Thursday, December 1, 2016

ARCHIVE CIA COUP: Dec. 8, 2016 - March 9, 2017

To Live Blog #CIACoup "Russia hacked the election" #GoldenShowerGate

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)


If the Democrats are looking for an information leak, look no further than three Pakistani brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan, hired to maintain House computer servers and emails. One of the men had a criminal record. They were each paid over $160,000 salary to work for the Congress and a number of Democrats, and had unauthorized access to Foreign Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committee intel. They have been fired. Whomever hired these three should be the target of a FBI probe, along with the three alleged IT gurus. They are currently being investigated for ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and they may have funneled information from the House of Representatives onto an external server.

It is also believed the individuals are responsible for theft and the overpricing of computer equipment, the extra money no doubt going into their pockets! The three brothers, and the wife of Imran, made around $160,000 a year as information technology employees of the House. Even though they were being paid quite a bit of money, their financial activity is suspicious, including mortgage transfers and evading debt with bankruptcy.

Abid was a million dollars in debt after a failed business venture, through this business it is believed he stole money and vehicles. This business, which was an automobile business, was reportedly being run while he was working for Congress, which seems hard to believe. He has been on the payroll of the government for years, but despite his failed illicit business, he was still able to be an employee of Congress.

How did the Obama administration allow these criminals to slip through the cracks? These people were doing many illicit acts that the government should have caught, but because of Obama and his soft spot for Muslims, they looked the other way. Who knows what information they have gleaned from the government’s servers. (Source)

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.