Wednesday, July 5, 2017

916 Who is railroading us into the final war? - Cynthia McKinney

*Who is railroading us into the final war? - Cynthia McKinney*

Newsletter published on 10 April 2017

Trump had the rudeness to order the attack on Syria just before his
dinner with Xi Jinping. As if to say, this is what we'll do to North Korea.

*(1) Who is railroading us into the final war? - Cynthia McKinney *

*(2) Kushner vs. Bannon - NYT*

*(3) Goldman Sachs & Deep State takeover Trump Admin - Zero Hedge *

*(4) Assad was in a strong position a week ago. A suspected chemical
attack changed everything - LA Times*

*(5) Rothschild The Economist backs Trump decisiveness, willingness to
confront Russia*

*(6) Erdogan Welcomes US Attack on Syria, calls for Regime Change*

*(7) Trump Ordered Syria Attack, then Ate Dinner with Chinese President*

*(8) Trump Has Surrendered - Paul Craig Roberts*

*(9) Trump Joins The War Party -Brother Nathanael*

*(10) Crowdstrike (behind “Russian Hacking” claims) has ties to
Soros-supported Atlantic Council*

*(11) CrowdStrike retract parts of report alleging Russian hack; refuses
to address Congress about its findings*

*(12) Hacker Group Releases Password To NSA's "Top Secret Arsenal"
InProtest Of Trump Betrayal*


*(1) Who is railroading us into the final war? - Cynthia McKinney*


    cg <>

7 April 2017 at 19:55

Why does someone want the final war? This is beyond conspiracy. This is

*(2) Kushner vs. Bannon - NYT*

In Battle for Trump’s Heart and Mind, It’s *Bannon vs. Kushner*



WASHINGTON — Thick with tension, the conversation this week between
Stephen K. Bannon, the chief White House strategist, and Jared
Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, had deteriorated
to the point of breakdown.

Finally, Mr. Bannon identified why they could not compromise, according
to someone with knowledge of the conversation. “Here’s the reason
there’s no middle ground,” Mr. Bannon growled. “You’re a Democrat.”

The schism within Mr. Trump’s perpetually fractious White House has
grown in recent weeks, fueled by personality, ideology and ambition. At
its core are Mr. Bannon, the edgy, nationalist bomb-thrower suddenly in
the seat of power, and Mr. *Kushner, the polished, boyish-looking scion
of New Jersey and New York real estate*. Even as Mr. Kushner’s portfolio
of responsibilities has been expanding, Mr. Bannon’s in recent days has
shrunk with the loss of a national security post.

The escalating feud, though, goes beyond mere West Wing melodrama, the
sort of who’s-up-and-who’s-down scorekeeping that typically consumes
Washington. Instead, *it reflects a larger struggle to guide the
direction of the Trump presidency*, played out in disagreements over the
policies Mr. Trump should pursue, the people he should hire and the
image he should put forward to the American people.

On one side are Mr. Bannon’s guerrilla warriors, eager to close the
nation’s borders, dismantle decades of regulations, empower police
departments and take on the establishment of both parties in Washington.
On the other are Mr. Kushner’s “Democrats,” an appellation used to
describe even Republicans who want to soften Mr. Trump’s rough edges and
broaden his narrow popular appeal after months of historically low poll
numbers. [...]

The wrestling match has spilled over into public view as each camp seeks
reinforcements among news media and conservative figures. Roger J. Stone
Jr., an on-and-off adviser to Mr. Trump for 30 years, accused *Mr.
Kushner of planting negative views of Mr. Bannon on MSNBC’s “Morning
Joe,”* a show the president is known to watch.

“Many of the anti-Steve Bannon stories that you see, the themes that you
see on ‘Morning Joe,’ are being dictated by Kushner, while Mr. Kushner’s
plate is very full with Middle Eastern peace and the China visit and
so on,” Mr. Stone said this week on the radio show hosted by Alex Jones,
an avid fan of Mr. Trump’s who loathes establishment figures and
traffics in conspiracy theories. [...]

*(3) Goldman Sachs & Deep State takeover Trump Admin - Zero Hedge*

Have Goldman Sachs & The Deep State Taken Over The Trump Administration?

by Tyler Durden

Apr 6, 2017 9:45 PM

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The writing is on the wall and the message is not good. Trump will
likely expand the war in Syria and increase tensions with Russia. The
American empire is likely to implode under Trump’s watch, as he once
again betrays many of the people who voted for him.

*Hillary or Trump, we’d be getting the same thing*. We had no real
choice, and empires don’t reform. Prepare for impact.

– From yesterday’s post: The Imperial War Machine Marches Forward Under
Donald Trump

The*takeover of the Trump administration by Goldman Sachs* has been
obvious for months now. The *takeover by the deep state has taken a bit
longer*, hence the non-stop *Russia hysteria, which was clearly intended
to back him into a corner*. If Trump takes military action against
Syria, we’ll know for certain the *deep state coup* is complete. [...]

*(4) Assad was in a strong position a week ago. A suspected chemical
attack changed everything - LA Times*

Syria's *Assad was in a strong position a week ago. A suspected chemical
attack changed everythin*g

Patrick J. McDonnellContact Reporter

Just a few days ago, Syria’s long-embattled President Bashar Assad
appeared to be in his strongest position in years.

Members of President Trump’s foreign policy circle had signaled a
definitive break from the Obama administration’s “Assad must go”
refrain — the insistence that the departure of Syria’s autocratic leader
was a precondition to any long-term solution in the violent crisis that
has roiled the Middle East for more than six years.

“Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out,” Nikki
Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said last week, while
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it was up to the “Syrian people”
to decide Assad’s ultimate fate.

The comments seemed finally to signal a convergence of Syria strategy
between Washington and Moscow, longtime antagonists on the question of
Syria. Assad, it seemed, could be part of the solution after all.

How things have changed.

This week’s suspected chemical attack in a rebel-held stretch of
northwest Syria has put Assad’s government squarely back in the U.S.

Washington appears to have concluded that the strike was the work of
Assad’s war planes — even before there has been an on-the-ground inquiry
into the reported deaths of more than 70 people Tuesday in rebel-held
Idlib province.

There have been adamant disavowals from Syria and its ally Russia.
*Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Thursday it was "not
reasonable” to assume Syria would resort to chemical weapons when
government forces have been making substantial gains* on the
battlefield. “We condemn such a criminal act,” he said.

But U.S. officials have said *radar detected Syrian aircraft *in the
vicinity of Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of the attack there, and by
midday Thursday, Trump was already considering military retaliation.

Critics of the Assad government said the attack, which left victims
gasping for breath and foaming at the mouth, is a continuation of years
of scorched-earth tactics meant to eradicate the opposition and ensure
total victory. [...]

On the other hand, the chemical incident not only has put the Assad
government on the defensive. It *may breathe new life into a divided,
demoralized rebel force that has been losing territory* and has looked
to be on the verge of defeat.

Many Syrians have become disillusioned with the armed opposition since
it became dominated by hard-line Sunni Islamists, some linked to Al Qaeda.

Yet all diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting have failed, as outside
governments continue to pour arms and money to their favored militias.

Now, for the first time since 2013, there is the prospect of U.S.
military involvement. [...]

*(5) Rothschild The Economist backs Trump decisiveness, willingness to
confront Russia*


Overnight cruise missiles launched

Donald Trump strikes at Syria’s Bashar al-Assad

But what happens next?

Apr 7th 2017

NO DOUBT Donald Trump was keen to emphasise his decisiveness, in
contrast with his predecessor’s dithering. There were hints earlier in
the week that the president was thinking of doing something. After a
nerve-gas attack by the Syrian air force killed more than 85 people in
the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4th, he said that Bashar
al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, had crossed “many, many red lines”. In
the early hours of April 7th, Mr Trump took action.

American ships fired 59 cruise missiles at the al-Shayrat airfield, from
which planes carrying the chemical bombs are believed to have taken off.
The strike was limited and targeted. Even so it debunked the idea that
the use of any kind of force in response to the barbaric behaviour of
the Assad regime was no longer possible because of fears that it would
mean confrontation with his Russian ally, which has been operating in
Syria since September 2015. The Russians were informed of the strike in
advance, but they were not, apparently, consulted over it. It is not
clear whether any Russians would have been at the base. But the warning,
doubtless passed on to the Syrians, seems to have given the latter
enough time to evacuate at least some of their planes. In military
terms, therefore, the operation will make little difference to the
Assad regime’s capabilities.

Mr *Trump will rightly win praise for his willingness* to make more than
a hand-wringing statement about the Syrian regime’s flouting both of
international norms and its own obligations since becoming a reluctant
signatory in 2013 of the convention against the use of chemical weapons,
following its last major outrage of this kind. In the past, Mr Trump has
appeared indifferent to the idea of humanitarian intervention. But faced
with such a vile and provocative act perpetrated on his watch, he asked
his generals for an appropriate response, which they provided. The
professional national-security team that he now has in place in the
shape of his defence secretary, James Mattis, and his national security
adviser, H.R. McMaster, deserves credit for this, but the final decision
was of course the president’s.

Many Obama-era officials will regret that their own administration did
not do something similar. Mr Obama still maintains that he is proud of
the agreement struck with Russia in 2013, following a much more serious
attack, to strip Mr Assad of his chemical weapons in return for calling
off the air strikes that Mr Obama had previously threatened. It is now
clear that even despite the best efforts of weapons inspectors, Mr Assad
hid some of his huge chemical arsenal with the intention of deploying it
again when he thought he could get away with it.

The question now is what happens next. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s
hitherto almost invisible secretary of state, is due to meet Russia’s
president, Vladimir Putin, in Moscow next week. Mr Tillerson has accused
Russia of either being “complicit” in the attack or “incompetent” in its
inability to restrain its ally. Only a few days ago, Mr Trump’s
officials were signalling that it was no longer an aim of the
administration to remove Mr Assad from power as a prerequisite for a
deal to end the war in Syria, which has claimed perhaps half a million
lives. Has Mr Trump changed his mind? Or, having slapped Mr Assad on the
wrist and warned the Russians that he cannot act with impunity, will
America continue to stand back from the peace negotiations? Confusingly,
Mr Tillerson said, after the attack, that policy toward Syria has not

There are other uncertainties too. Even if Mr Assad forsakes chemical
weapons but continues to drop barrel bombs on civilians, will Mr Trump
want to stop him or will that be as permissible as it was only a few
days ago? If the former, what are the risks of escalation that could
lead to a much bigger confrontation with Russia and Mr Assad’s other
ally, Iran, especially if military escalation slips into having regime
change as its objective? So far, there is no indication that the
cruise-missile attack will be anything more than a one-off, but that, of
course, could change.

Either way, the prospects of co-operation with Moscow in the campaign
against Islamic State in Syria that Mr Trump was once so keen on were
already slim and are now probably doomed. Will that make it harder for
America and its allies to complete the job of expelling IS from its
“capital” Raqqa and elsewhere in Syria? Is there now a greater danger
that Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq, fighting more or less
alongside Americans in the battle to retake Mosul, will at some point be
turned against them?

It will also be interesting to see what this means for the wider
relationship with Russia that Mr Trump was once so keen to develop. The
Russian response to the missile strike will be telling. The initial
reaction from the Kremlin was to brand the American action as a
violation of international law, but Mr Putin the pragmatist may decide
that nothing further needs to be done. In warning Russia of the attack,
some agreement may already have been forged, particularly if Mr Putin
indicated a readiness to constrain Mr Assad in the future. Despite Mr
Tillerson’s harsh tone in describing Russia’s role, Mr Trump has been
milder, describing the chemical attack as a “very sad day for Russia”.

At home, Mr Trump will almost certainly see at least short-term
benefits. The speedy way the action was carried out creates a
counter-narrative to the picture of muddle and confusion his
administration usually presents, particularly in the recent debacle over
health care. The president’s willingness to risk a confrontation with
Russia may, for a while, take a little of the heat out the speculation
that Mr Trump is in some way compromised by the Kremlin or in its debt.
Republican hawks, such as Senator John McCain, who have been appalled
both by America’s passivity over Syria and Mr Trump’s chumminess towards
Mr Putin, may now see him in a new and more flattering light. So might
some Democrats.

Whatever else, Mr Trump has demonstrated his capacity to surprise.

*(6) Erdogan Welcomes US Attack on Syria, calls for Regime Change*

Erdogan Welcomes US Attack on Syria


Turkish President Promises to 'Do Our Part'

by Jason Ditz, April 06, 2017

Turkey has been hoping for a war of regime change against Syria
virtually since the civil war in that nation began, and on the eve of US
attacks against Syria overnight, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
told interviewers he would “welcome” a US attack on Syria.

Erdogan, whose comments came in an interview on Kanal 7, said that his
country was ready to “do our part” if the US put forward a plan of
action to*impose regime change* in Syria. Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson indicated earlier today that the US is in the process of doing so.

Turkey already occupies much of northern Syria militarily, after
invading in August, but is also a participant in a ceasefire with the
Syrian government, which they negotiated alongside Russia, so
participating in the US attack would likely face serious backlash.

If the US continues to escalate beyond simple missile strikes, they
would likely need to use Turkish territory as a staging area for major
ground incursions. This would likely have a major impact on the rest of
the Syrian war, as Turkey would doubtless condition this on the US
abandoning it’s support for the Syrian Kurds.

*(7) Trump Ordered Syria Attack, then Ate Dinner with Chinese President*


by Joel B. Pollak

6 Apr 2017167

President Donald Trump ordered Tomahawk missile strikes against a Syrian
airfield on Thursday evening — then sat down to dinner with visiting
Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago.

CNN, citing a White House source, reports:

Trump met with his national security team *before his dinner* with
Chinese President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago Thursday, where he made the
decision to pull the trigger on the biggest military action of his
presidency, an administration official says.

He sat through dinner with the President Xi as action was under way.

Trump was briefed after dinner by Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog”
Mattis, according to the report.

The *message would not have been lost on the Chinese president*, whose
visit was expected to include difficult discussions about the threat of
North Korean ballistic missiles, as well as about China’s ambitious
naval expansion on artificial islands in international waters. [...]

From: "Diogenesquest [shamireaders]"Date: Fri,
07 Apr 2017 09:10:13 -0500 Subject: [shamireaders] Trump Has
Surrendered. Will Putin Be The Next To Surrender?

*(8) Trump Has Surrendered - Paul Craig Roberts*

April 6, 2017

*Trump Has Surrendered *Will Putin Be The Next To Surrender?

*Paul Craig Roberts*


Update: Washington has reopened the conflict with a Tomahawk missile
attack on Syrian Air Force Bases. The Russian/Syrian air defense systems
did not prevent the attack.

The *Washington Establishment has reasserted control. First Flynn and
now Bannon*. All that are left in the Trump administration are the
*Zionists and the crazed generals *who want war with Russia, China,
Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

There is no one in the White House to stop them.

Kiss good-bye normalized relations with Russia.

The Syrian conflict is set to be reopened. That is the point of the
chemical attack blamed by Washington on Syria despite the absence of any
evidence. It is completely obvious that the*chemical attack is a
Washington orchestrated event*. According to reports US Secretary of
State Tillerson has warned Russia that steps are underway to remove
Syrian president Assad. Trump agrees.

The removal of Assad allows Washington to impose another Washington
puppet on Muslim peoples, to remove another Arab government with an
independent policy from Washington, to remove another government that is
opposed to Israel’s theft of Palestine, and for Exxon’s Tillerson and
the neoconservative hegemonists to cut Russian natural gas off from
Europe with a US controlled gas pipeline from Qater to Europe via Syria.

By ignoring all of these US advantages, the Russian government dithered
in completing the liberation of Syria from Washington-backed ISIS. The
Russians dithered, because they had totally unrealistic hopes of
achieving a partnership with Washington via a joint effort against

This was a ridiculous idea as terrorism is Washington’s weapon. If
Washington can move Russia out of the way with threats or more Russian
misplaced hopes of “cooperation” with Washington, terrorism will next be
directed against Iran on a large scale. When Iran falls, terrorism will
start to work on the Russian Federation and on the Chinese province that
borders Kazakhstan. Washington has already given Russia a taste of
US-supported terrorism in Chechnya. More is to come.

If the Russian government had not dithered in cleaning out ISIS from
Syria when Russia unexpectedly took the lead from the West, Syria would
not face partition or renewed US determination to overthrow Assad for
the reasons given above. But the Russians, mesmerized by dreams of
cooperating with Washington, have put both Syria and themselves in a
difficult position.

The Russians grabbed the initiative and surprised the world by accepting
the Syrian government’s invitation and entering the conflict. Washington
was helpless. The Russian intervention immediately turned the tide
against ISIS. Then suddenly Putin accounced a Russian pullout, claiming
like Bush on the aircraft carrier, “Mission Accomplished.”

But mission wasn’t accomplished, and Russia reentered, still with the
initiative but set back somewhat from the irrational withdrawal. If
memory serves, this in and out business happened a couple of times. Then
when Russia has the war agains ISIS won, they hold back on the finish in
the vain belief that now Washington will finally cooperate with Russia
in eliminating the last ISIS stronghold. Instead, the US sent in
military forces to block the Russian/Syrian advances. The Russian
Foreign Minister complained, but Russia did not use its superior power
on the scene to move aside the token US forces and bring the conflict to
an end.

Now Washington gives “warnings” to Russia not to get in Washington’s
way. Will the Russian government ever learn that coopertion with
Washington has only one meaning: sign up as a vassal?

Russia’s only alternative now is to tell Washington to go to hell, that
Russia will not permit Washington to remove Assad. But the Russian Fifth
Column, which is allied with the West, will insist that Russia can
finally gain Washington’s cooperation if only Russia will sacrifice
Assad. Of course, Russia’s acquiescence will destroy the image of
Russian power, and it will be used to deprive Russia of foreign exchange
from natural gas sales to Europe.

Putin has said that Russia cannot trust Washington. This is a correct
deduction from the facts, so why does Russia keep putting itself in a
quandry by seeking cooperation with Washington?

“Cooperation with Washington” has only one meaning. It means surrender
to Washington.

Putin has only part-way cleaned up Russia. The country remains full of
American agents. Will Putin fall to the Washington Establishment just as
Trump has?

It is extraordinary how little of the Russian media understand the peril
that Russia is in.

*(9) Trump Joins The War Party -Brother Nathanael*

Trump Joins The War Party


By Brother Nathanael Kapner

April 9, 2017 ©

HE’S IN THE ARMY NOW, we’ll never be rich, he’s digging us into a
ditch, he’s in the army now.

And Trump’s a war president who broke his promise to “keep us out of
foreign wars.”

It wasn’t long ago that Trump told Reuters, “*We should focus on ISIS,
not Syria.* You’re going to end up in *World War Three over Syria if we
listen to Hillary* Clinton.”

But the sound of US bombs bursting in air over Syria’s Shayrat airfield
gave proof through the night that our flag’s over there, not here, in
the abandoned land of America First.

“Intervene and you’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting
Syria, Russia and Iran,” Trump reminded Reuters.

Welcome to the war party, Mr Trump!

The Israel-Firsters at CNN, Capitol Hill, and AIPAC are proud of you.

Even Senators Sissy Graham and Maniac McCain have warmed to you. Kind of
makes you feel all nuked over, doesn’t it? I mean, real warm and real fuzzy.

And Netanyahu thinks you’re the matzo ball king. Keep it up and you’ll
be eating gefilte fish at his passover table!

You’ll be eating more than gefilte, dear Donald. For out your own mouth
you warned Clinton backers that they’d be fighting not just Syria, but
Russia and Iran.

That’s a recipe for a Bar Mitzvah catered by Schumer, Schiff, and
Zeldin, where Goys are sent off to war while the Jews eat lox and bagels
at home. (Jews don’t send their own off to wars abroad for Israel.)

You own that war now, Mr Trump, against the Russian bear and her allies.

Who’s going to eat your words when you spew them out into a nuclear
holocaust? That’ll be the REAL ‘holocaust’ that your Jewish enablers
will wreak upon the entire world.

ALL YOU ‘GOYIM’ who send your sons to wars for Jews, you should’ve seen
it coming:

Netanyahu visits Trump; IsraHell bombs Syria; Netanyahu demands buffer
zones into the Golan Heights; Tillerson says Assad can stay; ‘Sarin gas’
(fake news) explodes in Idlib; The Jew-owned media blames Assad sans any
proof; War criminals Mattis and McMaster concur and Trump buys the JEW
LIE; Tillerson caves; Trump BOMBS Syria; Tillerson reverses and says
Assad must go and Russia is complicit; Jews applaud!

But what really galls the heck out of meeself, is seeing the little Jew
worm, Jared Kushner, in the driver’s seat and Steve Bannon sent to the
back of the bus.

No surprise.

The*Kushner family gave Trump his start in New Jersey*, (couldn’t quite
break into Jew York yet); funded his campaign from the get-go; and came
collecting, putting sonny-boy as daddy-in-laws’ right hand man.

The more things change the more Jews keep the war party going.

It’s a swamp out there.

How can America soar with eagles when surrounded by turkeys?

It can’t…when surrounded by war-mongering rats like Kushner & Tribe.

*(10) Crowdstrike (behind “Russian Hacking” claims) has ties to
Soros-supported Atlantic Council*


From: chris lancenet <> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017
03:21:08 +0900 Subject: Cyber Firm Behind “Russian Hacking” Claims Has
Ties To Soros-Supported Think Tank | Zero Hedge

Cyber Firm Behind “Russian Hacking” Claims Has Ties To Soros-Supported
Think Tank

by William Craddick Apr 5, 2017 10:43 AM

Via Disobedient Media

The*cyber firm Crowdstrike has been one of the main proponents of
allegations that Russia interfered* in the 2016 American presidential
elections using their cyber capabilities. The analysis performed by
Crowdstrike was relied on almost exclusively by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) to establish their claims of "Russian hacking."

It has subsequently been revealed that Crowdstrike has in the past both
misrepresented data in an attempt to *frame the Russian government* for
cyber attacks and also failed to account for known capabilities of third
parties which enable them to impersonate Russian hackers. The founder of
Crowdstrike is also tied to the Atlantic Council, a think tank supported
by George Soros which has been accused of accepting funds in exchange
for support of favored policy positions as well as promoting
disinformation and propaganda attacks against anti establishment figures.

I. Crowdstrike's Claims Of Russian Hacking Cannot Be Independently
Verified By Government Agencies, Ignore Known Attribution Techniques

On June 14, 2016, Crowdstrike published a study commissioned by the DNC,
in which they accused the Russian government of breaching the DNC's
computer systems. The DNC's choice to rely on Crowdstrike exclusively
was incredibly controversial. CNN reported that the DNC actually refused
to grant the FBI access to their servers despite the agency's explicitly
stating that they could conduct a satisfactory investigation if they
were forced to rely on third party data. The report by Crowdstrike stood
as one of the first definitive authorities which has found evidence of
Russian cyber infiltration or electronic meddling in the 2016 elections.
Rather than confirm the notion that Russia interfered in American
elections, a number of other developments since Crowdstrike's report
have cast increasing doubt on their claims and in fact have suggested
that they may be part of a widespread attempt to push disinformation for
financial gain and benefit to the groups clients and affiliates.

Alarming indicators that Crowdstrike may have been promoting the idea of
"Russian hacking" out of ulterior motives began to emerge almost
immediately after their report was released. On July 28th, 2016, The
Washington Post reported that Crowdstrike was one of a number of cyber
security firms making a large profit thanks to widespread fears about
Russian hackers. Beyond running a report which would satisfy the DNC,
the drumming up of fear about Russian cyber menaces meant created a
blatant potential conflict of interest for Crowdstrike.

Crowdstrike's analysis also ignored known capabilities, since publicized
by Wikileaks in their Day Zero and Marble releases from the Vault 7
series, which have proven the existence of cyber capabilities that allow
*programmers mask the identity of their malware* and *masquerade it as
belonging to foreign intelligence agencies* and mimic their online
attack methods. They have also shown that many programmers have the
ability to create an appearance of ‘false attribution’ which gives the
impression that the malware was created by another country, even
mimicking the native language of the host country they intend to
attribute the attack to. [...]

III. Crowdstrike Has Ties To The Soros-Supported Atlantic Council

Further investigation has revealed that Crowdstrike has deep ties to a
think tank which has a history of pay to play practices and a track
record of seeking to foment confrontation between the United States and
Russia. *Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch acts as a Senior Fellow
for the Atlantic Council*. In February, Disobedient Media reported that
the Atlantic Council has a troubling history of taking money from
foreign special interest groups and government agencies in return for
pushing propaganda to support various initiatives around the globe. The
New York Times has named the Atlantic Council along with theBrookings
Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies as
being think tanks which have made undisclosed “agreements” with foreign
governments. The article denounced the Atlantic Council for having
“opened a whole new window into an aspect of the influence-buying in
Washington that has not previously been exposed.”

In May 2016, a report by the Associated Press identified the Atlantic
Council as one of a number of think tanks which had*received funding
from the Ploughshares Fund*, which was a major player in efforts to sell
the Iranian nuclear deal to the American public. The Ploughshares Fund
is financed by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The Atlantic
Council consistently promotes hostile, anti-Russian rhetoric. The
organization has also promoted unsourced and unfounded claims that
Russia was responsible for “hacking” the 2016 U.S. presidential
elections despite the fact that this conspiracy theory has been
resoundingly debunked by various authorities in the intelligence
community and by multiple media sources. The Atlantic Council, unfazed
by the evidence that their claims of hacking were false, have continued
to promote these falsehoods in the aftermath of the election in what
appeared to be a possible effort to undermine American democratic

IV. Conclusion

The tight relationship between Crowdstrike and a think tank which also
has a long track record of promoting unproven claims about Russian
hacking, their failure to account for false attribution techniques
commonly used by programmers to frame other countries for hacking
attacks and their history of making factually untrue and misleading
claims about Russian hacking creates concerns about their ability to
objectively report on whether or not the DNC's servers were breached by
a foreign actor during the 2016 elections. Their association with the
DNC comes at a time when the party has been attempting to craft a
narrative of alleged Russian hacking to support their election bids in
the upcoming 2018 U.S. midterm elections and delegitimize the victories
of their political opponents in 2016.

The Atlantic Council's past relationship with George Soros is also
problematic given that Soros has deep financial ties to groups
organizing resistance movements as part of an attempt to enact regime
change in the United States. As former CIA Director Michael Morell,
James Clapper and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
have all clearly stated that there is not, nor has ever been any
evidence that Russian hacking affected any election results in the 2016
U.S. Presidential Elections, the efforts of Crowdstrike to promote
claims to the contrary raises serious questions about their research as
well as the intentions of the DNC in preventing neutral federal
regulatory agencies from examining their servers firsthand to verify the
claims.*Cybersecurity experts ABANDON claims of Russian hacking;
CrowdStrike refuses to testify*


*(11) CrowdStrike retract parts of report alleging Russian hack; refuses
to address Congress about its findings*

EXCLUSIVE:*Cybersecurity experts who were first to conclude that Putin
hacked presidential election ABANDON some of their claims against
Russia* - and refuse to co-operate with Congress

   Claims of Russian interference in the presidential election through
hacking Democratic emails have been long-running scandal

   First link between hacking and Vladimir Putin was made by
CrowdStrike, Irvine, CA, based firm hired by the Democratic National

   It concluded in June 2016 Moscow spies had hacked DNC - before
embarrassing emails were published - setting off Russian election scandal

   Cybersecurity firm examined DNC's servers, something FBI was not
allowed to do, and its conclusion has been repeated by the intelligence
community reveals it has had to abandon key claims in another
report on hacking by same Russians it blamed for DNC attack

   It used unproven claims by a pro-Putin blogger to wrongly conclude
Russian hackers had helped to virtually wipe out Ukrainian artillery

*CrowdStrike is also refusing to testify in public* to the House
Intelligence Committee on what it knows and declined to speak to

By Alana Goodman For

Published: 00:48 +10:00, 6 April 2017 | Updated: 01:40 +10:00, 6 April 2017

It was an explosive conclusion which cast a pall over the entire
election: that the Kremlin was behind a hack of the Democratic National
Committee which resulted in its embarrassing secrets being published.

First made in June 2016, it has overshadowed the election, transition
and now presidency of Donald Trump.

And the FBI, CIA, NSA and 12 other intelligence agencies published an
unprecedented joint report saying the Vladimir Putin ordered a hacking
campaign to tip the election against Hillary Clinton.

But now the first expert company to make a link between the DNC hacks
and the Kremlin is facing a damaging series of questions over its
credibility, can disclose.

Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has had to retract portions of a report
supporting its allegations of Russian cyberattacks – and is also
refusing to address Congress about its findings on Moscow's election

Standing by his position: FBI Director James Comey told the House
Intelligence Committee last month that the conclusion on Putin hacking
the election was unchanged

*CrowdStrike was hired by the Democratic National Committee* to
investigate suspicious network activity last May. In June it declared
that the committee had been hacked by the Russian government, starting a
firestorm over the campaign.

CrowdStrike, based in Irvine, California, is also the only group that
the DNC allowed to directly examine its servers.

Not even the FBI has been granted access to the servers.

*U.S. agencies have instead relied on CrowdStrike's work*. There is no
other known forensic evidence which has been publicly disclosed to link
the Kremlin to the attacks, including in a series of intelligence
community statements and reports.

But now questions are emerging about the reliability of the company's
findings. can disclose that *in March CrowdStrike quietly retracted
portions of a December report* that had made further Russian hacking
claims, after the firm was found to have relied on inaccurate data
posted online by a pro-Putin 'propaganda' blogger.

The errors prompted both the Ukrainian military and a prominent British
think tank to issue public statements disputing CrowdStrike's data.

The errors, and retraction, surrounded a report in December which
claimed that Fancy Bear, the same Russian hackers it said were behind
the DNC attacks, were working on behalf of Russia's military
intelligence agency, the GRU.

CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Fancy Bear had also hacked into
Ukrainian military technology using the same software it used to
infiltrate the DNC.

According to the report, the hackers were targeting an app used by
Ukrainian soldiers to improve the efficiency of ther 122mm howitzers.
The hack resulted in Ukraine losing 80 percent of these weapons in its
ongoing low-level battle with Russian forces in the east of the country,
the report said.

The report received widespread attention, including from NBC News,
Foreign Policy, and The Guardian.

Alperovitch used an interview with the Washington Post to push the
report and said: 'The fact that [these hackers] would be tracking and
helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern
Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling.

And Donna Brazile, the interim chairman of the DNC who had been revealed
by the leaked emails to have given CNN's debate questions in advance to
Hillary Clinton, and who then lied about it, highlighted the CrowdStrike
report on Twitter, saying: 'Cybersecurity firm finds a link between DNC
hack and Ukrainian artillery'

Vested interest: *Donna Brazile was revealed to be a cheat who handed
CNN's debate questions to Hillary* Clinton and a liar who claimed
falsely that the leaked emails had been altered. She promoted a
Washington Post story based on the party-retracted CrowdStrike report

But questions about the report quickly emerged. The Ukrainian military
posted a public statement disputing the claim that it was the victim of
hackers and denying that it had lost such a large number of howitzers.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies – which CrowdStrike
cited as the source of its claim that 80 percent of Ukraine's howitzers
had been taken out, told the VOA that this number was inaccurate. It
said the actual percentage of howitzer losses was closer to 15 to 20

It was soon discovered that CrowdStrike had not obtained this number
from IISS directly, and instead relied on post published by a
pro-Russian website called The Saker.

The Saker article was written by Russian blogger who goes by the name
'Colonel Cassad' and calls himself the 'bullhorn of totalitarian
propaganda,' according to Voice of America.

Last month CrowdStrike quietly dropped the key claim of an 80 per cent
loss, adding a short statement above the initial blogpost to say the
report had been 'amended' and due to 'an update' from the IISS about the
howitzer numbers.

But CrowdStrike did not explain why its researchers had used such
inflated numbers, or say how this could impacts its conclusions.

It also did not address other concerns about the report from the
Ukrainian military and the military app developer, who denied the
hacking claim entirely.

While the retraction does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC or
Ukraine, critics say it calls into question CrowdStrike's work on the

Cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr said this is part of 'a pattern' for
the company, and raises concerns about its credibility.

'It shows a pattern, that CrowdStrike's intelligence reports were
clearly a problem,' said Carr, who has authored books on cyber warfare
and founded the security firm Taia Global Ltd.

'They just found what they wanted to find…they didn't stop for a moment
to question it, they didn't contact the primary source,' added Carr.
'This is like an elementary school-level analysis.'

Source of claim: This is the website where the 80 per cent claim made by
CrowdStrike was found. it is run by a virulently pro-Putin blogger

*Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview with Voice of America, the
news outlet that first reported CrowdStrike had misstated data* from the
ISSS. The company declined to speak to

However CrowdStrike is proving hostile to further scrutiny of its
methods, can disclose.

Last month, CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch and its
president Shawn Henry *turned down an invitation to testify before the
House Intelligence Committee *about Russian interference in the U.S.

'They declined the invitation, so we're communicating with them about
speaking to us privately,' said Jack Langer, a spokesperson for House
Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.

There remain unanswered questions about the sequence of events which led
to the secrets of the DNC being laid bare.

The *DNC said it originally hired CrowdStrike* in late April last year
after discovering suspicious activity on its computer system indicating
a 'serious' hack.

But according to internal emails, *CrowdStrike was already working for
the DNC to investigate whether Bernie Sanders campaign staffers had
gained unauthorized access to its voter database*.

That five-week investigation appeared to have wrapped up on April 29, 2016.

The DNC did not make its first payment to CrowdStrike until early May.
Over the next three months, it paid the cybersecurity firm a total of

*(12) Hacker Group Releases Password To NSA's "Top Secret Arsenal"
InProtest Of Trump Betrayal*

by Tyler Durden Apr 8, 2017 2:16 PM

Last August, the intel world was abuzz following the news that a
previously unknown hacker collective, "The Shadow Brokers" had hacked
and released legitimate hacking tools from the NSA's own special-ops
entity, the "Equation Group", with initial speculation emerging that the
Russians may have penetrated the US spy agency as suggested by none
other than Edward Snowden. The Shadow Brokers released a bunch of the
organization's hacking tools, and were asking for 1 million bitcoin
(around $568 million at the time) to release more files, however failed
to find a buyer.

Attention then shifted from Russians after some speculated that the
agency itself may be housing another "mole" insider. At the time, a
former NSA source told Motherboard, that “it’s plausible” that the
leakers are actually a disgruntled insider, claiming that it’s easier to
walk out of the NSA with a USB drive or a CD than hack its servers." As
famed NSA whistleblower William Binney - who exposed the NSA's pervasive
surveillance of Americans long before Snowden confirmed it - said, “My
colleagues and I are fairly certain that this was no hack, or group for
that matter, This ‘Shadow Brokers’ character is one guy, an insider

In a subsequent Reuters op-ed by cybersecurity expert James Bamford,
author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America, and columnist for Foreign Policy magazine, he
said that seemed as the most probable explanation, and that Russia had
nothing to do with this latest - and most provocative yet - hack.

Since then, the Shadow Broker group, whose origin and identity still
remains a mystery, disappeared from the radar only to emerge today, when
in an article posted on Medium, the group wrote an op-ed, much of it in
broken English, in which it slammed Donald Trump's betrayal of his core
"base", and the recent attack on Syria, urging Trump to revert to his
original promises and not be swept away by globalist and MIC interests,
but far more imporantly, released the password which grants access to
what Edward Snowden moments ago called the NSA's "Top Secret arsenal of
digital weapons."

The article begins with the group explaining why it is displeased with

Don’t Forget Your Base

Respectfully, what the fuck are you doing? TheShadowBrokers voted for
you. TheShadowBrokers supports you. TheShadowBrokers is losing faith in
you. Mr. Trump helping theshadowbrokers, helping you. Is appearing you
are abandoning “your base”, “the movement”, and the peoples who getting
you elected. [...]

The peoples whose voted for you, voted against the Republican Party, the
party that tried to destroying your character in the primaries. The
peoples who voted for you, voted against the Democrat Party, the party
that hates, mocks, and laughs at you. Without the support of the peoples
who voted for you, what do you think will be happening to your
Presidency? Without the support of the people who voted for you, do you
think you’ll be still making America great again? Do you be remembering
when you were sitting there at the Obama Press Party and they were all
laughing at you? Do you be remembering when you touring the country and
all those peoples believed in you and supported you? You were those
peoples hope. How do you be thinking it will be feeling when those
people turn on you? Will they be laughing at you, hating you, and
mocking you too?

TheShadowBrokers doesn’t want this to be happening to you, Mr. Trump.
TheShadowBrokers is wanting to see you succeed. [...]

The report than goes on to suggest that the hacking group is in fact
comprised mostly of former US spies: "President Trump, theshadowbrokers
is offering our services to you and your administration. Did you know
most of theshadowbrokers’ members have taken the oath “…to protect and
defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign
and domestic…”. Yes sir! *Most of us used to be TheDeepState* everyone
is talking about."

Then something changed, and the collective notes that "The*DeepState is
being the enemy of the constitution*, individualism, life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. With the right funding we can recruit some of
the best hacker intel peoples in United States and world. “Unmasking” is
being new buzz word, so we use. TheShadowBrokers is being happy to
unmask anyone we considering to be an enemy of the Constitution of the
United States." [...]

Shortly after the blog post hit, Wikileaks noticed:

Shadow Brokers releases password to NSA hacking tool binaries from 2013
as "protest" over "abandoning base"

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 8, 2017

Even Edward Snowden got involved

NSA just lost control of its Top Secret arsenal of digital weapons;
hackers leaked it.1)

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 8, 2017

Bitter lesson:When any government conceals knowledge of vulnerabilities
in common software, those vulns will be found and used by enemies.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 8, 2017

Quick review of the #ShadowBrokers leak of Top Secret NSA tools reveals
it's nowhere near the full library, but there's still so... (1/2)

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 8, 2017

Speak not because it is safe, but because it is right.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 11, 2017 [...]

No comments:

Post a Comment