out how many people in the FBI had access to the leaked classified information. According to National Security Agency head Michael Rogers on the NSA side of the equation there are no less than 20. FBI director Comey sprang the following on the hearing:
“Our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those that include classified matters,” Comey said. “But, in unusual circumstances, it may be appropriate to do so. This is one of those circumstances. I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. That includes any links between the Trump campaign and Russian government, and whether there was cooperation.” “This will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed,” he continued. “Because it’s classified, I can not say more about who we are investigating.” “This is a complex situation. There is no way for me to give you a timetable. I can promise you we will follow the facts — wherever they may lead.” (Source)

Mar 14, 2017


Mar 14, 2017 Judge Napolitano on Fox and Friends: three Intel sources claim that Obama hired the Brits to spy on Donald Trump. 

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday. (Source)
Update March 17: After repeating the Judge's claim, the White House apologized to the Brits, who are vehemently denying any involvement. It is a fact that GCHQ has full access to the NSA meta data Dbase.

But wait, there's more...Comey has a week to answer these curious questions on the FBI hiring of Steele, a British former spy to create the Trump-Russian "dossier". It looks like the American Intel Community is outsourcing its national spying to the Brits.

March 10, 2017


Zero Days Official Trailer 1 (2016) - Stuxnet Virus Documentary (IMDb).

Considering 1. who are the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intel and 2. an article on Breitbart, reporting that the technical witnesses on its hearings lists are from a company that cooperated closely with the Democrats to disseminate Trump's Russian collusion meme in the first place, proves why we need whistleblowers like Wikileaks. The film Zero Days (IMDb) shows the technical sophistication of the case material involved here. The cutting edge of cyber warfare is far beyond the pay grade of these committee members. In other words, the CIA and the NSA are dealing with a subject matter on which the average politician is incapable of doing oversight. If the wiretapping of Trump by the Obama regime is showing anything (whether true or false) it is that rogue agents or a rogue regime (even with the noblest patriotic intentions) is something no free country can afford. Until such time that the average politician has the basic understanding of what we're dealing with, we need the likes of Wikileaks to keep them on the straight and narrow. This is a danger the likes of which Gen. Hayden and other statists and globalists can't wrap their thick skulls around.
A list of witnesses scheduled to appear at a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Open Hearing on “Russian Active Measures” contains a glaring problem: the only technical experts scheduled to testify are from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is a firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and has become the primary source of the narrative about “Russian hacking” of the 2016 election and has acted as a mouthpiece for the Democrats since last June. (More)

March 9, 2017


Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking an unclassified report assessing Russia’s interference in foreign elections (Judicial Watch v. Central Intelligence Agency (No. 1:17-cv-00414)). The lawsuit follows on the heels of a separate Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit for documents about the Obama administration’s surveillance and related leaks of top Trump associate and former national security adviser Gen. Mike Flynn. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit for the report after the CIA failed to respond to a December 14, 2016, FOIA request. The agency’s response was due by January 24, 2017 at the latest.

(...)  “The illegal secrecy on the Obama administration’s anti-Trump Russia ‘investigations’ must end,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This report about Russia’s influence operations in Europe must not be helpful to the Obama anti-Trump Russia narrative – otherwise we wouldn’t have to sue in federal court to get it.” (Source)

Feb. 13, 2017


Feb 13, 2017 Charles Krauthammer: "This is a cover up without a crime." 

With the resignation of National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn the Russian "dossier" has morphed into demands of an investigation into the deep state undermining the powers that be. Also Rex Tillerson needed to swipe the State Dept. (Source) Far from wrong doing on the part of Flynn, as Krauthammer explains he was the victim of criminal acts committed by the deep state against the Trump administration. Let's keep this in mind: Flynn's position became untenable because he embarrassed the VP, nothing more, nothing less.
(...) The resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Monday evening raises troubling questions about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the intelligence services. Flyn (...) Whether Flynn deliberately concealed the contents of his conversation from Vice President Pence, or merely forgot what had been said, he was “caught” because the Department of Justice had been eavesdropping on the conversation. And one of the officials responsible for ordering the eavesdropping was none other than Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who forced President Trump to fire her when she defied her duty to enforce his executive order on immigration, however, controversial. Four possibilities emerge. 
One, (...) Flynn really was a potential Russian plant, perhaps indicating much deeper Russian penetration of the campaign and administration. A second possibility is that things really are what they seem (...) The third explanation is that President Obama deliberately, and cleverly, used the bogus sanctions as a “blue dye” test to expose which strings Russia might try to pull to relieve them. (...)
The fourth and most worrying explanation is that the government was not merely monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, but of the Trump transition team itself. The fact that the contents of Flynn’s phone conversation — highly sensitive intelligence — were leaked to the media suggests that someone with access to that information also has a political axe to grind. Democrats are clamoring for a deeper investigation of Russian ties to Trump. 
But the more serious question is whether our nation’s intelligence services were involved in what amounts to political espionage against the newly-elected government. We know that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of federal bureaucrats already using shadow communications systems. How far does that “shadow government” go? The FBI, CIA and other agencies ought to reassure Congress, or come clean. (Source

The CIA Really Is Out to Get General Flynn (More)

Feb. 8, 2017


Feb 7, 2017 Tucker Carlson talks to 
Val Gurvits, the lawyer of the Webzilla owner who's suing BuzzFeed over the false "Trump Dossier". 

Jan. 22, 2017


On day one President Trump went to CIA Headquarters to talk to the now leaderless rank and file. Brennan is gone and the new director is pending confirmation. He said their new director Pompeo is a star of whom they will be very proud. The Generals Kelly (Homeland Security) and Mattis (Defense) have already been sworn in, but the Democrats are stalling the confirmation of Pompeo. Trump took the opportunity to explain that his feud with the CIA was a media construct based on leaks by the top brass of a "dossier" that veteran reporter Bob Woodward called "garbage". He went on to say that the CIA will be leading the charge in the war on radical Islamic terrorism. Critics in the media have severely criticized the president for holding that speech -- that briefly touched on the matter of crowd size at the Inaugural Ceremony -- in front of the stars for fallen CIA agents, which is hallowed ground. The media war is constantly reduced to the latest row, instead of the fact that the 4th estate has now lost all iOts credibility.

Jan. 16, 2017


Yesterday FoxNews aired an interview with outgoing CIA Chief John Brennan in which he 'advised' the President Elect against spontaneous tweeting saying Trump "doesn't fully understand the Russian threat". (More) Which is a bit of a chutzpah since it has been his job to inform the PE. Trump was quick in reacting. Apart of all the institutional hacks and intel disasters on his watch, Brennan himself got hacked by a teenager. (More) So how did he suddenly become an authority? Was Brennan perhaps the one who leaked "the dossier", asks The Hill. Senior journalist of Watergate fame Bob Woodward is coming to Trump's aid, calling the dossier a "garbage document". (More)

Jan. 15, 2017


Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said late Friday that his committee will investigate possible contacts between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia (...) Burr and the intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, said in a joint statement that the committee's probe would touch on "intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns" as well as Russian cyberattacks and other election meddling outlined in an intelligence report released last week. The committee will use “subpoenas if necessary” to secure testimony from Obama administration officials as well as Trump’s team, Burr and Warner said. The bipartisan Senate announcement came hours after several House Democrats aired their frustrations with FBI Director James Comey following a classified briefing on Russian election disruption. The Democrats were livid that Comey refused to confirm whether he is conducting an inquiry  (More)

Jan. 13, 2017


One of the hackers of the DNC has surfaced. He assures us he has no relation to Russia and provides some technical information on how he hacked the DNC.
I really hope you’ve missed me a lot. Though I see they didn’t let you forget my name. The U.S. intelligence agencies have published several reports of late claiming I have ties with Russia. I’d like to make it clear enough that these accusations are unfounded. I have totally no relation to the Russian government. I’d like to tell you once again I was acting in accordance with my personal political views and beliefs. The technical evidence contained in the reports doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. This is a crude fake. Any IT professional can see that a malware sample mentioned in the Joint Analysis Report was taken from the web and was commonly available. A lot of hackers use it. I think it was inserted in the report to make it look a bit more plausible. 
I already explained at The Future of Cyber Security Europe conference that took place in London in last September, I had used a different way to breach into the DNC network. I found a vulnerability in the NGP VAN software installed in the DNC system. It’s obvious that the intelligence agencies are deliberately falsifying evidence. In my opinion, they’re playing into the hands of the Democrats who are trying to blame foreign actors for their failure. The Obama administration has a week left in office and I believe we’ll see some more fakes during this period. I guess you have a lot of questions for me. So, feel free to send them via DM.

Jan. 12, 2017


Slowly but surely we get to the bottom as to who's behind the unsubstantiated Fake News hoax. There were conflicting reports if the Intel Chiefs informed Trump or Obama about "the dossier" during the classified briefings last week. In yesterday's presser Trump blamed the "intel community" for the leak. Clapper called Trump today asserting that isn't the case. But there's a twist. Revenge is best served cold, but it is utter unsatisfactory if the subject doesn't know he has been punished. The avenger must come out into the open at some point, preferably covertly so that only the subject knows. Here's how Obama did it:

(...) Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said that’s the approach the White House took when confronted with false allegations that the president was not born in the U.S., charges advanced by Donald Trump himself. (...) 
That's is far as the outing in concerned. But who commissioned the "dossier"? Remember Our Principles PAC, founded by Katie Packer, a veteran Republican strategist and Romney's deputy campaign manager? (MoreUpdate: the NeverTrump Republican who commissioned the sleaze report turns out is Jeb Bush.
The opposition research firm that hired a former British spy to dig up dirt on Donald Trump is the same shady outfit that was hired by Planned Parenthood to put a positive spin on videos showing the sale of baby parts. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Washington D.C.-based Fusion GPS is the firm that hired Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the salacious but unsubstantiated 35-page Trump dossier that was published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday. Earlier on Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal identified Steele, who runs a U.K.-based business intelligence firm called Orbis Business, as the author of the memo. (RELATED: Report Identifies British Spy Who Wrote Trump Dossier) Steele, a former spy for MI6, the British equivalent of the CIA, relied on contacts in Russia, where he has served, to provide information about Trump’s business dealings, his visits to Russia and his campaign’s alleged contacts with Russian agents. None of the allegations in the dossier have been verified, and BuzzFeed was hammered throughout the day for publishing the document. There have been conflicting reports about whether U.S. intelligence agencies informed Trump or President Obama about the dossier during classified briefings last week. After Steele was identified, the next mystery was the identity of his employer. The Times cleared that up by identifying Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm started by former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson in 2010. According to The Times, Fusion GPS was hired to research Trump in Sept. 2015 by a wealthy GOP donor who was vehemently opposed to the real estate billionaire. But after Trump emerged as the GOP nominee, the unidentified Republican donor dropped the project. But Democrats who support Hillary Clinton had an interest in the information, according to The Times. The newspaper reported that Steele, who is reportedly highly regarded in spy circles, gave the information he had compiled to the British government. The dossier also ended up in the hands of FBI director James Comey last month. Arizona Sen. John McCain gave Comey the information last month. (More)

Jan. 11, 2017


In a story that is getting more surreal by the minute, a post on 4Chan now claims that the infamous "golden showers" scene in the unverified 35-page dossier, allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as "fanfiction", then sent to Rick Wilson, who proceeded to send it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election. Here is 4Chan's explanation of how the story came to light:
>/pol/acks mailed fanfiction to anti-trump pundit Rick Wilson about trump making people piss on a bed obama slept in
>he thought it was real and gave it to the CIA
>the central intelligence agency of the united states of america put this in their official classified intelligence report on russian involvement in the election
>donald trump and obama have both read this pol/acks fanfiction
>the cia has concluded that the russian plans to blackmail trump with this story we made up just let that sink in what we have become. 

And a summary posted on pastebin:
On january 10, Buzzfeed posted a story under the byline of Ken Bensinger, Mark Schoofs and Miriam elder titled “these reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia” and posted a link to a document alleging, among other things, that russia has been cultivating trump for 5+ years, that trump has been in constant contact with the kremlin for information on his opponents, and perhaps most inflammatory, that there are many recorded instances of blackmail of trump in sexual misconduct. A prominent claim is that trump rented the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in moscow, where he knew that the Obamas had slept in; he them hired a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden shower' (pissplay) on the bed and in the room.  
Noted #nevertrump voice Rick Wilson later commented on twitter, stating that the report “gave a new meaning to Wikileaks” ( and that the report was the reason everybody was fighting so hard against the election of Trump. (
The remarkable thing? It's all fake. And not only fake; it's a prank perpetuated by 4chan, on Rick Wilson himself. A post on 4chan on october 26 stated “mfw managed to convince CTR and certain (((journalists))) on Twitter there'll be an October surprise on Trump this Friday” along with a picture of a smug face with a hash name.  
On november 1, a person without a picture but is assumed to be the same person posted “So they took what I told Rick Wilson and added a Russian spy angle to it. They still believe it. Guys, they're truly fucking desperate - there's no remaining Trump scandal that's credible.” 
On january 10, moments after the story broke and began to gain traction on social media, a person with the same smug grin face, and the same hash title for the picture, stated “I didn't think they'd take it so far.” 
This story has taken on something of a life of it's own. Going through Rick Wilson's twitter, you can find many different stories from the time that he had shown the story to a wide number of anti-trump news sources, trying to find a news organization that would actually publish the story. During that time period, he referred to it often as 'the thing', and often playing coy with followers on the content with the story with anybody who was not also a #Nevertrumper. Unconfirmed sources has people as high up as John McCain giving the story to FBI Director James Comey to attempt to verify the story. Given that Rick Wilson runs in Establishment circles, it is not an impossible scenario that long-serving senators are falling for what amounts to a 4chan troll trump supporter creating an ironic October Surprise out of wholecloth to punk a GOPe pundit who derogatorily referred to them as single men who masturbate to anime.
While this entire incident is laughable, and even more so if the 4Chan account is accurate, what makes it quite tragic, is that it is no longer possible to dismiss the "fake news" angle to an intelligence report. And if the CIA is compromised, what is left for "news outlets" like CNN and BuzzFeed, which were all too eager to run with the story without any attempt at verification? (Source)

Jan. 10, 2017


Julian Assange yesterday answered questions from reporters who unduly emphasized the person of the source. This is typical for the Leftist world view. Man rather than an  idea being responsible for actions, they go after the messenger rather than the message itself. Assange characterized the unclassified CIA publication with the ominous title of "Grizzly Steppe" as a press release rather than a report. We call it a propaganda pamphlet. Assange reminded us that Donna Brazil as well as Bill Clinton have tried the line that the content of the leak was forged. This is untrue. Other than those two, no one had disputed or even tried to clarify the content. Speaking of "meddling in elections"...

Jan. 8, 2017


Jan 5, 2017 John McAfee on alleged Russian hack: the US Intel folks are either lying or extremely incompetent.

The Democrat propaganda machine is in full gear with the flimsy accusation that Russia is responsible for the DNC hack. An ex CIA analyst blasts the hacking claims. He has dismissed the report that claims Vladimir Putin personally led an elaborate cyber attack to install Donald Trump in the White House, saying the analysis is an attempt to smear the President Elect. 'Clinton is quite effective at discrediting herself'. (More) Reason for Wikileaks to counter the intel chiefs Russian fiction with a presser Monday at 9 AM ET.

Jan. 7, 2017


It may be in the classified report, but basically nothing was added in the last version that was not already presented earlier by the Obama's politicized and MB infiltrated 'intelligence community' (3 out of 17 intel services, we might add). It's very much like the global warming creed: an argument from authority (consensus of 98% of scientists), followed by an subjective opinion. When the report goes on to explain that the cable television broadcaster, RT means Russia Today and is a Kremlin propaganda outfit, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. You might as well say that CNN is an American propaganda medium. Yes, of course, but no one in his right might doesn't allow for that scant.
(...) McAfee believes, the whole “Russian hacking” narrative is either “propaganda intended to incite the American people, to anger toward Russia for some reason, or our intelligence community is so ignorant and naïve that they should all be replaced.” (More
According to the report itself, no evidence is provided: we are to believe them because of their 'moral authority'. It's all immaterial. The damage has already been done. The purpose was to make Trump look illegitimate in the eyes of the globalist Left and the world's low info people. They succeeded. As far as the actual hacks are concerned, the media and the Obama's intel chiefs are doing their utmost to confuse the issues, collating actual hacks by Russia and others with the meme that "Russians hacked the election for Trump". As long as they are playing this game, there's no reason to go along with it. This also appears to be the President Elect's line. REPORT FULL TEXT: Declassified US government combined report on alleged Russian involvement in the US election (PDF)

Jan. 6, 2017


Trump  is said to have had a constructive meeting with the 'íntelligence community'. He said he wants a plan to secure US cyber systems within 90 days. The proof of Russian involvement allegedly consists in a good old intercept of Russian officials expressing joy with Trump's election victory. Also -- and this is very convenient -- the officials discussing disparities in the levels of effort they devoted to penetrating Democratic and Republican campaign networks.
The same day that a classified 50-page intelligence report was delivered to President Obama on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, its findings were immediately leaked to the Washington Post by “U.S. officials” – probably senior Obama officials at the National Security Council. Making this worse, the leakers may have compromised sensitive intelligence sources and methods by revealing that the report was based on intercepted communications. According to the Post story, the classified intelligence report says senior officials in the Russian government celebrated Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton as a geopolitical win for Moscow. 
So-called “actors” involved in providing Democratic emails to WikiLeaks reportedly are identified. The report also is said to discuss “disparities in the levels of effort Russian intelligence entities devoted to penetrating and exploiting sensitive information stored on Democratic and Republican campaign networks.” After the Washington Post story was posted online, a senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the classified report with NBC News. The intelligence official agreed to talk to NBC because he or she disagreed with the focus of the Post story and believes the Post overemphasized alleged Russian celebration of Trump’s win and did not focus on the thrust of the report. 
Two other intelligence officials also leaked details of the classified report to NBC. According to the NBC story, “Two top intelligence officials with direct knowledge told NBC News that the report on Russian hacking also details Russian cyberattacks not just against the Democratic National Committee, but the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and American corporations.” It’s no surprise that Obamas officials would immediately leak to the news media details about the intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election since they have a history of leaking highly classified intelligence to the press – including sensitive intelligence sources and methods – to advance their political agendas. (More)


President-elect Donald J. Trump said in an interview Friday morning that the storm surrounding Russian hacking during the presidential campaign was a political witch hunt being carried out by his adversaries, who he said were embarrassed by their loss to him in the election last year. Mr. Trump spoke to The New York Times by telephone three hours before he was set to be briefed by the nation’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials about the Russian hacking of American political institutions. In the conversation, he repeatedly criticized the intense focus on Russia. “China, relatively recently, hacked 20 million government names,” he said, referring to the breach of computers at the Office of Personnel Management in late 2014 and early 2015. “How come nobody even talks about that? This is a political witch hunt.” (More) And that's not all! Trump is on the war path...


Jan 5, 2017 Hannity interview with Julian Assange in London. Part 3 (01:00, 33:00). 

This was a lawyers' circus in DC. The objective was to create the perception that Assange is an unreliable witness, whereas the 'intelligence community' is the bedrock of the state. It didn't work. The voters aren't buying the Potemkin tricks anymore.
The United States' top intelligence official has said a suspected Russian cyberhacking campaign constituted unprecedented meddling in the American electoral process. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made the assertion on January 5 at an extraordinary hearing of a leading Senate committee focusing on the question of alleged Russian interference in the presidential election campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive, a more direct effort to interfere in our elections processes than in this case," Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee. The hearing is the first of several congressional inquiries looking into the scope, intent, and purpose of what Washington says was a Russia-government-orchestrated intrusion into the computer servers and e-mail accounts of U.S. political organizations. (More)

Jan. 4, 2017


Jan 3, 2017 Hannity interview with Julian Assange in London. Part 2 (16:35, 35:50). 

UPDATE: We are dealing here with misinformation: part truth, part confabulation. The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians have been hacking numerous US institutions. And the US has been hacking them. This has nothing to do with the election. Then Guccifer2.0 and Anonymous hacked the DNC. This did not generate much information. The method used is to date unknown. Then Podesta was phished. Wikileaks published the PodestaEmails and the DNCLeaks, not hacks but printed material as Assange has explained. These leaks were a combination of rogue NSA agents, furious with Hillary disclosing classified material including sending emails to addresses in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and a Democrat insider -- perhaps the murdered staffer Seth Rich as Assange has suggested earlier, with or without the aid of the former British ambassador Craig Murray. The sequence of events is well documented in these pages (links on top of the page). The purpose of this Demoocrat led operation is to de-legitimize Trump's presidency. They are not dealing in facts or reality: somehow creating an impression in the minds of the people is enough. Therefore all these events and information is conflated and equivocated until no one can tell what is what. After a few months all people will remember is that Trump didn't get to be president in a fair way. And that is enough.

Jan. 3, 2016


Everyone seems to have forgotten about Guccifer2.0 who was the only actual hacker into the DNC. But the information it yielded was small and quite unimportant relative to the 2016 campaign. Nevertheless, that is probably the hacker who left the cyrillic calling card, which suggests a false flag rather than sloppy Russian hackers.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will reveal in an interview tonight with Sean Hannity that Russia was not responsible for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. Assange makes his assertion "with a thousand percent confidence." Assange also will say that President Barack Obama is 'trying to delegitimize the Trump administration.' The media, accused of peddling "fake news" this election season, and various Democrat operatives have been reporting that the 2016 election was "hacked" by the Russians, leading many people to believe that actual election machines were corrupted by foreign forces. 
In reality, Hillary Clinton honcho John Podesta was successfully phished and willingly gave up his password believing there was a problem with this email account. People are always getting emails phishing for their passwords; John Podesta is not a special case -- he was just successful tricked. Once the phishers got a hold of Podesta's email password, they accessed his emails and released them to the public. The Democratic National Committee also had its correspondence released to WikiLeaks either from a inside leak or a hack. (More)

Dec. 31, 2016


While the report released yesterday by the DHS and the FBI on the DNC hacking by the Russians (called "Grizzly Steppe" for more agonizing effect), is supposed to have tipped the scale for Donald Trump, is critiqued by the experts, the Washington Post is actually breaking FakeNews that the "Vermont power grid has been hacked by the Russians". (More) But back to Grizzly Steppe: there's still no proof that "the Russians hacked the DNC" (or the DCCC, or Hillary's server, or John Podesta who was phished, but who also lost his phone on one occasion). So Obama constructs a baseless international incident, but the Democrats worry about Trump's temperament to be president! How's this for totally irresponsible behavior of a man who is supposed to be the most powerful person on the planet!

The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community's case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material. 
While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks. Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups. 
"This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations," Robert M. Lee, CEO and Founder of the security company Dragos, wrote in a critique published Friday. (...)  The sloppiness, Lee noted, included the report's conflation of Russian hacking groups APT28 and APT29—also known as CozyBear, Sandworm, Sednit, and Sofacy, among others—with malware names such as BlackEnergy and Havex, and even hacking capabilities such as "Powershell Backdoor." The mix up of such basic classifications does little to inspire confidence that the report was carefully or methodically prepared. And that only sows more reasons for President elect Donald Trump and his supporters to cast doubt on the intelligence community's analysis on a matter that, if true, poses a major national security threat. (More)


Dec. 30, 2016


The Russian response to Barack Obama’s announcement that he was expelling 35 diplomats over the alleged cyber attack on the US election, was fast, and in some cases, rather amusing. As officials in Moscow said that US diplomats would be ordered to leave in a tit-for-tat response, the Russian Embassy used Twitter to make its point with little panache. Mr Obama on Thursday sanctioned Russian intelligence services and their top officials, kicked out 35 Russian officials and closed down two Russian-owned compounds in the U.S. (Source)

In the meantime Obama's hypocrisy is exposed. Why did Obama send Hillary emails over her substandard server in the toilet of a mum&pop shop? Why did he wait so long to tackle the problem of cyber warfare in which various countries are involved, not least of which the Norks and the Chicoms, as well as the mullahs in Iran. These are completely unrelated to the elections. The Obama regime is equivocating the issues with the express purpose of de-legitimizing the Trump presidency.

Putin's response is also in: Putin decides to take the high road and will not expel American diplomats over Obama's childish act. The President Elect for his part wants to move on, but is willing to look at the CIA's illusive evidence next week.


Jun 6, 2014 Jimmy Kimmel Live: The President was staying at a Marriott in Warsaw recently where someone secretly shot video of him working out in the hotel gym.

Dec. 16, 2016


Dec 15, 2016 FULL Interview Julian Assange On The Hannity Show: "Our Source Is Not the Russian Government".

It has now become clear that "Russian hacking" can't be attributed to the DNC and PodestaLeaks that played such a prominent role during the election campaign. Assange did however say that he is unaware of the source of the Guccifer2.0 revelations, but its impact was relatively minor. It's now obvious where Obama and the Dems are going with this operation: it's to de-legitimize President Trump in the eyes of their followers. We are however in a dangerous situation. The Dems are like a wounded animal and can't accept defeat. But they still wielding considerable power. Obama: U.S. will "take action" on Russian hacking. (More) The intel community is divided. Brennan and Clapper and Obama's men.
Thursday on the Sean Hannity’s radio show, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks Julian Assange said that the Russian government was not his group’s source for emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Assange said, “Our source is not the Russian government.” Hannity asked, “In other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC? Assange replied, “That’s correct.” “Our source is not the Russian government,” Assange told Hannity unequivocally. 
“So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC [Democratic National Committee]?” “That’s correct,” Assange answered. Hannity asked if he’d ever received information involving the Republican National Committee. “We received about 3 pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else,” the WikiLeaks founder said. 
Hannity then asked whether it was fair to say that the sources for all the documents WikiLeaks released from both the DNC and former Clinton campaign chairman John Pedestal came from within the United States. Although Assange danced around a bit on this in an effort to protect his sources, he confirmed that the information did not come from any foreign government such as Russia. 
He did, however, indicate that material released by others — such as Guccifer 2.0 — may have come from foreign sources. “Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.” 
Assange neither confirmed nor denied a report that WikiLeaks confidant Craig Murray received DNC documents from someone with “legal access” to both the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta emails. He reportedly did so out of “disgust at the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the [primary] election.” “Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks,” Assange told Hannity. (Source)

Dec. 15, 2016


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that top intelligence directors declined the panel’s request to brief lawmakers on what he's called “conflicting assessments” of Russia’s apparent interference in the U.S. election. The California Republican said in a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that he was "dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly, about … the CIA's reported revision of information previously conveyed to this committee." He said the CIA’s recent findings conflicted with briefings the panel received earlier in the year and asked for a briefing as soon as possible. Top intelligence officials, however, rejected the panel’s request to come in Thursday, according to Nunes.
“It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign (...) The legislative branch is constitutionally vested with oversight responsibility of executive branch agencies, which are obligated to comply with our requests.” “The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes,” 
Nunes said his panel had been “vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign.” He said they wanted to “clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us." Intelligence officials’ refusal to brief the panel, he continued, allows for speculation and for their findings to be distorted. President-elect Donald Trump, for example, has suggested the CIA’s findings are false and a ploy by Democrats to undercut his Election Day victory.  (More)

Dec. 14, 2016


The scapegoating of Russia is now so widespread, Dirty Wars author and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill took to The Intercept to call the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on its bluff. In the article, “Obama Must Declassify Evidence Of Russian Hacking,” Scahill and Jon Schwartz called out U.S. intelligence agencies for their record of deceit, asserting that the American people are not going to simply “take their word for it.” “U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly demonstrated that they regularly both lie and get things horribly wrong,” the article argues. But when it comes to the CIA’s case against Russia’s alleged interference with the latest U.S. presidential elections, it’s impossible to claim the hearsay is based on facts if evidence is not made available to support the agency’s claims. Nevertheless, Scahill and Schwartz argue, it’s possible that Russia may have pulled some strings. (...) assertions are not evidence, and major publications like the Washington Post have been basing their Russia-related reports using nothing but assumptions. Using an anonymous source, for instance, the WaPo reported that “[U.S. intelligence] agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others.” But Reuters has since reported that “[the] overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election.” This means the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) “has not endorsed [the CIA’s] assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence.”

Caitlin Johnstone put it best in an article for Newslogue: “Believing something the CIA says is like trusting a meth addict with your car, and trusting the CIA when they’re working with the Washington Post is like trusting a meth addict with your car and leaving your kid in the back seat with the house keys and money for Taco Bell.”

Unless proof is produced either by the CIA or a whistleblower, partisan voices crying wolf in Washington and in the media will continue to run on empty, feeding their base with nothing but “fake news.” But wasn’t that what we were told to unite over so we could “fight” it effectively? Here’s your chance, Mr. President. (Source)

A former intelligence officer explains that investigations are rarely as conclusive as a "fingerprint" or a string of Cyrillic characters conveniently left behind.
If there’s one thing that’s certain in the intelligence business, it’s that there’s rarely any certainty.  That’s pretty much the first thing they teach you at spy school. Back in the early days of my intelligence career, I had one instructor who explained it in a way that I’ll never forget. “If you present your analysis as if it’s fact, instead of conjecture, the person who’s relying on your intelligence could end up making a bad decision that gets people killed.” Intelligence is not about definitive conclusions. It’s about gathering data and coming up with plausible theories that connect the dots. Sadly, sometimes those theories are influenced by personal or political agendas. (More)

Dec. 13, 2016


Dec. 12, 2016 Judge Napolitano: NY Times/WaPo can't show proof election was altered, standing by the assertion he made in July naming the NSA as source. 

Judge Andrew Napolitano told many Americans the DNC was hacked by insiders, not the Russians back in July. Now he's doubling down on that and speaking about the NY Times/Washington Post who are trying their very best to delegitimatize Donald Trump winning the 2016 election. More on the Judge's commentBtw, where was all the outrage when Hillary's substandard email server was exposed in the bathroom of the mom&pop shop? The True Pundit website is boasting an interview with a CIA Analyst who boldly has told them the Washington Post story about Russians hacking the US Presidential election is a lie. That’s cutting it down the middle with a straight carving knife leaving nothing to chance (scroll down to yesterday's posting).

  • With the recent Friday night disinformation surprise, the corporate media and elements of both the CIA and the White House are openly positioning to directly stop Donald Trump from becoming president. The late Friday news published by both the Washington Post and New York Times claims that a secret CIA assessment has confirmed that Russia not only meddled in the US election but directly did so in order to help Trump win the presidency. The reports, completely based on the claims of unnamed US officials and therefore almost impossible to confirm or debunk, have set off a firestorm in the corporate media and have led to a direct call by a left leaning CIA agent for a second election. Appearing on the openly anti-Trump cable news network CNN, “former” CIA agent Bob Baer called for a second Presidential election. His reasoning? The unproven claims by unnamed US officials that the CIA has concluded that the election was tampered with by Russia. (It’s important to note here that the FBI does not believe this to be the case.) (More
  • The individual who would be overseeing an investigating into the CIA’s “Russian hack” accusation is National Intelligence Director James Clapper. And nearly four years ago, on March 17, 2013, Clapper committed perjury at a congressional hearing after he said that the National Security Agency (NSA) did not collect the data of millions of Americans. Shortly after that, whistleblower Edward Snowden showed up and proved him wrong in every single way, exposing the massive data collection program by the NSA. And what has the Obama administration done to hold this man — who committed a felony — accountable? Nothing. Now, this flagrant liar will be in charge of a complete and total investigation into the CIA’s claim that Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Russian allies not only destabilized the American election process, but that they willingly guided Trump to victory. It’s all fake news purported by the mainstream news outlets — there are no reports, no evidence, no facts suggesting that the Russians were involved in any way. It’s just another justice department that the Obama administration has politicized.(Source)
  • Retired Army intelligence officer Tony Shaffer alleged Monday that CIA Director John Brennan is playing political games via a secret CIA assessment stating Russia interfered with the election to support GOP President-elect Donald Trump. Speaking to WMAL radio Monday, Shaffer claimed that the secret CIA assessment, obtained by The Washington Post and described in an article last Friday, is a product of Brennan’s loyalty to President Barack Obama, The Washington Examiner reports. “This is purely political, and I believe that John Brennan is a political animal,” Shaffer said. He added he has been talking with former CIA officials about the report. “Everything they are telling me is Brennan is doing this out of loyalty to President Obama.” “It’s about undermining Trump, that’s what it is,” Shaffer said. “It“It’s called information operations, information warfare, and that’s what I believe is going on.” (Source

Dec. 12, 2016


Dec 11, 2016 CIA: Washington Post Report Linking Russian Government to Trump & Election Hacking Is “Outright Lie”.

After the Republicans yesterday destroyed the basis of the claim that the Russians helped Trump to power (scroll down to Reince Priebus in Meet The Press), and the FBI challenged the CIA (source), the CIA itself is now openly denying there is anything conclusive behind the claim that the Russians did it. In other words, the entire claim is now moot. This was another construct of the Democrat Media Complex aimed at undermining the President Elect's legitimacy. As an aside the media yesterday aggressively attacked Trump and Trump surrogates Priebus and Kellyanne Conway for being unsupportive of the intelligence services. We must remember for who this is meant.

The primary goal of the exercise is not the Kremlin, although they are potentially risking war with the Russians. The primary goal is Donald Trump and the de-legitmization of the election process. The Russians aren't undermining public confidence in the system, the Democrats are! This won't stop until the base has fully internalized the message. At which point they are ready to sacrifice the country to the party. Make no mistake about it. They are laying the groundwork for major subversion. The Democrat party does not belong in a democratic system at this point. This is far more sinister than the Democrats just being sore losers.
The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an “outright lie,” according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case. The Washington Post, in a front-page splash on Friday, fingered the CIA for allegedly confirming the wild rumors of Russian hacking that were concocted and spread by Democratic lawmakers for months preceding the election and the weeks since the GOP win. The Washington Post’s story, however, contained no CIA sources and in fact, no credible U.S. intelligence agency sources whatsoever. Instead, it hinged on what unnamed lawmakers had supposedly been told by unidentified, supposed CIA-linked sources in “secret” briefings: That the CIA had developed proof the Russian state waged an orchestrated campaign to destabilize the U.S. election to benefit GOP-candidate Trump. “It’s an outright lie,” a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. “There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.” Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks. (More

Dec. 11, 2016


The secondary claim that the objective of the Russians hacking the DNC was to bring about the Trump victory at the expense of Hillary rests on the assertion of the CIA that the Republican party was hacked as well, but was never exposed like the Democrats were. But the spokesman of the party is vehemently denying it was ever hacked (RNC Spokesman Slams WaPo, NYT Reports — The Russians Never Hacked Us). Of course it wasn't! Because neither was the DNC. As we saw in the previous posting, it wasn't a hacking but an inside job. Judge Napolitano in the video explains why. As for the Podesta Emails, the explanation may be even shockingly simpler than that.


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.” He is stressing what the media and the Democrats are systematically ignoring because it doesn't suit their narrative: it wasn't an electronic hacking of the systems, but a leak. Someone printed the emails out, and handed them over physically to Wikileaks.
Former British ambassador Craig Murray told the Guardian the CIA’s claims that Russia interfered in the US election are “bullsh*t.” From The Guardian: “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. (...)
Murray went into further detail on his website: I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. (...) As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. (...) (More)

Dec. 10, 2016


According to Posobiec this CIA/WaPo exercise is a soft coup against Trump. The information is directed at liberal blue pills to trigger resistance against the democratically elected President. We agree. Posobiec is convinced with Roger Stone that more specifically the target are the electors. But there's no chance they can flip enough of them to upend the election of the President Elect.

Dec. 10, 2016


Dec 8, 2016 Media analyst Mark Dice: Hillary Clinton blames Fake News for losing the election.

In a rare public appearance since losing the election Hillary Clinton is employing the Clinton modus operandi of spreading maximum confusion by spreading mis and dis information. While speaking at Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's retirement ceremony, she said, “The epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences," meaning her losing the elections. She urged for criminal penalties for the perpetrators.

On Friday Dec. 9 the Washington Post published a sequence to its article of Nov. 24 claiming that “Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say.” The claim was based on a long list of online news sites purported to be either working directly for Moscow or else “useful idiots” unwittingly spreading Russian propaganda. Scroll down to Dec. 8 for Fake News: the Shorter Version.

The articles in the Washington Post also made claims about Russian involvement in tempering with the Presidential campaign to get Donald Trump elected. But doesn't explain why the Russians had more or less free reign during the Obama's tenure and could expect continuing to do so with his heir, Hillary Clinton in office; whereas her rival Donald Trump has said he's going to rebuild the military and will put America's interests first.

These claims simply do not make any sense. While the actors remain -- as is the case of PropOrNot -- anonymous, the following piece contains some clues as to the mindset and world view of the people involved. It reads in part: 

CIA report WAPO art National Security Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter. Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. 

Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances. “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.” (...) 

The Trump transition team dismissed the findings in a short statement issued Friday evening. 
“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” the statement read. Trump has consistently dismissed the intelligence community’s findings about Russian hacking. 
“I don’t believe they interfered” in the election, he told Time magazine this week. The hacking, he said, “could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. (...)  The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. (...)  Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”

The White House and CIA officials declined to comment. On Friday, the White House said President Obama had ordered a “full review” of Russian hacking during the election campaign, as pressure from Congress has grown for greater public understanding of exactly what Moscow did to influence the electoral process. (...) Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said. (...) 

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. (...) This week, top Democratic lawmakers in the House also sent a letter to Obama, asking for briefings on Russian interference in the election. U.S. intelligence agencies have been cautious for months in characterizing Russia’s motivations (...)

In previous assessments, the CIA and other intelligence agencies told the White House and congressional leaders that they believed Moscow’s aim was to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system. The assessments stopped short of saying the goal was to help elect Trump.

On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement. “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.” (...)

The reluctance of the Obama White House to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions before Election Day upset Democrats on the Hill as well as members of the Clinton campaign. (...) 

Obama dispatched Monaco, FBI Director James B. Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to make the pitch for a “show of solidarity and bipartisan unity” against Russian interference in the election, according to a senior administration official. Specifically, the White House wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a bipartisan statement urging state and local officials to take federal help in protecting their voting-registration and balloting machines from Russian cyber-intrusions. (...) 

In a secure room in the Capitol used for briefings involving classified information, administration officials broadly laid out the evidence U.S. spy agencies had collected, showing Russia’s role in cyber-intrusions in at least two states and in hacking the emails of the Democratic organizations and individuals. And they made a case for a united, bipartisan front in response to what one official described as “the threat posed by unprecedented meddling by a foreign power in our election process.” The Democratic leaders in the room unanimously agreed on the need to take the threat seriously.

Republicans, however, were divided, with at least two GOP lawmakers reluctant to accede to the White House requests. According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands. McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

Some Clinton supporters saw the White House’s reluctance to act without bipartisan support as further evidence of an excessive caution in facing adversaries. “The lack of an administration response on the Russian hacking cannot be attributed to Congress,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was at the September meeting.
“The administration has all the tools it needs to respond. They have the ability to impose sanctions. They have the ability to take clandestine means. The administration has decided not to utilize them in a way that would deter the Russians, and I think that’s a problem.”  

Dec. 8, 2016


As the Hillary Clinton campaign slogged toward victory against Sen. Bernie Sanders, word came from WikiLeaks that it had scored a trove of hacked emails to and from the Democratic National Committee. Among other things, they proved that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta had been working to skew the primaries in Clinton’s favor. (...)

The day before the party’s convention on July 24, Wasserman-Schultz resigned. The DNC and the intelligence establishment began claiming, with no hard evidence, that the source of WikiLeaks’ explosive emails was “the Russians.” This was denied by WikiLeaks. Mainstream news organizations adopt this “Russia did it” trope, which despite the lack of proof has only grown more widely accepted.

Then the Washington Post (11/24/16) published an explosive exposé claiming that, as its headline put it, “Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say,” based on a long list of online news sites purported to be either working directly for Moscow or else “useful idiots” unwittingly spreading Russian propaganda.

Incredibly, the list included respected sites like Polk Award-winner Robert Parry’s Consortium News, former LA journalist Robert Sheer’s Truthdig, the news aggregator site and the highly regarded financial news site Naked Capitalism [red. as well as mainstays of the alternative media like Wikileaks, Drudge Report, Lew Rockwell, PrisonPlanet, Infowars and ZeroHedge]. 

The aim of the conspiracy was reportedly to boost Trump’s chances of winning the the presidency, while undermining American support for democracy and creating “the appearance of international tensions” and “fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.”

Washington Post technology reporter Craig Timberg reported that a “nonpartisan” team of “experts” calling themselves PropOrNot used “sophisticated” but unexplained analytical tools and methodologies to identify “more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with audiences of at least 15 million Americans.” Timberg added, “On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.” (there are only 250 million adult Americans).

Timberg charged that many of the stories circulated by these sites were “fake,”. He explained how Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery amplified by right-wing sites across the internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The PropOrNot approach conflates well-grounded concerns with spurious stories of the sex-trafficking pizza parlor ilk to form a single disinformation juggernaut. (More on PizzaGate)

As the organization’s “executive director” told the Post: The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy…. It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign…. It worked. “Executive director” here is in quotes because the Washington Post allowed PropOrNot’s entire staff to remain anonymous. Nor did Post editors require Timberg to afford any of the sites PropOrNot maligned as Russian propaganda tools a chance to respond—a basic requirement of responsible journalism. 

Timberg wrote that this was to protect PropOrNot’s members from “being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.” Efforts by FAIR to elicit comment from Timberg or his superiors, national editor Cameron Barr and editor Marty Baron, were unsuccessful. They referred questions to WPost VP for communications and events Kris Coratti, who would only email this justification for not giving the sites on the blacklist a chance to respond: “The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot’s list of organizations.”

Almost two weeks after its article ran, the WPost ran a sort of correction, but the paper did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot’s blacklist]. Since publication of the WPost’s story, PropOrNot has removed some of those sites from its list. Of course, the damage was already done. The paper didn’t have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google search.

Editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous calls and emails. Timberg tried to lend his credulous article a sheen of credibility by including a second source of other “independent analysts” also making claims of an epic Russian propaganda conspiracy, but this was a study by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), a hoary relic of the ’50s still mired in McCarthyite thinking and run by Russophobe veterans of the Reagan and Bush administrations.

At least FPRI’s funding, leadership and the study’s authors were identified. The WPost’s story was really all about PropOrNot’s list and, in contrast to FPRI, the organization remains fully opaque. What is PropOrNot trying to hide? One possibility: The Pentagon. The Defense Department is, after all, spending billions of dollars a year on information warfare, and has, under Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, been promoting the idea of Russia as an existential threat to the US.

One indication of Pentagon involvement is Joel Harding, whose own blog identifies him as a retired longtime military intelligence officer specializing in “information operations, strategic communication and cyberwarfare”—in other words, psychological warfare and propaganda. Harding, who denied (via an email conversation with me) any connection to the 30 or 40 “volunteers” alleged to be working at PropOrNot, is nonetheless the only named “analyst” whose work is cited as a rationale for listing any of the sites on PropOrNot’s list. (The other sites just feature links to the sites themselves.)

One of the sites Harding “analyzed” for PropOrNot and labeled as a major purveyor of Russian propaganda was an obscure site called, which features some news about the US and Russia, as well as conspiracy theories about vaccine links to autism and proof of an afterlife. The other was a remarkably shoddy September 2 analysis of an article in CounterPunch, in which Harding mocked one the contributor whose self-identification as a socialist  without mentioning or perhaps noticing that the author’s bio also mentioned he was a Canadian. When CounterPunch editor Joshua Frank wrote to PropOrNot complain about his site’s being labeled as Russian propaganda, PropOrNot said they would remove CounterPunch from their list.

What makes him appear to be more closely allied with or part of PropOrNot’s anonymous team than he admits, however, is a bylined article that appeared on his own site on November 18, six days before PropOrNot’s public debut in the Washington Post. Under the prescient headline “Russian Propaganda Sites: Is It Propaganda or Not?,” Harding offered a preview of the as yet unannounced’s “List,” itself dated November 9. This preview list contained 178 names, a bit shorter than the final list’s 200.

While claiming no connection to PropOrNot, Harding said that “some of its people may have been students of mine.” Harding said during this email conversation that he was on his way to the commissary at the US Army’s Ft. Belvoir, a suburban DC base that’s home to INSCOM, the Army’s “information operations” command, and ARCYBER, its cyber command post. Could PropOrNot possibly be linked to a US military psychological warfare program? 

Adrian Chen, a staff writer at the New Yorker (12/1/16), offered interesting insight into the genesis of Timberg’s Washington Post article. He said he had received an anonymous email from “The PropOrNot team” in late October saying that as a “newly-formed independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists and political activists, dedicated to identifying propaganda—particularly Russian propaganda targeting a US audience,” they had developed a list of 200 such news sites. 

They said that they had brought it to the attention of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who had recommended they contact Chen. Chen passed. The WPost’s Timberg, however, took the bait, and after his piece appeared, the Post promoted it aggressively. it spread virally to many other newsrooms and papers across the country, running as the lead story on November 25 in the Philadelphia Inquirer and prominently, too, at USA Today, and getting mentions on CBS, PBS, ABC and other news programs. alternative media were quick to fight back.

The Intercept (11/26/16) ran a blistering accusation of the WPost that accused the paper of promoting an organization that “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.” Matt Taibi, in Rolling Stone, condemned Timberg’s “astonishingly lazy report,” adding, of the WPost’s use of a shadowy group to malign 200 news sites without a single identified spokesperson, “Most high school papers wouldn’t touch sources like these.”

By November 30, PropOrNot, issued a press release announcing that it was “reviewing” its methodology. The group said that it would stop listing news sites that were open about who they were and that were running actual news. They also said they would stop using techies to evaluate whether news sites were propaganda organs or not.

The WPost, however, despite its “editor’s note” preface, is still standing by a tawdry story. So is Timberg, who on November 30 enthusiastically cited his earlier piece in reporting on a House/Senate conference working on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, that approves $160 million to “identify propaganda and counter its effects.” Timberg wrote that the measure, originally produced last spring, had earlier focussed upon propaganda in foreign countries, but he says, enthusiastically linking to his own article of six days earlier: 
“The context shifted in recent months as independent experts [those PropOrNot guys!] warned that Russia was carrying out an intensive propaganda campaign during the US election season.” 
That should make the folks behind PropOrNot happy. On their own site, while claiming they aren’t trying to censor anybody, they call on the FBI and DOJ to open “formal investigations by the US government, because…we strongly suspect that some of the individuals involved have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act and other related laws.”

The irony is that in purporting to expose Russian propaganda manipulation of the media, the Washington Post has provided a graphic demonstration of how the whole propaganda thing works. (Source

Below is a sample of recent Fake News spread by the mainstream media, not the alternative media as listed by PropOrNot and the Washington Post. 

Rush Limbaugh's compilation of Fake News spread by Hillary. 


Dec 9, 2016 Rush Limbaugh Plays Montage Of Hillary As A Purveyor Of Fake News.