Wednesday, December 06, 2023
View Blog
Jun 10

Written by: Diana West
Monday, June 10, 2019 3:04 AM 

Now at Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ

They echo, layer, circle, and never get anywhere but The Point That Must Be Absorbed, the Lesson for One and All, the Single, Numbing Injection of Anti-Knowledge that poisons any logical understanding of anything.

I have been watching AG Barr performing this repetition of the Big Le about "Russian interference" in the 2016 fo  a while  now. It is predicated, at best, on unvetted analysis put forward by the DNC (via its contractor Crowdstrike, co-founded by a Mueller FBI protege and a Soviet-Russian immigrant) which begins by claiming Russia "hacked" the DNC and provided the DNC emails revealing that the party favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders to Wikileaks. As a result of this same Big Lie, Special Counsel Mueller indicted a gaggle of Russian intelligence agents in Russia for this cyber-crime. 

The whole theory, however, is upended and flattened not only by logic but by former NSA tech director William Binney, who, with a team of retired intelligence professionals (VIPS), has assembled forensics evidence suggesting what happened to reveal corruption at the top of the DNC was a download from within, not a "hack" from Russia. Further, as Binney explained to me in a recent interview, had the Russians performed such a "hack" on the DNC, the NSA would have in its possession concrete proof of the path or paths by which the emails were exported over the web. Binney's read on the evidence the VIPS team has collected suggests that the DNC emails were not hacked from outside, but "downloaded to a physical device and then transported physically, before Wikileaks could put [them] on the web." " A memory stick or CD-Rom would do the trick.

Such downloading and transporting could have been the work of murdered DNC official Seth Rich, whom Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange strongly suggested was a Wikileaks source, or others.

At the very least, a normal government (as opposed to a subverted one) would want to question Assange, solve the Rich murder, and examine the DNC server for itself in order to get to the bottom of whether alleged "Russian interference" was the catalyst of bringing DNC corruption to public view (US media being so lame and partisan) -- but no. Those are the last things US authorities want to do, and that seems to include the Conservatives' White Knight William Barr, who repeatedly cites the Mueller investigation for its fine work on ... Russian interference.

To me, that suggests the fix is in, although I hope I'm wrong.

The fact is, the Mueller investigation did not investigate the foundational case of "Russian interference" that drove the whole, slanderous case of alleged Trump-Putin "collusion." As Binney pointed out to me, on page 50 of the Mueller report, it even says: "While the [Special Counsel] investigation identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, it did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the F.B.I., the Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated this activitity."

Sorry, Special Counsel Dude. When it comes to the Original Sin of "Russian interference," for which you indicted that gaggle of random GRU officers on the other side of the world (always gets his man NOT), the FBI did not  investigate anything, "separately" or otherwise, and that includes, incredibly, the DNC server. The FBI relied solely on a "dossier" of analysis provided by the Mueller-conflcted, DNC-contractor, Crowdstrike.

It this colossal con had not worked like an evil charm, it would be pathetic.

But here we are. The Trump-Barr Justice Department prefers Assange to die in prison rather than talk, the unsolved Rich murder case to enter permanent deep freeze, and to champion the corrupt DNC "analysis" of its own server. Um, we wuz attacked by Russians. Seth Rich? He dead. 

Now, for another Deep Stater on the same case, former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was interviewed by Margaret Brennan of CBS last month. Watch this duet of "news" and "politics" below re-enforce All Key Subtexts: Russian elected Trump, Trump not legitimate, publishing DNC emails should be against the law. They turbocharge a BIg Lie to rival any for audacity and subversion.

From "Face the Nation," May 12, 2019:

MARGARET BRENNAN: You are a longtime Cold Warrior. So I have to ask you about Russia and Vladimir Putin. The Mueller report found sweeping and systematic Russian meddling in the 2016 election and quote, "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign." No conspiracy, however, was established. Do you think Vladimir Putin paid an adequate price?

FMR. SEC. GATES: No, and I think we have- I think we have not reacted nearly strongly enough to Putin and to Russia for their blatant interference in 2016. And I think there are ways we can do that. It's not military, but it's perhaps a certain set of sanctions. It's also using some of our own capabilities to go back into Russia and, let's say, inform the Russian people of the magnitude of corruption of Putin, and the henchmen around him, and the oligarchs who support him, and how one of the reasons that average Russians have- continue to suffer and have economic deprivation is because these guys are taking all the money. And- and- and I think we can make a case about that. And I think- I think we can create more problems for him in a- we have the capabilities to do that. And I just- I feel like, here again, we don't have a strategy. How are we going to resist Putin's spoiling efforts? His electoral interference, not just in the United States, but they were involved in the Brexit vote, they were involved in the French election. The Russians loaned Marine Le Pen's campaign millions of euros in France. And what are we going to do to- to respond to that? And I just, you know, the Congress- largely due to the Congress, we have imposed sanctions on Russia and individual Russians, but I think there's a lot more we could do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why don't you think the president has done that? 

FMR. SEC. GATES: I think that- well, I think that, interestingly enough, some of his advisers are much more hard line on Russia than he is. And- and a lot of these sanctions have come more at congressional initiatives than out- out of the White House. I don't know whether it's his peculiar relationship with Putin, whether he feels like any acknowledgment of Russian involvement in the 2016 elections somehow de-legitimizes his being elected president. I don't know what the mix of motives are. But the interesting thing is everybody around the president actually has a much more realistic view of the Russians and that includes up on the Hill.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And it's a favorite talking point for the Trump administration to say that they're- that they've been the toughest on Russia of any administration.

FMR. SEC. GATES: And in some respects, that's true.

MARGARET BRENNAN: In some respects.

FMR. SEC. GATES: And the sanctions-- 

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're a Cold Warrior. You- you actually believe that?

FMR. SEC. GATES: I- I think in terms of the magnitude of the sanctions that have been put on Russia, they are more significant than had been imposed in the past.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think it's a legitimate criticism of the president that he didn't confront Vladimir Putin about what the Mueller report concluded?

FMR. SEC. GATES: I think that was a mistake, yes. I think he should've- he should've said, "We've had this discussion, the evidence is in, and- and- don't ever do this again or there will be consequences for Russia." I think he- I think he very much should have raised it with him.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill says, "Mueller report case closed." Should it be?

FMR. SEC. GATES: I think that- I think that- the- the piece of the Mueller report about Russian interference is not case closed. And frankly, I think elected officials who depend on honest elections to get elected ought to have- ought to place as a very high priority measures to protect the American electoral system against interference by foreigners.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Should it- should it be proposed? Would you be supportive of legislation that would make it a crime if it- some say it's already considered, or should be, to accept intelligence from a foreign asset or agent to win in an election?

FMR. SEC. GATES: Well, for me, that's- that's very vague. What's- what is intelligence? I mean, is intelligence a- a secret dossier? Is intelligence intercepts- intercepted telephone conversations? Or is it a- a- a French government that has a view on the policies of a candidate, with respect to economic policy or something like that? I think it would need- I think any legislation would need to be very carefully crafted to make it clear what exactly is being talked about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Hacked e-mails from the Democratic National Committee?

FMR. SEC. GATES: Yeah I think- I think that should be illegal.

This is just breath-taking -- like a concussion. You think you are watching a weekly public affairs show where the journalist seeks information from the US defense/intelligence eminence, but what the two of them are doing is quietly, calmly digging in a tangle of Big Lies to destroy a president and gag us all. 



Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West