US intelligence services, the Democratic Party, some Republicans including members of President Trump’s own government, and the presstitute US media are conspiring against American democracy and the President of the United States.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.
NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].
Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”
Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
* * *
Unlike the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the veteran intelligence professionals performed forensic investigations. They found conclusive evidence that the alleged “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server [these are the emails that show the DNC working for Hillary against Sanders] was not hacked but leaked.
The leaked documents were copied onto an external storage device and doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia as having hacked the documents.
In other words, the alleged hack was instead a copy from the inside that was subsequently doctored to reflect Russian origin.
The veteran intelligence professionals surmise that this was done in order to focus attention away from the embarrassing content of the emails, placing attention instead on “Russian interference in the US presidential election.”
As I see it, the success of this false and orchestrated story of Russian hacking, for which not a scrap of evidence exists, revealed to the military/security complex the opportunity to remove Trump and thus protect the oversized budget and power of the military/security complex that is threatened by Trump’s intention to normalize relations with Russia.
It revealed to the Hillary forces the opportunity to vindicate themselves with the argument that Russia stole the election for Trump.
It revealed to Israel the opportunity to put an end to Trump’s withdrawal of US interference in the Middle East, thus enabling Israel to continue to use the US military to clear away obstacles to Israeli expansion.
It provided the presstitutes, who hate Trump and “the deplorables” who elected him, with a headline story for months and months to be followed in their expectations with the story of Trump’s removal from the presidency.
The retired intelligence professionals are too circumspect to tell President Trump outright that a conspiracy is underway to remove him from office whether by impeachment or assassination by a right-wing “lone nut” enraged at the traitorous president, but this does seem to be the message between the lines. As I have provided the link to the letter, you can read it and come to your own conclusion.