Fake News Outlet New York Times Forced To Retract ‘Russian Hacking’ story

FakeNews
Source: HangTheBankers.com
July 1, 2017

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

New York Times fake news propaganda Russian hacking story

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phoney determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Read More At: Hangthebankers.com

That Russian Hacking Thing: A “Third Force” Trying To Stir…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 25, 2017

Now that the election in the USA is over, it’s worth looking back on that hacking meme. And it is “safe” to do so now, aside from the hysteria that was taking place. As I watched all of it, it struck me as extremely odd that the whole hacking meme seemed disturbingly contrived. We were supposed to believe that “Russia did it,” an idea I found ridiculous then and still do. Then, there was the murder of Democratic national committee staffer Seth Rich. Many theorized that he was behind some of the damning leaks to Wikileaks, and there was the usual amount of conspiracy theory that the unfortunate Mr. Rich was yet another victim in the long list of dead bodies that seem to follow the Clintons around; it was another “Arkancide.” Well, I have my doubts about that too (though I certainly don’t have any doubts about the criminality and corruption of the Clintons). Why? For the simple reason that “offing people” when in the middle of a presidential campaign would be too risky. Best to wait until after the election, and dump the body in a park in Washington DC and claim it was suicide.

To put it as bluntly as possible, there was an element of theater to all this I found very disturbing; it was all… well, too convenient. The real goal, it seemed to me, was not to favor Darth Hillary or “The Donald,” but rather, to work up USA-Russia tensions into a fine frothy lather of hysteria. It looked, if I may put it even more bluntly, very much like the pattern of the alleged postwar Nazi document, The Madrid Circular, that I reviewed in my book The Third Way: create maximum maneuvering room for your merry band of postwar Fascist buddies by maximizing tensions between Russia and the USA. The Clinton-Trump-Putin theater looked and felt too contrived to me.

In that regard, consider the following article shared by G.L.R.:

Security Threats to Russia: The Analysis of the 2016 FSB Press Releases (Part 3 – Hacking & Other Challenges)

http://www.newsbud.com/2017/01/12/security-threats-to-russia-the-analysis-of-the-2016-fsb-press-releases-part-3-hacking-other-challenges/embed/#?secret=ffIAc7xmB3

Mr. G.L.R. drew my attention to these passages, and I pass this focus along to you:

The FSB press release published on July 30 dealt more specifically with the issue of cyberattacks and cyber-espionage.[4] In fact, it reported that the FSB specialists were able to uncover an especially damaging virus program infiltrated into the network of more than 20 organizations on the territory of Russia. These organizations included the Russian government, military, and academic institutions and even the sectors of the Russian military-industrial complex.

The FSB did not comment as to where this malicious software could have come from. It just stated that it resembled the software found in other cyberattacks around the world. In my opinion, the description of the way that the virus infected the victims’ computers and the damage it caused resembled very much the hacks perpetrated in the U.S., both on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and on Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. Considering the timing of the release (the end of July), just after the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia was over and the full extent of the U.S. hacks became publicly known, it definitely raises several very significant questions.

First, was this massive hacking of the Russian “critical infrastructure” a retaliation by the U.S. intelligence agencies for the DNC and Podesta hacks allegedly perpetrated by the Russian military intelligence agency (GRU)? And if so, will the hacked emails and information be made publicly available? Will be we soon be reading the embarrassing details of the Russian government and military officials’ undercover dealings?

Or, alternatively, was this perhaps done by a third party which also hacked the DNC and Podesta? Following in the footsteps of the James Bond classic “From Russia, with Love,” is there perhaps a secret (criminal) network which uses the rogue elements of different intelligence communities to amplify the confrontation between the U.S. and Russia? To get the U.S. to blame Russia and, likewise, Russia to blame the U.S. for criminal deeds actually perpetrated by this hidden network. This of course is a mere speculation. But the coincidence of the almost simultaneous cyber-attacks cannot be denied. (Emphasis added)

In other words, while the corporate controlled media in the USSA was howling about Russian hacking of the Clinton campaign and wringing its hands over Russian influence on the election(overlooking, conveniently, Frau Merkel’s contributions to Darth Hillary’s campaign), Russia itself was being hacked at exactly the same time.

Notably, the FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezhopaznosmu) is admitting not only the hacks, but their extensive nature, but not indicating any point of origin. We may take this as…

Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
___________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

CIA Bases Congressional Russian Hacking Report on Possibilities, Not Truth

politician

Source: TheDailyBell.com
January 8, 2017

Intel report warns Moscow will try to influence elections in countries allied to US. The declassified version of the report warned that other countries were also vulnerable to attack. – Independent

Intelligence in the US is becoming even more emphatic about the Russian threat to elections, claiming that Russians will start to disrupt the elections of other countries like they are disrupting American ones.

The trouble with this is that intel agencies, specifically the CIA, have not yet proven that Russia has done what the CIA claims it has done.

On Friday, it claimed that Russia had attacked the US with specific hacks. But at least one top official knowledegable about hacking pointed out that using such eminently traceable hacks was unlike the Russians. The entire report was false, he claimed. The Russians wouldn’t have use such easily detected means to accomplish a hacking. If they’d actually done it, they be subtle not obvious.

But a highly classified report, given to president Barack Obama, and sections of which were made public on Friday, reveals that the CIA, the FBI and the NSA all concurred that Russia used cyber warfare and state-funded social media “trolls” to spread negative information about Hillary Clinton and to help Mr Trump win the election.

Russia reportedly gained access to the Democratic National Committee servers from May 2015 to June the following year and passed on Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s and Ms Clinton’s emails to WikiLeaks. In return, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was given a platform on state-run media outlet RT to criticise the US.

The CIA called the attacks “multifaceted”. Mr. Putin has denied anything to do with the attacks. The report has also been dismissed by Trump, but he has said cybersecurity should be strengthened nonetheless.

The reality is that the CIA probably needs something to do with its time and fighting against Russians seems like a good way of bolstering the CIA’s importance.

The CIA like much else, is at least partially controlled out of London’s City, by the bankers there. These are the same central bankers that have installed monopoly cental banks around the world. The CIA, from what we can tell, at the top, has people who work directly with these London financiers.

The CIA’s proof regarding Russian hacking is considerably mitigated by the CIA’s lack of ability to say forthrightly that the Russians did the things they say they did. If the Russians did it, the CIA should say so clearly and simply. It will not.

Now with the same lack of evidence, the CIA is warning about overseas targeting of US allies. There is no more certainty regarding these arguments than CIA suppositions that the US itself has been targeted.

Conclusion: None of this is backed up by conclusions, only by theories that may well have a political component to them. The CIA is making work for itself and upping the level of fear-based rhetoric without any proof what they are saying is true.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com