Still Waiting For Evidence Of A Russian Hack

Authored by Ray McGovern via Consortium News,

More than two years after the allegation of Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was first made, conclusive proof is still lacking and may never be produced...

If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny. It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — including two “alumni” who were former National Security Agency technical directors — have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the “emails related to Hillary Clinton” via a “hack” by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device — probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that the “conclusions” of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were “inconclusive.” Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA “Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections” of January 6, 2017, which tried to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no direct evidence of Russian involvement.  That did not prevent the “handpicked” authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee … to WikiLeaks.”  Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.

Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA “assessment” became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump.  It simply could not have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself.  No, it had to have been the Russians.

Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks. Schiff still “can’t share the evidence” with me … or with anyone else, because it does not exist.

Schiff: Can’t share evidence


It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of “emails related to Hillary Clinton,” throwing the Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders.  When the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the emails by blaming Russia for their release.

Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention with instructions “to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”  The diversion worked like a charm.  Mainstream media kept shouting “The Russians did it,” and gave little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer’ Fox, Bernie didn’t say nothin’.

Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating “forensic facts” to “prove” the Russians did it.  Here’s how it played out:

June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

Enter Independent Investigators

A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the “handpicked analysts” who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do.  The independent investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the “hack” that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else.

Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider — the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the “fluid dynamics” principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)

One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not from Russia.

In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated, “We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.”

Our July 24 Memorandum continued:

“Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled ‘Vault 7.’ WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

“No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]


“Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as ‘news fit to print’ and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since.

“The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, ‘did not get the memo’ in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: ‘WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.’

“The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use ‘obfuscation,’ and that Marble source code includes a “de-obfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

“More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a ‘forensic attribution double game’ or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.”

A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical director, and I commented on Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version published in The Baltimore Sun.

The CIA’s reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting; “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Our July 24 Memorandum continued: 

“Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.  [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this.  Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ]

“We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be ‘masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin’ [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

“‘Hackers may be anywhere,’ he said. ‘There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can."

New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published 16-minute interview last Friday.

In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017:

“Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.

“We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental.”

The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.


gzcekkyret philipat Sun, 06/10/2018 - 14:07 Permalink

I explained this two years ago when I said there would be no evidence of collusion, and that this entire exercise was to demonize Russia because they would not open their borders to unlimited immigration.


How dare Russia not commit suicide by ethnic invasion like all other white countries!


Greater Israel and the JWO just can't have a Free Russia, can they?

In reply to by philipat

Sirius Wonderblast Shemp 4 Victory Sun, 06/10/2018 - 09:32 Permalink

It's ok, rest easy, The Mail on Sunday has solved it all for us.

'Pparently, an one of Nigel Farage's lieutenants met an un-named Russian Embassy official (thereby getting direct orders from Vlad himself), which somehow unexplained fixed Brexit, and then at some time either before or after the US election allegedly introduced that un-named embassy apparatchik to someone on Trump's team thus proving the Russian interference/collusion/whatever thingy.

Glad that's put the whole affair to bed. Can I have some Soma please and/or return to the Matrix?

In reply to by Shemp 4 Victory

1 Alabama Mr Hankey Sat, 06/09/2018 - 20:33 Permalink

That wasn't you sticking your hand up your ass and opening those duck door handles was it? Holy shit Batman, we found satans strong hold, it was right here in plain site all the time.


Yes Robin, and there were plenty of helpers to go around, but as always, all bitches die in the end.

In reply to by Mr Hankey

junction Mittens is a god Sat, 06/09/2018 - 20:45 Permalink

Doesn't anyone here even bother to read news stories.  The Russian story is bogus but not the massive investigation into the real estate scheme carried out by Michael Cohen, Jared Kushner and, most importantly, Ivanka Trump.  Ivanka as a board member of Signature Bank approved loans that are now under the investigation of corrupt New York State officials, working for Cuomo.…

The information on these daisy chained loans had to come from the documents Mueller seized from Michael Cohen.  A Superfund land site on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn is resold for five times its worth to buy an apartment house on East 63rd Street.  And Ivanka, in charge of risk management for Signature Bank, approved all the real estate loans in this RICO enterprise.

In reply to by Mittens is a god

DaBard51 Sat, 06/09/2018 - 20:05 Permalink

Still waiting for ANYTHING that might be evidence... conclusive or otherwise.


When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.

Teeter Sat, 06/09/2018 - 20:16 Permalink

I pray there are enough honest people left in the government after 8 years of the corrupt and criminal Obama administration that will make it their mission to see that the truth gets out. Brennan appears to be the worst actor and the center of everything corrupt. 

francis scott … Sun, 06/10/2018 - 01:56 Permalink

          "Still Waiting For Evidence Of A Russian Hack"


Well, take a number.

Still waiting for evidence that the Russians were responsible for the nerve agent poisonings of the Skripals.  Still waiting for independent Médecins (Sans Frontières) to examine the Skripals and to hear their version of the made-up UK story.


Still waiting for any evidence that the Russians were responsible for the MH17 disaster.  Ukraine air traffic controllers   knew a jet with markings similar to Putin's was headed over the Donbas battlefield but the Russians didn't.  But for some unexplained reason, though, the Russians had sent a Buk launcher over the border to shoot down a plane, in this case, one that looked like Putin's, that they didn't know what time it was coming and what exact route it had been given by Kiev, whilst the Ukrainian  Buk Bois had access to all that information.


Insofar as evidence of Russian hacking is concerned, there probably is no easier form of false flag to perpetrate than a false flag concerning hacking.  It's impossible to catch and extremely risk free (compared to burning down a Reichstag).  



Jung Sun, 06/10/2018 - 06:35 Permalink

Still waiting for the debate on the 100 or so countries (see William Blum's tally) in which the US "meddled" and if any self-reflection is possible in this respect. So what IF Russia tried to meddle while the US has done nothing but for decades all over the planet?

Assange was quite clear that it was Seth Rich who supplied the information and that there was indeed no "hack". 

Strange how the officials seem to have no sense of proportion or common sense. It is obvious that Mueller has a totally different agenda, so why not apply justice there and charge him for being the crooked prosecutor he is?

Catullus Sun, 06/10/2018 - 07:55 Permalink

Still waiting for the investigation of Schiff and his Ukrainian connections. There’s little wonder why he bought into the Russian nonsense. 

dltff-ya Sun, 06/10/2018 - 09:18 Permalink

I heard that the email timestamps from the DNC were all extremely close together and somehow it was claimed that there are ways to verify these as not being forged. - the result is that the emails were grabbed by a insider maybe onto a usb drive, not by a hacker over a much slower Ethernet connection, so it was not fancy pants bear in Russia or Guccifer in Romania. Some insider with a bus to bus connection like usb, and Seth Rich certainly had that opportunity.
(cd dnc-emails;find . -print|cpio -dumpv /usb/SethsEmailCopy)