OPINION| Lawrence David| While U.S. attorney John Durham is looking into the origination predicate to justify spying on the Trump campaign he should also look at the most significant underlying predicate, was Russia really the entity responsible for hacking the DNC server(s)?
Or was this another lie formulated and propagated by Obama’s intelligence community in order to establish a politically viable explanation to the masses for opening a counterintelligence investigation against Donald Trump for the benefit Hillary Clinton.
Sources within the intelligence community – past and present – are telling us the answer to this question will radically change Americans’ opinions.
According to these sources, there exists an abundance of incontrovertible evidence that the emails could not have been hacked by Russia or any other entity.
Their conclusion is based on a number of factors that seasoned IT professionals and other computer savvy individuals will understand:
-The building and facilities
-The equipment that was alleged to have been hacked remotely
-The transmission route confinement
-The location and number of access and egress points to the building
-Carrier options existing at that time
-The bandwidth availability and its correlation with the cable and port continuity
-The file sizes
US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
December 12, 2016
As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless
A New York Times report on Monday alluding to “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.
We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:
Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.
In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
According to the answer Durham arrives at we might expect the name Seth Rich to resurface… certainly Assange has hinted at his involvement before:
Remember, for some inexplicable reason the FBI never examined the DNC server.
Crowdstrike, a private contractor paid for by the DNC, did. The FBI relied on key forensic evidence to be defined by the Obama-Clinton-DNC aligned contractor. Let that sink in.
There’s a chance, a very good chance that the FBI hacking narrative that served to underpin the entire Russian collusion hoax was a bald-faced lie.
The significance of Crowdstrike cannot be overstated. It may very well be the reason that Democrats were prepared to self-immolate their party by bringing impeachment charges over a phone call.
A phone call in which President Trump specifically asked his Ukrainian counterpart about Crowdstrike: