January 3, 2017: Julian Assange Explains Why a 14 Year Old Could Have Hacked Podesta’s EmailJulian Assange of WikiLeaks says that the Russian government did not provide him with the hacked DNC emails during a televised interview. Julian Assange stated that Podesta’s password for his Gmail account was “password.” For those who may not know, the word password is the most common password and is the first password checked by hackers when trying to access any login screen. Here is a quote from the interview: "Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘password’ ... a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta."
Assange also repeatedly stated that Wikileaks gained access to the Podesta emails from a leak and not a hack and that the source of the leak was not Russia. Assange, who is a former computer security consultant, also stated that Hillary Clinton made “almost no attempt” to protect the private server that stored her State Department emails. I have previously written about how insecure the Clinton server was and that any teenager could have hacked it using programs and methods available through a simple Google search. While the main stream media claims that the Clinton server was hacked by Guccifer and that Guccifer was Fancy Bear or Cozy Bear and therefore a Russian spy, the fact is that Guccifer could just have easily been a bored American teenager with too much time on his hands.
January 5 2017: John McCain, who has called for a Declaration of War against Russia, holds a Senate Armed Services Committee hearingCalled “Foreign Cyber Threats to the US.” John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Michael Rogers (NSA) and Marcel Lettre (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) were given a chance to make their case for Russian hacking. However, no new information was released during this hearing. However all agreed that Julian Assange is a dirtbag criminal who has cost American lives and should not be trusted. (In fact, there has never been a showing of a single life lost as a result of Wikileaks disclosures). But as we have seen in this report, the truth does not appear to matter to US leaders in their attempts to drum up hatred towards Russia.
January 5, 2017 DNC says FBI never asked to access hacked computer serversDespite the fact that not one but two major crimes had been committed on the DNC server, the DNC stated today that the FBI “never requested access” to the servers the White House and intelligence community say were hacked by Russia.
Here is a quote: “Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.”
January 6, 2017: FBI claims DNC Refused to Give them Access to Hacked DNC ServerA day later, the FBI disputed this claim by stating that they had asked to examine the DNC server logs in May 2016 – but the DNC refused their request.
Here is a quote: “According to the FBI official, this left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
This is an important issue. So I will repeat my questions about this from earlier in this report: Since when does the FBI have to get anyone’s permission, other than a judge, to seize evidence after a major crime has been committed? Had the FBI gotten the server and the DNC taken steps to clean the server, we would not today be faced with the difficult task of figuring out who hacked the DNC – and possibly the DNC would not have lost the national election – an election on which they spent over one billion dollars trying to win. The failure of the FBI to take this action is one of many questions that has never been adequately addressed.
January 6, 2017 Hackers try to break into DNC on New Years Eve
This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that these people have no idea what they are talking about. Hackers likely are trying to break into the DNC server and every other server in the US on a daily basis. Yet the DNC appears to be shocked, shocked, that someone is still trying to break into their servers. That is like being shocked to discover that people are gambling in Las Vegas. Please. Join the modern world.
Here is a quote: “Officials told BuzzFeed News that hackers had been trying to infiltrate the DNC as recently as five days ago...The FBI alerted the Democratic National Committee as recently as New Year’s Eve that hackers were once again trying to break into their computer systems… there have been “multiple attempts” to hack into the DNC since the Nov. 8 elections. Many of these attempts are not serious… hackers are trying to re-enter the DNC system but as far as we understand their attempts have not been successful.”
Given that nearly every website in the US is subjected to hacking attacks on almost a daily basis, it is absurd for either the FBI or the DNC or the press to think there is something news worthy about the fact that the DNC hacks are ongoing.
January 6 2017 US Intel Report claims to ID Russian who gave emails to Wikileaks
Here is a quote from the article. “The CIA has identified Russian officials who fed material hacked from the Democratic National Committee and party leaders to WikiLeaks at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin through third parties, according to a new U.S. intelligence report, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Central Intelligence Agency and others have concluded that the Russian government escalated its efforts from discrediting the U.S. election process to assisting President-elect Donald Trump's campaign.”
See anything at all that looks remotely like actual evidence? Neither did I. The report did state that there would be another report later in the day providing some evidence. But still no evidence. Plenty of allegations. No evidence. Check that. Apparently the evidence was that some Russians in Moscow were drinking champagne when Trump won on November 8 2016. One drunken Russian claimed that he helped Trump win. Well I guess that does it. In a moment, we will reveal who the drunken Russian was.
January 6 2017 US Intelligence Groups Issue the Dumbest Report I Have Ever ReadIt was called “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in the Recent US Elections.” If you are a glutton for punishment, then feel free to read the US Intelligence Agencies Report claiming Russia hacked not just the Clinton servers but engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to influence the US election in 2016. Here is the link:
We do not have the space or time to review all of the errors and omissions in this report, so we will only discuss four of their ridiculous claims.
First, the report notes that Dmitry Kiselyov, an RT commentator (the Kremlin’s “chief propagandist”) has treated Donald Trump sympathetically on his television show and that somehow this influenced the US election. But someone please explain this: how does a television show in Russian for Russians indicate the Kremlin’s intention to meddle in the U.S. democratic system? The RT channel is only carried on 15% of US cable providers. It is likely that less than one percent of all Americans watches anything at all on RT. I bet less than one percent of all Americans have ever even heard of Kiselyov. I know I haven’t ever heard of him – and I watch several shows on RT! The idea that some completely unknown Russian commentator had any influence on the US election is absurd.
Second, the report claims that a girl named Alisa Shevchenko was involved in hacking the US election but in an interview she says they “misinterpreted facts or were fooled.”
Here is a quote from the article: “Alisa Shevchenko is a talented young Russian hacker, known for working with companies to find vulnerabilities in their systems. She is also, the White House claims, guilty of helping Vladimir Putin interfere in the US election. Her company was a surprise inclusion on the US sanctions list released last week, alongside top officers in Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency and two well-known criminal hackers. The company “provided the GRU with technical research and development”, according to the fact sheet released by the White House. No further details were given.”
“Shevchenko has spoken out to decry the sanctions against her. Shevchenko told the Guardian she was furious at her company’s inclusion on the list, and denied ever having knowingly worked for the Russian government. In answers that were defiant, and occasionally abrasive, she decried the “insane level of hysteria around the entire ‘Russian hacking’ story”. She suggested that the US authorities were guilty either of “a technically incompetent misinterpretation of the facts” or had been fooled by a “counterfeit in order to frame my company”. Those who could have had an interest in framing her could include competitors, US intelligence or Russian intelligence, with the goal of screening the real culprits, Shevchenko said.
“A young female hacker and her helpless company seems like a perfect pick for that goal. I don’t try to hide, I travel a lot, and am a friendly communicative person. And most importantly, I don’t have any big money, power or connections behind me to shrug off the blame. So really, it could be anyone.”
Shevchenko described herself as “a typical introverted computer geek” who is largely self taught. She declined to say how old she was, deeming it an “impolite question”, saying instead: “If you really need a number then go ahead and make it up based on my photographs”. Here is a picture of Alisa in case you want to guess her age:
She said she dropped out of three different universities, as she was passionate about learning, but did not enjoy the structure of a university course. Around 2004, she joined Kaspersky Lab, a high-profile Russian cybersecurity firm. She left to set up her own company, initially called Esage Lab (“I was thinking of something ‘sage’, as in a wizard or a magician,” she said). Later, she changed its name to ZOR. Both names are on the US sanctions list.
Shevchenko specialiizes in finding so-called “zero-days”, previously undisclosed software bugs that could leave companies vulnerable. “We have not only searched for bugs but exploited them, but only with the customer’s sanction,” she said. “She never hired anyone she knew to have a criminal background for her companies.
“Shevchenko said she had been approached repeatedly by people she believed to be from the Russian government. She insisted, however, that she had always rejected the advances. She said she had not been threatened or intimidated as a result.
“A 2014 profile of Shevchenko in Russian Forbes magazine noted that she worked with DialogNauka, a Russian company that listed among its clients the Russian ministry of defence and parts of the security services. Questioned by the Guardian, she insisted that none of her own work for DialogNauka “was even remotely possible to use as a nation-state attacks supply”. Shevchenko said she had turned down plenty of offers of work on ideological grounds: “I never work with douchebags. I only work with honest and open people that I feel good about.” Asked directly if she had ever worked on a government contract in any capacity, she answered “not that I know of”.
“Shevchenko said ZOR was closed more than a year ago, because it was difficult and expensive to do the requisite public relations work required to drum up business. She now works as a “one-man army”, she said. Shevchenko said she assumes it is “not possible” for her to travel to the US now, and she does not particularly want to. On the other hand, she allowed, there was apparently a certain cachet in being named as someone who hacked a US election. “I have received a number of employment, business partnership or collaboration offers” in the days since the sanctions list was released.”
Our comments about Alisa: She must be very smart to get a job at Kaspersky. But thus far, there is no evidence either that she or Kaspersky are Russian spies.
Third, the report claims that a guy named Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a “pro-Kremlin proxy” who opened a bottle of champagne and toasted Donald Trump on the night of the election. Here is the problem. The election was called about 10 pm in the evening in the US – or about 10 am in the morning Moscow time. Who would be drinking at 10 am in the morning? Also, according to the Moscow Times, “Zhirinovsky is the same man who traveled to Baghdad in 2003, ahead of the U.S. invasion, and delivered a drunken tirade against President Bush, threatening to sink the United States under the oceans, using secret Russian gravitational weapons.”
This guy seems to have a drinking problem which is why he no longer has much influence in Moscow. But somehow, US Intelligence Agencies have concluded that he is the guy who leaked documents to Wikileaks and stole the US election – despite the fact that Wikileaks has repeatedly stated that their source as no connection at all to any Russians. For example, see the following:
January 7 2017 Wikileaks Craig Murray says source is Washington InsiderCraig Murray with Wikileaks called the Jan 6 report nonsense… not from Russian
I know who the source….they are on the American side, a Washington insider.
Fourth, the January 6th report claims that Wikileaks is a Russian puppet connected to RT. Their “evidence” is that in August 2013, the editor of RT met with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. So apparently, this plot to influence the American election has been in the works ever since August 2013.
Also, the head of RT met directly with Putin in 2010. So perhaps that was when they hatched the plot to steal the US election. RT also covered the Occupy Wall Street protests. And they use Facebook and Twitter.
The US Intelligence Report also specifically mentioned the fact that RT has a show called “Breaking the Set” that often criticizes US leaders as being “corrupt.” Here is a picture of Abby Martin, the host of Breaking the Set. She would often interview people.
But there is only one problem with the claim that somehow Abby Martin was used to influence the US elections in 2016. The final episode of Breaking the Set aired on February 27, 2015. “On this final episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin, discusses the power of grassroots activism in getting the FCC to uphold net neutrality.” Net Neutrality. Now there is a dangerous topic. You can watch her final program here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLVMKuZHbug
132,000 people watched Abby’s final episode. But if RT really was trying to win the 2016 election and Abby was such an effective propaganda person, then why did RT cancel the show a year and a half before the US Presidential Election? More important, how in the world, did Breaking the Set make the list of dangerous programs when it is no longer even on the air? This shows how utterly ridiculous the January 6th report was.
But the January 6th Report not only blamed the Clinton loss on RT programs that had been cancelled more than a year before the election, they ignored 2016 RT programs that were highly critical of Donald Trump. Most notable of these was the Thom Hartmann Show which blasted Donald Trump on almost every episode – including calling Donald Trump a Traitor.
It defies belief that RT was trying to elect Donald Trump and yet running programs that called Trump a trator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duU9Hkai2Rk
Other crimes committed by RT include hosted debates between US Third Party candidates such as the US Libertarian Party and the US Green Party in 2016. There is a smoking gun if ever I saw one. RT seems to be more popular than the BBC on Youtube (probably because young people wanted to hear what the Libertarian and Green Party candidates had to say). But no mention was made in the report about the BBC, CCN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX NEWS trying to influence US elections or about the hundreds of news papers and radio stations in the US (all owned by billionaires) trying to influence the election. Propaganda is OK as long as it is not Russian propaganda.
In short, the January 6 2017 US Report blamed a TV station with a one percent market share and a bunch of people no one has ever heard of for “trying to influence the US election.” My questions are these: What about the fact that the US main stream media spend billions of dollars trying to influence the US elections? What about the fact that billionaires in our country sent out millions of deceptive mailers to voters in an effort to influence elections all over the US? Just about every group I can think of did something to try to influence US elections in 2016. As for Wikileaks, the emails they released were both true and shocking. What the Democratic Party needs to do is stop blaming Alisa and other Russians and start reforming the Democratic Party to be more responsive to the needs of the American people.
January 6 2017: Congress officially approved the Electoral College results making Donald Trump officially our next President.
Trump got 304 electoral votes, compared with 227 by Hillary Clinton, according to the vote tally read by Vice President Joe Biden.
January 6 2017: Donald Trump met with the Intelligence Agencies.
Trump “struck a conciliatory tone with US intelligence officials after meeting with their leadership, but did not publicly support their conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential contest. In a statement issued after the meeting, Trump pledged to task his administration with creating a 90-day plan to “combat and stop cyber attacks”.
January 10, 2017: David Spring with Turning Point News publishes “Hack Everything, A Detailed Timeline of the DNC Hack.”My hope is that some one close to Donald Trump will give him or a member of his staff a copy of this report.
January 10 to 20: Clapper and his friends are schedule to meet with several committees. He has already made it clear there will be no new information. But this will not stop them from using the Russian Hacking Scare to manipulate Congress into funding an expanded cyber warfare campaign against Russia. One of the primary reasons we have written this report is to inform the American people about what really happened with the hope that the American people will oppose any expansion of the cyber war against Russia.
We will now look more closely at a couple of theories about who hacked the DNC and who gave what to Wikileaks before concluding with a section examining the corrupting influence of massive amounts of money being made in American cyber warfare.