[reposting ≠ endorsing of all views expressed]
SPY vs SPY : FBI vs CIA (cont.)
“Ambassador Murray insists that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to Wikileaks by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’
He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.
Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.”
WORKING CLASS DEEP STATE REVOLT?
US Intel Vets Dispute CIA’s Russian Hacking Claims as Baseless / 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.
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.
In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience – with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security – to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog. Far from hiding behind anonymity, we are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit – given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is – without fear or favor.
Monday’s Washington Post reports that Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia. Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay. 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.
Packets: Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end. To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver Internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the network to route data.
When email packets leave the U.S., the other “Five Eyes” countries (the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and the seven or eight additional countries participating with the U.S. in bulk-collection of everything on the planet would also have a record of where those email packets went after leaving the U.S. These collection resources are extensive [see attached NSA slides 1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
They include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.
The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across 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.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC. As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in the communications arena.
Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact. In sum, given what we know of NSA’s existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a U.S. election by hacking.”
Signed, the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
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.)
FAITHLESS ELECTORS DEMAND to HEAR IGNORED INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS
Harvard professor says 20 GOP voters may flip against Trump
by Brooke Seipel / 12/13/16
“Harvard University law professor Larry Lessig said Tuesday that 20 Republican Electoral College voters are considering flipping to vote against Donald Trump, more than half the number of anti-Trump votes needed to stall the president-elect from being sworn into office. “Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same.
We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote,” Lessig told Politico. Lessig has been offering free legal counsel to “faithless electors” who are considering casting a ballot for an alternative candidate as opposed to Trump, who earned 306 electoral votes on Election Day, well above the necessary 270.
The claim that as many as 20 GOP electors would vote against Trump and the wishes of a majority of voters in their states flies against other reports. Only a few voters have publicly said they will not back the results of their home states, and virtually every GOP elector reached by The Hill said they will vote enthusiastically for Trump.
Politico, citing GOP sources, reported that a Republican whip operation found only one elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, would vote against Trump. Suprun announced in a Dec. 5 op-ed in The New York Times that he would not vote for Trump.
So-called faithless electors are also a relatively rare occurrence in the Electoral College. Only 82 electors in U.S. history have voted against their state’s popular vote. None of those changed the outcome of an election. Electors will cast their ballots on Monday.”
“President Barack Obama meets with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, right (Alma Mater St. Mary’s University, Texas), in the Oval Office, Sept. 9, 2010. Also attending, from left: Robert Cardillo, DIA deputy Director (Georgetown University), Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (la Salle Academy & Catholic University of America), Rodney Snyder, Senior Director for intelligence Program, NSS, John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter terrorism (Fordham, former CIA), and National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones (Georgetown)”
LEGENDS of the OSS – WILD BILL DONOVAN
Why Catholics Thrive in the CIA
by Robert Wargas / 5 May 2016
“Just a few days before Christmas 1988, terrorists blew up Pan American Flight 103 as it passed over Lockerbie, not long after leaving Heathrow. One of the 259 murdered onboard was Matthew Gannon. The eighth child of devout Catholic parents, Gannon had joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1977, becoming a skilled operations officer and linguist.
Nearly a year later, in October 1989, many victims’ belongings still lay unclaimed in trailers in Lockerbie. When Gannon’s brother arrived there, he identified his family member’s personal items by spotting a missal in a bag with one of Matthew’s favourite shirts. Conspiracy theorists have probably already exploited Gannon’s death.
It’s difficult to investigate anything about the CIA or the Vatican and not encounter narratives that resemble thriller novels. But we shouldn’t ignore the topic. The CIA is the best known of the 17 agencies that comprise the American intelligence community. It has earned itself nicknames like “Catholic Intelligence Agency” and “Catholics In Action”. It’s worth exploring why.
No official statistics exist on Catholics in the CIA or any other American intelligence agency. But one interesting clue is the relatively high number of Catholics who have served as director of the agency. The United States is a country in which – with the recent exception of the Supreme Court – Catholics have never dominated the highest offices. Only one out of 44 US Presidents has been Catholic. The first and only Catholic Vice President is the current one, Joe Biden.
Before John Kerry, the last Catholic Secretary of State was Alexander Haig, who left the post in 1982. Catholics are a rarity in other top positions such as Secretary of Defence. By contrast, three out of the last five CIA directors have been Catholic: Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, and the current director, John Brennan. Looking back, a number of Catholics led the agency in critical periods during the Cold War. (There were no Catholic directors in the 1990s.)
Some of the most influential directors in CIA history have been Catholic – men such as Walter Bedell Smith, John McCone, William Colby and William Casey. They were not just casual Catholics. They were devout Mass-goers – in many cases, members of groups like the Knights of Malta.
The conspiracy theorists usually start there, with nefarious plots about the Vatican steering world affairs. Of course, they never ask why an all-powerful Vatican can’t engineer more Catholic presidents.
To make sense of Catholics in the CIA, you have to go back to the 1940s, before the agency even existed. Until that decade, the United States did not have a unified intelligence system. Separate branches of the military collected and analysed their own intelligence.
That changed with the Office of Strategic Services. This was the CIA’s predecessor, responsible for espionage and sabotage operations during World War II. The OSS was founded and led by General William J Donovan, whom history knows as “Wild Bill”.
Donovan was born into a poor Irish Catholic family in upstate New York. He experimented with other denominations while a student at Columbia University, though he remained devoted to Catholicism, even after marrying into a rich Protestant family. After heroic combat in World War I he made a fortune as a Wall Street lawyer.
Wild Bill did not exclusively recruit Catholics; he sought anyone with ability. The OSS attracted many kinds of people, including Wasps who sought a more adventurous role in the war. But many Catholics ended up in the OSS.
It’s impossible to know for certain why this happened. Was it simply that Wild Bill recruited from his own social circle, which probably included more Catholics than if he had been a Presbyterian?
One telling fact is that the OSS used its Foreign Nationalities branch, based in New York, to recruit from American ethnic groups. At this time in American history, Catholics were well represented among immigrants – Italians, Irish, Poles, Bavarian Germans and many Slavs.
Another historical fact is even more significant: Catholic anti-communism in the 1940s and 1950s was at its zenith. Major Catholic organisations such as the Knights of Columbus supported Senator Joseph McCarthy (himself a Catholic) in his quest to purge the US of communist influence. Were young Catholics inspired to take a more activist role in fighting the godless Soviets?
Near the middle of the 20th century, establishment Protestants still treated Catholics with suspicion. Donovan would have been attorney general in Herbert Hoover’s administration had anti-Catholic sentiment not kept him from it. Catholics were more likely to be trusted and accepted within Donovan’s OSS than in other government agencies.
Today many admire the OSS for its derring-do, but many government figures had only contempt for the agency when it existed. Not only did they spurn its operatives as amateurs; they also resented them for encroaching on others’ territory. Critics of the OSS included J Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and an enemy of Donovan’s.”
“The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Comey announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,” according to a source close to the embattled FBI director, who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week. … Like most law enforcement agencies, the FBI hierarchy and line staff has a Republican bent—it’s a white, male, usually Catholic, and conservative culture.”
RICO LAWSUIT FILED against DNC
LEGENDS of the OSS – the ORIGINAL CAPTAIN TRIPS
DOSING the PEACE MOVEMENT
the LINCOLN / SEWARD CONSPIRACY TRIAL
BROUGHT TO YOU BY
HOW to RESET YOUR CALENDAR
HAPPY NEW YEAR APRIL FOOLS