Cohen has no special knowledge into what actually happened. He is speculating. Speculation may be interesting, but it's not proof of anything.
Also, he had his own agenda to push. Or do you not see that? He's certainly not any kind of objective observer.
What agenda did he have to push? He was a professor at an ivy league college. He did not have to please anyone and going against the grain diminished his professional opportunities (he used to be on mainstream media all the time), so I don't see how you can make that claim.
what do you mean what agenda? He's been anti-anti-Putin from the beginning. And obviously he would never do anything to go against his entire academic history. Because he never has.
He's an academic ideologue. They have their place certainly, but please recognize him for what he is.
Sanders got less votes than Hillary. A lot less. That's why he lost. He is a bad campaigner. Proven again in 2020. And I was a big 2016 supporter.
To believe the DNC somehow made that happen is lunacy.
I read the emails, btw. Not proof of anything. Certainly no proof of any actions the DNC took that gave Hillary the nomination.
None of what you say about the DNC sabotage of Sanders is true but can we just agree to disagree because I don't think I can go through that argument again for at least the 10th time.
My sister works for EMC (now Dell) and has for 30 something years. She had lots of their stock and when it tanked she lost a lot and owed a bunch in taxes and it was a big mess. I don't follow it otherwise so I don't know what has happened since. My sister does live a much more upscale life than I do so she did something right with her investments.
what do you mean what agenda? He's been anti-anti-Putin from the beginning. And obviously he would never do anything to go against his entire academic history. Because he never has.
He's an academic ideologue. They have their place certainly, but please recognize him for what he is.
He does not agree with you so you call him an ideologue. The guy had been a Russian scholar for decades and he formed his opinion from direct experience and wrote books and taught at colleges. Give him some respect even if you have a different view. He knew Russiagate was BS--do you think he secretly did not but was afraid of going against what he had said previously? That's ridiculous.
He's was right about Putin and I'm sorry that more people did not get to hear his view at least as a contrast. The mainstream media only allows one view now--it did not always do that and Cohen used to be on TV. Trace your views and you will find they come from the Atlantic Council/NATO/Bellingcat and those sources are straight up propaganda and I'm sure they were not sad when Cohen died. One less thinking person to get in the way of their neocon project. And it's a failed neocon project that's going to take us all down with it.
Campbell, the digital forensics expert, helped debunk the theory that CrowdStrike framed Russia for the DNC in 2018. He analyzed the data and the origin of documents that had been published on a blog two months after the 4chan post, which purported to contain proof that Russia couldn’t have hacked the DNC.
Campbell investigated the claims and found that the documents were fake, with metadata on the files offering proof that they were illegitimate. Campbell also tracked the source of the documents to a 39-year-old British internet troll working under a fake name who had frequently pushed pro-Russian conspiracy theories under various aliases.
But the fake documents proved effective in perpetuating the CrowdStrike theory. The fake documents found their way to a group of former intelligence officials called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity led by William Binney, a whistleblower who used to work at the National Security Agency. Binney pushed the conspiracy theory several times on Fox News and, at the request of Trump, met with then-CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the theory. Binney has since disavowed the veracity of the documents after viewing the files’ metadata.
But the VIPS endorsement was repeated by American media, from respected left-wing publication The Nation to controversial right-wing site Breitbart News. The ploy succeeded – and made it to the White House. Binney was invited on to Fox News and said allegations that Russia had hacked the DNC were unproven. Trump then told CIA director Mike Pompeo to see Binney to find evidence to support the claims. Pompeo met with Binney on 24 October 2017.
Binney said he told the CIA chief that he had no fresh information. But he said he knew where to look – in the surveillance databases of his former intelligence agency, NSA.
As a former top NSA insider, Binney was correct, but not in the way he expected. NSA’s top secret records, disclosed in the DoJ indictment earlier this month, lifted the lid on what the Russians did and how they did it.
A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.
what do you mean what agenda? He's been anti-anti-Putin from the beginning. And obviously he would never do anything to go against his entire academic history. Because he never has.
He's an academic ideologue. They have their place certainly, but please recognize him for what he is.
He does not agree with you so you call him an ideologue. The guy had been a Russian scholar for decades and he formed his opinion from direct experience and wrote books and taught at colleges. Give him some respect even if you have a different view. He knew Russiagate was BS--do you think he secretly did not but was afraid of going against what he had said previously? That's ridiculous.
He's was right about Putin and I'm sorry that more people did not get to hear his view at least as a contrast. The mainstream media only allows one view now--it did not always do that and Cohen used to be on TV. Trace your views and you will find they come from the Atlantic Council/NATO/Bellingcat and those sources are straight up propaganda and I'm sure they were not sad when Cohen died. One less thinking person to get in the way of their neocon project. And it's a failed neocon project that's going to take us all down with it.
I don't call someone an ideologue based whether I agree with them or not. That would be stupid.
I call them one if I think they fit the definition:
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
Cohen went full Putin apologist sometime around the Ukraine Maidan Revolution. Since then he has not veered from that stance and became completely predictable. He became an ideologue. You knew what side he was going to come down on regarding Russia. That's what I meant when I rather inartfully said
"He's been anti-anti-Putin from the beginning. And obviously he would never do anything to go against his entire academic history. Because he never has."
It's too bad he died, but is there any doubt how he would come down regarding the Ukrainian invasion? I'd say none at all. Because like all ideologues, he was predictable.
Anyway, you have no idea if he's right about anything. Whether it be Putin or Russiagate. It's you that bases his truthfulness on the fact that you agree with him.
Campbell, the digital forensics expert, helped debunk the theory that CrowdStrike framed Russia for the DNC in 2018. He analyzed the data and the origin of documents that had been published on a blog two months after the 4chan post, which purported to contain proof that Russia couldn’t have hacked the DNC.
Campbell investigated the claims and found that the documents were fake, with metadata on the files offering proof that they were illegitimate. Campbell also tracked the source of the documents to a 39-year-old British internet troll working under a fake name who had frequently pushed pro-Russian conspiracy theories under various aliases.
But the fake documents proved effective in perpetuating the CrowdStrike theory. The fake documents found their way to a group of former intelligence officials called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity led by William Binney, a whistleblower who used to work at the National Security Agency. Binney pushed the conspiracy theory several times on Fox News and, at the request of Trump, met with then-CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the theory. Binney has since disavowed the veracity of the documents after viewing the files’ metadata.
But the VIPS endorsement was repeated by American media, from respected left-wing publication The Nation to controversial right-wing site Breitbart News. The ploy succeeded – and made it to the White House. Binney was invited on to Fox News and said allegations that Russia had hacked the DNC were unproven. Trump then told CIA director Mike Pompeo to see Binney to find evidence to support the claims. Pompeo met with Binney on 24 October 2017.
Binney said he told the CIA chief that he had no fresh information. But he said he knew where to look – in the surveillance databases of his former intelligence agency, NSA.
As a former top NSA insider, Binney was correct, but not in the way he expected. NSA’s top secret records, disclosed in the DoJ indictment earlier this month, lifted the lid on what the Russians did and how they did it.
A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.
The first piece you posted is total garbage. I have difficulty believing that you even read it--you must have just skimmed and saw VIPS mentioned and there was the word conspiracy and 4chan on the page so you figured it was a good one. Well you were wrong.
I had higher expectations for the second one because it seemed to be written by an intelligent person who had an impressive IT background and then guess what I found out? It was the guy that Bill Binney went to England to meet with! He talks about how he convinced Binney that the Guccifer files were not as they appeared and that the Guccifer guy had split one file into two and therefore made a difference and some other stuff. Anyway, in the article it sounds like he got Bill Binney to say he's wrong which is probably why you posted it but it was just that Bill Binney was not seeing it in a different way. He and the author of this article actually agree. So, you actually posted a pro-Bill Binney article. Ha!
Here is a short video interview with Bill Binney specifically on the article you posted because many people were confused as you were and the interviewer asks him to clarify. Near the end he asks some general Russiagate questions and Binny talks about Crowdstrike having control of the computers and not letting the FBI see them and he says that's huge--because:
"When you don't have control of the servers you don't have control of the evidence."
Can you show other instances where the FBI got a server physically and found a major difference from when Crowdstrike had previously submitted a report on it?
Can I send my server to the FBI to inspect it for hacks? You seem to think this is their expertise.
someone needs to explain to me how you test/compare transfer speeds when you don't have access to the DNC network as the base case. How does Binney know how big the DNC's pipe were?
and it's pretty funny that in the same post, nan denigrates NBC as a source, and then posts something from LaRouchePac.
Can you show other instances where the FBI got a server physically and found a major difference from when Crowdstrike had previously submitted a report on it?
Can I send my server to the FBI to inspect it for hacks? You seem to think this is their expertise.
I was going to put in a disclaimer for that! I knew that would be mentioned! Yes they are a horrible cult! BUT, the guy asks the question you want to hear the answer to and Bill Binney speaks for 95% of the video. There is ZERO mention of that head guy.
someone needs to explain to me how you test/compare transfer speeds when you don't have access to the DNC network as the base case. How does Binney know how big the DNC's pipe were?
and it's pretty funny that in the same post, nan denigrates NBC as a source, and then posts something from LaRouchePac.
You can't make this stuff up.
As I was posting this, I kept thinking "Drummerboy is going to kill me with the LaRouchePac thing" I was going to put in a disclaimer and I should have. Anyway, it's a good video because it is short and it goes right to the question about this article so let's be nice and thank the LaRouchePac and just don't give out your phone number or address.
who has provided data on a server that you have trusted - please provide the article.
Stop giving me MOL homework. I already responded to your two articles.
By the way, I am posting the VIPS stuff but I don't know if they are right or wrong and neither does anyone on this site. I think they should be taken seriously and be vetted with respect, not pushed to the side and called fringe.
"When you don't have control of the servers you don't have control of the evidence."
What do you think this means?
It means we can't trust Crowdstrike.
bzzzzzzzzt. wrong!
Binney was talking strictly about whether the document whose provenance he disputed in one of the Muller indictments would meet chain of evidence requirements in a trial.
And that's all he meant. Has nothing to do with whether Crowdstrike's investigation was good or not.
Also, his critique of the document is kind of weird. He said it couldn't have come from the NSA because it's not redacted.
Is it impossible for the NSA to produce a document without redactions? I don't know either way of course, but that's what he's saying.
Of course it is POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC. I even said that Julian Assange said that it was POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC.
"Ace reporter" is clueless about his own community, so he blames others for his failure to pay attention. And his "point" about a county clerk running unopposed in a primary is a silly one.
I totally related to this tweet! I got a notice in the mail saying I had been redistricted to District 11 with no information as to where they might be. I try to pay attention to what goes on but there is a lot of information and I have a busy life (and I waste way too much time on MOL). It made me feel better to hear that someone else also got frustrated.
Michael Tracey lives in New Jersey (Jersey City) by the way.
Nan, all of us in Maplewood were "redistricted to District 11", the congressional district represented by Mikie Sherrill.
Tracey was talking about his polling place, not his congressional district. By the way, if he's in the part of Jersey City represented by Donald Payne, Jr., then there was a contested primary for the Democratic nomination for Congress. [Edited to add, I stand corrected, both congressional districts covering Jersey City had contested primaries] But telling his audience that wouldn't have helped him make whatever point he thought he was makng.
I know he lives in Jersey City, where there are a lot of polling places, so when he says is new one is "5x further away", that could be as little as two-and-a-half blocks, but it's not measured in miles.
By the way, I hope you caught his "journalism" last evening, when he joined the Fox News "Nothing to see here, move along" coverage of the January 6 hearing.
Was just on Tucker counter-programming Liz Cheney to offer my own very special remembrance of Jan 6
By the way, if he's in the part of Jersey City represented by Donald Payne, Jr., then there was a contested primary for the Democratic nomination for Congress. [Edited to add, I stand corrected, both congressional districts covering Jersey City had contested primaries]
Tracey’s tweet referred to the race for county clerk, the official he presumably faults for his troubles.
By the way, if he's in the part of Jersey City represented by Donald Payne, Jr., then there was a contested primary for the Democratic nomination for Congress. [Edited to add, I stand corrected, both congressional districts covering Jersey City had contested primaries]
Tracey’s tweet referred to the race for county clerk, the official he presumably faults for his troubles.
I know it referred to an uncontested race. For all we know, the new polling place is more convenient for the residents than than the old one, but that's another piece of information which isn't important for him or his fan base.
Of course. It just wasn’t clear you knew that the uncontested race indeed existed and the likely reason that Tracey singled it out. That’s why I’m here for both of you.
Of course it is POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC. I even said that Julian Assange said that it was POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC.
Why do you see them at odds? The Russians possibly hacking into the DNC, does not mean the Russians stole the emails. That's what Julian Assange said, and I believe him more than I would ever believe the mainstream hysterical propaganda media. Listen to this news clip from 2016 and it's just ridiculous. They don't even question Assange or let him make a real statement. They just tell us that all these experts said it was Russia and Russia is trying to help Donald Trump. They have zero reasons to say why Russia is trying to help Donald Trump. It's just complete happy horseshit. You should be embarrassed to have taken this in with a straight face.
Crowdstrike said it was Russia and those other firms all agreed that this iep was Russia but others disagreed. Is that mentioned in this video? Of course not.
Binney was talking strictly about whether the document whose provenance he disputed in one of the Muller indictments would meet chain of evidence requirements in a trial.
And that's all he meant. Has nothing to do with whether Crowdstrike's investigation was good or not.
Also, his critique of the document is kind of weird. He said it couldn't have come from the NSA because it's not redacted.
Is it impossible for the NSA to produce a document without redactions? I don't know either way of course, but that's what he's saying.
No, you are wrong.
This is what Binney says:
Any data collected by NSA is classified if it's . . .anything that is released to the public is redacted. None of that was redacted. So, I'm making a basic assumption that it came from Crowdstrike or some other third party commercial third party not NSA because they are violating the classification release --the release of classified information publicly. So they are violating that as a law, you know, It's under US 18-US Code. So that's obviously a fake too. All that crap is just crap.
And the other point is--if it came from the FBI, we don't know where the source of this is. That's what needs to be challenged in court and that's where they will lose it because once that comes into a court of law you have to show continuous control of evidence. .
If it didn't come from NSA, which it obviously didn't because of the classification problem. Then it had to come from a third party and the most obvious one would be Crowdstrike. If that was the case, they cannot show continuity of control of evidence and so that's open to be manipulated and therefore inadmissible in a court of law.
Larouche guy: Almost as if it were hearsay?
Binney: Exactly.
Larouch Guy: Now you have brought up that this came from Crowdstrike rather than FBI. Why would it be unlikely to come from the FBI?
Binney: they didn't have control of the DNC servers.
Larouch Guy: To your knowledge, they have never been able to examine the DNC servers, have they?
Binney: No that's right. When you don't have control of the servers, you don't have control of the evidence. That's the problem with i
Binney was talking strictly about whether the document whose provenance he disputed in one of the Muller indictments would meet chain of evidence requirements in a trial.
And that's all he meant. Has nothing to do with whether Crowdstrike's investigation was good or not.
Also, his critique of the document is kind of weird. He said it couldn't have come from the NSA because it's not redacted.
Is it impossible for the NSA to produce a document without redactions? I don't know either way of course, but that's what he's saying.
No, you are wrong.
This is what Binney says:
Any data collected by NSA is classified if it's . . .anything that is released to the public is redacted. None of that was redacted. So, I'm making a basic assumption that it came from Crowdstrike or some other third party commercial third party not NSA because they are violating the classification release --the release of classified information publicly. So they are violating that as a law, you know, It's under US 18-US Code. So that's obviously a fake too. All that crap is just crap.
And the other point is--if it came from the FBI, we don't know where the source of this is. That's what needs to be challenged in court and that's where they will lose it because once that comes into a court of law you have to show continuous control of evidence. .
If it didn't come from NSA, which it obviously didn't because of the classification problem. Then it had to come from a third party and the most obvious one would be Crowdstrike. If that was the case, they cannot show continuity of control of evidence and so that's open to be manipulated and therefore inadmissible in a court of law.
Larouche guy: Almost as if it were hearsay?
Binney: Exactly.
Larouch Guy: Now you have brought up that this came from Crowdstrike rather than FBI. Why would it be unlikely to come from the FBI?
Binney: they didn't have control of the DNC servers.
Larouch Guy: To your knowledge, they have never been able to examine the DNC servers, have they?
Binney: No that's right. When you don't have control of the servers, you don't have control of the evidence. That's the problem with i
I am absolutely correct. It's so freaking obvious that Binney is talking about the chain of evidence from a strict legal point of view. Hell, even I agree with him here.
What do you think "Almost as if it were hearsay?" is referring to?
And you can't draw any inference about Crowdstrike here.
Do you think that Crowdstrike had control of the servers? Maybe that's why you're confused.
Pretty sure DNC never relinquished control of the servers, and that's what destroyed the chain of evidence.
Also, I'm not sure of the point of most of your post. The NSA and redactions have nothing to do with this, other than it feeds Binney's suspicions that we are being lied to by the FBI. Hard to believe they'd be so blatant though.
what do you mean what agenda? He's been anti-anti-Putin from the beginning. And obviously he would never do anything to go against his entire academic history. Because he never has.
He's an academic ideologue. They have their place certainly, but please recognize him for what he is.