Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Media has ignored important information published in The Nation that so-called Russian 'hack' of DNC was actually a leak that could only have taken place in US Eastern time zone and definitely didn't involve, Danielle Ryan...( commenter: DNC hack or leak is irrelevant, indisputable truth is Trump campaign hooked up with Russians, and many in Trump WH align with Nazis who engage in illegal and unprotected speech)

8/15/17, "What if the DNC Russian "hack" was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore,", Danielle Ryan

"A group of intelligence pros and forensic investigators tell The Nation there was no hack— the media ignores it."

"Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report — authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers — which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report’s authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the “Guccifer” files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a “Russianified” word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

You could easily be forgiven for not having heard about this latest development — because, perhaps to avoid potential embarrassment, the media has completely ignored it. Instead, to this point only a few right-wing sites have seen fit to publish follow-ups.

The original piece, authored by former Salon columnist Patrick Lawrence (also known as Patrick L. Smith) appeared in The Nation on Aug. 9. The findings it details are supported by a group of strongly credentialed and well-respected forensic investigators and former NSA and CIA officials. The group call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, and originally came together in 2003 to protest the use of faulty intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush.

As of Aug. 12, the only well-known publications that have followed up on The Nation’s reporting are Breitbart News, the Washington Examiner and New York magazine (which described Lawrence’s article as “too incoherent to even debunk,” and therefore provided no substantial rebuttal). Bloomberg addressed the report in an op-ed by one of its regular columnists. 

The silence from mainstream outlets on this is interesting, if for no other reason than the information appears in a highly-regarded liberal magazine with a reputation for vigorous and thorough reporting — not some right-wing fringe conspiracy outlet carrying water for Donald Trump.

Maybe the logic goes that if mainstream journalists leave this untouched, that alone will be enough to discredit it. True believers in the Russian hack narrative can point to Breitbart’s coverage to dismiss this new information without consideration. That is not good enough. Lawrence’s article, and the report behind it, deserves some proper attention.

Let’s back up for a second. Where did this report come from?
As explained by Lawrence, VIPS has been examining available information about the DNC hack and/or leak, but the group lacked access to all the data they needed because intelligence agencies refused to provide it.

One of the VIPS researchers on the DNC case, William Binney — formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis — suggested in an interview with Lawrence that intelligence agencies have been hiding the lack of evidence for Russian hacking behind the claim that they must maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.

At the same time, other anonymous forensic investigators have been working independently on the DNC case. They recently began sharing their findings via an obscure website called Disobedient Media. One of those anonymous investigators is known as the Forensicator. A man named Skip Folden, an IT executive at IBM for 33 years and a consultant for the FBI, Pentagon and Justice Department, acted as a liaison between VIPS and the Forensicator. Folden and other investigators have examined the evidence, attested to its professionalism, and sent a detailed technical report to the offices of special counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. VIPS believes this new evidence fills a “critical gap” in the DNC case. In a memorandum sent to President Trump, VIPS questions why the FBI, CIA and NSA neglected to perform any forensic analysis of the Guccifer documents, which were central to the narrative of Russian hacking
VIPS states two things with what they describe as a high degree of certainty: There was no Russian hack on July 5, and the metadata from Guccifer’s June 15 document release was “synthetically tainted” with “Russian fingerprints.”

How did the group come to the conclusion that it was a leak, not a hack?

Investigators found that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded locally on July 5, 2016. The information was downloaded with a memory key or some other portable storage device. The download operation took 87 seconds — meaning the speed of transfer was 22.7 megabytes per second — “a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack,” as Lawrence puts it. What’s more, they say, a transoceanic transfer would have been even slower (Guccifer claimed to be working from Romania).
Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible,Folden told The Nation. 

Further casting doubt on the official narrative is the fact the the DNC’s computer servers were never examined by the FBI. Instead, the agency relied on a report compiled by Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm compromised by serious conflicts of interest — the major one being that the firm was paid by the DNC itself to conduct its work. Another is that the firm’s owner is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank known for its hostility toward Russia.

The Intelligence Community Assessment published in January of this year, which claims “high confidence” in the Russian hacking theory, presented no hard evidence. Yet many in the media have relied on it as proof ever since. Ray McGovern, another VIPS member and formerly the chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, called that intelligence assessment a “disgrace” to the profession.

The VIPS report also notes that the timing of events is strangely favorable to Hillary Clinton. It is hard to disagree. 

On June 12, 2016, Julian Assange announced that he would publish documents related to Clinton’s campaign on WikiLeaks. Two days later, Crowdstrike, the firm paid by the DNC, suddenly announced the discovery of malware on DNC servers and claimed it had evidence that the Russians were responsible for it. This set in motion the narrative for Russian hacking.

A day after that, Guccifer appeared, took responsibility for the purported June 14 hack and announced that he was a WikiLeaks source, working on behalf of Russia. He then posted the documents which VIPS now claims were altered to make them appear more “Russian.”

On July 5, two weeks later, Guccifer claimed responsibility for another hack which the VIPS report categorically states can only have been a leak, based on the speed of data transfer. 

As Lawrence suggests, this timing was convenient for the Clinton campaign, which could avoid dealing with the contents of the leaks by instead focusing on the sensational story of Russian hacking.

Since we’ve covered what is in the VIPS report, it is equally important to note what this report does not do. It does not claim to know who the leaker was or what his or her motives were. 

Lawrence is also careful to note that these findings do not prove or disprove any other theories implicating Russia in the 2016 election (such as possible Russian connections to Donald Trump’s family and associates, etc.). This deals purely with the facts surrounding the DNC hack/leak last summer.

Many who have questioned the official version of events have sought to link the murder of Seth Rich to the theory that the DNC suffered a leak, not a hack. Rich, a 27-year-old DNC employee, was shot twice in the back as he walked home from a bar in Washington, five days after the supposed July 5 hack of the DNC’s servers. 

Numerous unproven theories have surrounded Rich’s murder. There are those who suggest that Rich had been angered by the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders, decided to leak information which would be damaging to Clinton’s campaign, and was then murdered by Democratic operatives. Others have claimed that perhaps Rich had found evidence of Russian hacking and was murdered by Russian operatives. 

There is no evidence for any of these theories — and neither VIPS nor Lawrence in his article attempt to link Rich’s murder to the hack/leak of information from the DNC. (Washington police have said since the night of Rich’s death that he was the victim of an armed robbery attempt that went wrong.) Nonetheless, the emergence of this information may lend credence to those theories for those who want to believe them.

Instead of subjecting the various accounts of what happened last summer to rigorous scrutiny, the media instantly accepted the narrative promoted by the Clinton campaign and U.S. intelligence agencies. It has continued to do so ever since. Now, as new information comes to light, the media has largely acted as if it did not exist.

For the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss the information presented in Lawrence’s article as lacking in evidence would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative to suit themselves and absolve Clinton of any responsibility for losing the election.

The authors of this report are highly experienced and well-regarded professionals. That they can be dismissed out of hand or ignored entirely is a sad commentary on the state of the media, which purports to be concerned by the plague of “fake news.”

If these new findings are accurate, those who pushed the Russia hacking narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for. The Clinton campaign promoted a narrative that has pushed U.S.-Russia relations to the brink at an incredibly dangerous time.

Unlike the cacophony of anonymous sources cited by the media over the past year, these experts are ready to put their names to their assertions. They expect that pundits, politicians and the media will cast doubt on their findings, but say they are “prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.” That is more than any other investigators or intelligence agencies have offered to this point.

Given the seriousness of this new information, the DNC’s official response to The Nation’s story is so lackluster it is almost laughable
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.
The clear implication here is that anyone who questions what U.S. intelligence agencies “have concluded” is a conspiracy theorist pushing lies on behalf of Trump or Vladimir Putin. It is clear that the DNC expect the matter to be left at that, with no further inquiry from the media or anyone else.

By the looks of things, that’s exactly what will happen."

"Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist, writing mostly on geopolitics and media. She is based in Budapest, but has also lived in the U.S., Germany and Russia. Follow her on Twitter."


Among comments at


"Oscar James ·
Sydney, Australia 

The VIPs have been discredited numerous times. Their only success was saying Iraq had no WMD but Blind Freddy knew that. Danielle Ryan is very disengenous as she ignores many facts. Why is Salon running such a fact free article? Disappointing."


"Larry Uebbing ·
The entire DNC 'hack' or 'leak' has become irrelevant. What is relevant is the indisputable truth that people in the Trump campaign were willing to hook up with the Russians in an attempt to discredit their opponent. They have admitted it, it is cut and dried. The whole DNC thing was never of any real importance. What is relevant is that many in the WH are willing to align themselves with self proclaimed Nazis, people who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, which is illegal and unprotected speech. There is so much more. The DNC fiasco is nothing and should be forgotten."

"Kip Wargo ·
Cleveland State University 

Thats exactly as I see it. Its not the leak that bothers me , which I see as a DNC failure to protect its info, but the actual actions of the Trump campain to work with the Russians to get and utilize the stolen info. 

I think its all about money. That is why we never saw Trumps tax returns. I also wonder how many lies does Trump have to make before his supporters renounce him? The list of lies seems endless to me."


Tuesday, August 15, 2017

In Jan. 2017 Charlottesville was declared the capital of Trump resistance including considering making it a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. Organized riots are being used to transform the country, to essentially take it over, making it look like they're representative of popular opinion. It's a great scam with complicit media-Rush Limbaugh

"These protests, these riots are all organized and have become strategic. They are tools the American using to basically transform the country, to take it over, making it look like they are nothing more than than the representatives of the popular opinion of the country. It's one of the greatest scams  that we’ve seen being run. The media is complicit and makes it happen....I never heard of this Alt-Right, by the way, until sometime late last year. And when I was first asked what it is, I didn’t know. I couldn’t answer it. I don't know what the Alt-Right is. It seems the left has defined the Alt-Right as white supremacists and Nazis, so forth and so on." 

8/15/17, "Charlottesville Was an Organized Crisis Democrats Didn’t Let Go to Waste," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: I think the mayor of Charlottesville took a page out of the book from the mayor from Baltimore....Remember where she said — what was her phrase? Give them space. Give them room so they can get it out of their system, give them space.

Look, the police were ordered to stand down in Charlottesville. Somebody wanted that to happen, folks. The police were told to stand down. The police are saying, “No, no, no, no. We were retreating to go get our riot gear.” Well, why didn’t you show up in riot gear? If you retreated to get the riot gear, why didn’t you come back with the riot gear on if that’s where you went?” They were ordered to stand down.

I'll tell you something else. I think all of this is organized, folks. I think Terry McAuliffe, in fact, was trying to use this whole episode to launch his presidential bid and he botched it because he doesn’t have that big ability to get noticed. I mean, this is a pretty big deal. This is what Democrats do. This is what Clinton, Oklahoma City bombing launched the rebirth of his presidency. The Democrats see a crisis and found out how they can benefit from it while making people think they’re trying to fix it or solve it. And I think McAuliffe was doing the same thing.

Remember Rahm Emanuel, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste? I think not so much there are people that wanted this to happen but knew it was going to and so let’s see if we can milk it. And in order to milk it, it had to happen. And in order for it to happen, the police have to stay out of it. As the NYPD said, “It wouldn’t have had have happened here. We wouldn’t have let these two groups get within eyesight of each other. And we certainly wouldn’t let some renegade car enter this whole scene.” Somebody wanted it to happen, or somebody knew it was gonna happen and didn’t want it to stop because they wanted to try to capitalize on it.

RUSH: Look, if I didn’t have this every day — this microphone — I’d be as hog-tied, frustrated as you are. And I am. I am. I just I acknowledging I have an outlet for it here. But, folks, all of this — this is all organized, and it isn’t anything new. The same people that rallied after Hurricane Katrina are this bunch. The same people were in Ferguson. They’re the same people that rallied in Oakland. These are the same people that have been around for at least since the Bush administration protests.

Occupy Wall Street. It’s the same bunch of people, just moving from protest to protest and march to match. It’s the same bunch of people. Now they do have their true believers, don’t misunderstand. I mean, there’s plenty of poisoned-minded college kids out there who have been brainwashed and literally poisoned with hate for their country, and they’re there. But I’m telling you, the organization for this is the same. It’s being done on purpose.

It’s not spontaneous. It’s being done on purpose. It is reported as though it’s all spontaneous. It’s reported as though, “Everything was peaceful and everything was tranquil — until some people decided to march in Charlottesville to oppose the tearing down of the Robert E. Lee statue, and that is what ignited the flame.” That’s the exact opposite of how this is all happening. It’s the left that is thoroughly organized and bought and paid for and is essentially on call, if you will.
They are on standby. Few people would probably know that or acknowledge it, even if told, because the way it’s reported makes it all look spontaneous...

It’s reported as though it is a national outrage! “The people of America are beside themselves at the idea we need to preserve American history! The American people cannot stand the idea that there’s a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere, and they side with the leftist protesters that want to take them down.” That’s the way it gets reported. You’re being lied to — we’re all being lied to — every minute of every day in the form of what they tell us is news, which is really just the narrative that is the advancement of the leftist agenda.

RUSH: By the way, folks, Hillary Clinton has just given $800,000 from her campaign fund to the Trump resistance movement, which is what’s funding all of these rent-a-thugs. It’s all a left-wing movement, and it’s all organized.

RUSH:...Peter Beinart in The Atlantic magazine had a story before Charlottesville happened, and it’s all about the danger of the violence that’s coming from the American left today. 

I’m stunned that The Atlantic ran it, but again they ran it before Charlottesville happened....

There’s another piece here about: “Think Things Will Be Rosy for Democrats in 2018? Not So Fast.” Dan Balz in the Washington Post. This is also an interesting piece, and it’s along the lines of the piece that ran in November of 2011 when the Democrats acknowledged they’re getting rid of white working-class voters.

But I want to get back to Charlottesville here on the theme we had earlier that the mayor played a role in the police department there standing down. The Washington Free Beacon is reporting that the Virginia state police say they were not outgunned in Charlottesville despite Terry McAuliffe’s claim.

Now, I just want to reiterate a theory of mine. I’m not suggesting that any of these people made this happen or orchestrated the event. 

I think they knew it was gonna happen and sought to capitalize on it. I think it’s why the police were told to stand down. Terry McAuliffe wants to be president. He’s thinking of seeking the Democrat presidential nomination for 2020. And I think he was gonna launch his candidacy from this event. He tried to, and the fact that you haven’t heard about it is an indication how poorly he did and how badly it went.

But it’s right out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook: Never let a good crisis go to waste. I’ve been saying since yesterday, in any of these events, you ask yourself who benefits? There’s always a benefit here, because this is organized, these protests, these riots are all organized and have become strategic. They are tools that the American left, the Democrat Party is using to basically transform the country, to essentially take it over, making it look like they are nothing more than the representatives of the popular opinion of the country.

It’s one of the greatest scams that we’ve seen being run. The media is complicit and makes it happen. Terry McAuliffe in the aftermath, in order to explain why didn’t the cops do anything? Why did the cops stand down? It’s a big deal. And McAuliffe came out and said, “Well, the riot cops and the state police were outmanned, they were outgunned. I mean, these Nazis and these white supremacists, they had military grade ammo and weapons.” Really?

Well, it’s what McAuliffe told the New York Times Sunday. He said the right-wing protesters had better equipment than the state police and that that accounted for part of the reason police took what critics have decried as a hands-off approach. McAuliffe said, “Hey, it’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this. Eighty percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. You saw the militia walking down the street. You would have thought they were an army. I was just talking to the state police upstairs. They had better equipment than our state police had. And yet not a shot was fired, zero property damage.”...

So...The Nazis and the white supremacists were a militia. And they had better weapons than the state police. Now, wait a minute. All of a sudden Democrats likes Terry McAuliffe are saying the police are not sufficiently armed? I thought the Democrat Party was the party that believed the police were vicious, mean, racist pigs. I thought the Democratic Party thought the problem was that the cops have guns and that there’s too much militarization going on in police forces. But now all of a sudden Terry McAuliffe wants more of that.

Terry McAuliffe, the governor, wants the police to be more militarized. Well, that’s not what they were saying after Ferguson and Baltimore. So why have they changed their tune?
Anyway, this is not true anyway. There weren’t any firearms visible in any of these video clips that we’ve seen and some of the still shots. The idea that the white supremacist nationalists and the Nazis had semiautomatic weapons and were more deeply armed than the state police? That’s just a bit of a stretch.

And from the Associated Press.Experts: Police Response Inadequate at Charlottesville Rally. So this theme is picking up....This is a story from August 14th....It’s from The Daily Caller. 

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer declared the city the ‘capital of the resistance’ at a rally held in January following the election of President Donald Trump.”...So the mayor of Charlottesville, guy by the name of Mike Signer, said that Charlottesville is the capital of the resistance.

He said this in public at a rally in January after Trump was inaugurated. Signer — maybe he pronounces it Signer. I don’t know....I just haven’t heard it pronounced and it looks like it’s Signer, Signer. If I’m mispronouncing it, please don’t be distracted by that.

Signer organized the rally to announce his plans to ‘resist’ the Trump administration by providing legal assistance to immigrants and directing the Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission to address reports of xenophobia or racism.

This is right after Trump’s inaugurated. Look at what this mayor is already presuming. Charlottesville’s Human Rights Commission to address reports of xenophobia or racism? He also said “he was considering violating federal law by making Charlottesville a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegal immigrants
“The rally was reportedly attended by hundreds of citizens as well Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim American soldier died in combat in Iraq, who chastised Trump for his proposed Muslim immigration ban in a speech at the Democratic National Convention.”

I’m telling you, folks, all this is organized. The mayor of Charlottesville has been getting ready for this ever since Trump was inaugurated. “January 31st, 2017, Charlottesville mayor holds rally to declare city capital a resistance.” That’s from the NBC affiliate WVIR. So don’t doubt me on this one.

And then we have another story. This is a flashback from The Daily Caller: How Obama Handled Racial Nationalist Attack.” And this is about the Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas where an avowed black nationalist murdered five police officers during a Black Lives Matter demonstration
“The act of violence was well-planned and was motivated entirely by the hate-filled ideology of the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson. 

With several officers dead by the hand of a committed black nationalist, one might think the Obama administration may have considered the assassinations domestic terror and launched an investigation into groups associated with this ideology.”

But he didn’t. He did condemn the shootings, but he did not call out or even allude to the hateful views of the shooter....You know how Obama dealt with the murder of five Dallas cops?...He blamed “powerful weapons” for the violence. Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, “exploited the tragedy to push for gun control and praise the cause of Black Lives Matter. No mention of Johnson’s ideology or ‘hate’ in was made in her statement.”

Now, Trump and his team have been urged to speak out against the so-called Alt-Right from the get-go. I never heard of this Alt-Right, by the way, until sometime late last year. And when I was first asked what it is, I didn’t know. I couldn’t answer it. I don’t know what the Alt-Right is. It seems to me the left has defined the Alt-Right as white supremacists and Nazis, so forth and so on."  

Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"


'I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects thrown at them, punched, kicked, even robbed of their personal belongings. I observed victims running for their lives. It became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a T-shirt or hat in support of Trump.' Peaceful, unarmed Trump supporters were forced to 'run for their lives' trying to get to their cars after Trump rally, per San Jose Police report June 2016. One police officer was injured by rioter throwing metal barricade at him-Mercury News, 6/8/2016

San Jose Police "officers held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers....Due to the crowd size and volatility, officers (both uniform and plain clothes) were unable to help most victims."

June 8, 2016, "Trump supporters were 'running for their lives' after San Jose rally, police report says," San Jose Mercury News, Mark Gomez, San Jose

6/2/2016, San Jose Calif., parking garage ambush, photo Merc. News

"Two undercover police officers at a Donald Trump rally last week said they saw Trump supporters “get punched, kicked and pushed” and “running for their lives,” according to a police report.

The plainclothes officers said they did not intervene for fear their own safety would be jeopardized as the estimated 400 protesters developed a “mob mentality.”

The officers’ observations were included in the arrest report of Antonio Moses Fernandez, 19, of San Jose, who is accused of throwing a metal barrier into a police skirmish line following the Trump rally June 2 outside the San Jose Convention Center. Fernandez made his first court appearance Tuesday and was charged with felony assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer, according to court documents.

Fernandez hung up the phone Wednesday when reached by this newspaper. He could face a sentence of five years in prison if convicted on the felony assault with a deadly weapon charge, according to the prosecutors.

“When there’s an assault on a police officer, we don’t have any tolerance for that,” prosecutor Chris Boscia said. 

So far Fernandez is the only person to be criminally charged stemming from the violence that erupted outside Trump’s rally last week. Three other people were also arrested the day of the rally, including Ahmed Abdirahman, 19, of Santa Clara, and Robert Trillo, 18, both on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon, and Michael Kitaigorodsky, 19, of San Jose, on suspicion of refusal to disperse.

Three juveniles were also arrested, police said Wednesday. A 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, both of San Jose, were arrested for felony assault with a deadly weapon. A 16-year-old Milpitas resident was arrested for misdemeanor battery. Their names were not released because they are minors. The attacks were seen in television reports. 

Details about what led to the other arrests have not been made public. Police on Wednesday afternoon released images of another assault suspect they are seeking. 

The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office said Wednesday morning it is reviewing case files in the arrests of Trillo and Kitaigorodsky. If charged, the two men may not make their first court appearance until Aug. 2. Prosecutors were still waiting Wednesday morning to receive the police report in the Abdirahman case.

One of the undercover officers wrote that he was “monitoring protesters from within the crowd” and estimated there were 250 protesters gathered behind barricades at 6 p.m., about one hour before Trump’s scheduled arrival. That number grew as the evening wore on.

As the crowd grew, the officer noted that “it became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a T-shirt or hat in support of Trump. I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked and even robbed of their personal belongings
In these instances, I observed victims running for their lives. 

A second undercover officer reported seeingseveral individuals wearing Trump articles of clothing get punched, kicked and pushed. Due to the crowd size and volatility, officers (both uniform and plain clothes) were unable to help most victims.”

Just after 8 p.m. police issued an order for the crown to disperse. At 9:10 p.m. the undercover officers witnessed Fernandez throw a metal barricade into officers dressed in full riot gear. One officer was injured after being hit by the barricade, according to the report.

The undercover officers say they witnessed Fernandez pick up a second barrier and then put it down. One witnessed Fernandez remove his shirt and use it to cover his face. One of the undercover officers eventually tackled Fernandez and held him down until uniformed officers arrived to make the arrest. During a police interview, Fernandez denied throwing the barrier into the police line. 

In the face of critics who charge police did little to protect Trump supporters, Police Chief Eddie Garcia has defended his officers’ handling of the protest. Garcia insisted that it was more important for police to hold their “skirmish line” formations than to stop individual attacks. 

“We are not an ‘occupying force’ and cannot reflect the chaotic tactics of the protesters,” Garcia told reporters. Unless a victim’s life was in peril or the violence was “spiraling out of control,” he said, officers held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers. He also said the 250 police weren’t enough to control about 400 protesters. 

Following the rally several videos appeared on various social media sites and captured some of the attacks. 

A police task force is reviewing video evidence of the assaults and other possible crimes from the protest. Monday the police department announced more arrests were “imminent,” but so far no additional arrests have been announced.

San Jose police are asking anyone with information about physical assaults at the Trump rally or videos of the violence to contact their Assaults Unit at 408-277-4161 or leave a tip with Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers at 408-947-STOP (7867) or" image from Mercury News


Adam Carter addresses NY Magazine hit piece on The Nation article presenting information on 2016 DNC email release that's been ignored or underreported to date-Adam Carter

New York Mag. author Feldman's tweet says The Nation article is "unhinged," "no one is allowed to share this article anymore, I'm the last one." Feldman offers to be Ministry of Truth. 

Aug. 12, 2017, "The First Attack Dog Steps Forward - New York Magazine (10 Aug 2017)," by Adam Carter,

"New York Magazine Has A Glitch

On Monday, 10 August, 2017, Brian Feldman, writing for New York Magazine, wrote a hostile review of an article featured in The Nation regarding new research, underreported evidence and analysis that, until recently, had apparently been given no attention by the mainstream press, intelligence agencies, or intelligence committees (even though one of the major discoveries referenced was made at the beginning of the year, almost 6 months ago).
There are actually some legitimate reasons to criticize the article in The Nation, however, unfortunately for Feldman, he only mentions these minor flaws in passing and instead appears to opt for building strawman arguments, misrepresenting what was written through tactical omission and attacking the character of Patrick Lawrence.

Feldman's Folly 

This was foolish, because, if he had attacked the inaccuracies surrounding the "locked file" statements and sought to make a substantive argument against it, he'd have been on solid ground. 

Fortunately, he's chosen to do something different which gives me the chance to clear up any misconceptions caused (that, again, are relatively trivial and make no difference to the ultimate conclusions about the validity of Guccifer 2.0's claims to be a hacker):

THE FACTS: Forensicator did NOT have a "key" to unlock anything that was "locked" in any literal sense and nothing was "cracked". The NGP-VAN archive he analyzed was publicly available and it's password publicly known in September of 2016. 

This is the only thing in Lawrence's article that I spotted that was significantly different to the circumstances I'm aware of (and it's inconsequential to the evidence, analysis and conclusions made in any of the research carried out that Lawrence references in his article). 

Which Controversial People Are Tweeting About It? 

Feldman's article starts by introducing the article in the context of who is tweeting about it, picking Kim Dotcom, Jack Posobiec and Nick Short as his examples for some reason.

This in itself look like an effort to create perceptions based on association to the subject through conflation before the subject is even explained to an audience.

(A composition/division logical fallacy in use, attempting to create "guilt by association" to those Feldman's audience is likely to have a dim view of) 

Misrepresenting Goals and Purpose

Feldman proceeds to do what appears to be introducing the topic, however, he's actually setting up a false argument and priming the reader with an assumption that certain goals are being aimed at when they're not. 

"Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality."

Here, Feldman writes about proving whether the DNC emails were leaked by an insider or the Russians.

That's actually irrelevant to the research and analysis that Lawrence references in his article (that primarily focuses on the validity of the attribution placed on the Guccifer 2.0 persona
supposedly being a GRU/FSB/Kremlin-linked operative). Feldman misrepresents the goals of the article, VIPS' interest and the goal of the researchers/analysts that all of this relates to. 


He then tries to dismiss Lawrence's article based on how it fails to fulfil an objective Feldman has introduced (as opposed to the fact Guccifer 2.0 was a phony, which is what is really being explained): 

"But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank," 

...and as a result of it not achieving a goal that Feldman has inserted via the previous paragraph, he uses this to justify calling Lawrence a "crank". To me this looks a lot like weak justification to use the most basic of propaganda devices, name-calling. 

Degrading Perceived Validity and Misrepresenting Arguments 

Now we proceed to Feldman misrepresenting arguments and the basis of them... 

Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet.

We see "beliefs" and "claims" but this is misleading, it's not about believing someone, the primary source data is available in a couple of torrent files (in the public domain since September 2016 in files that are accessed through a protocol that validates the integrity of the data). The datasets that Forensicator produced from the archive contents can be regenerated by others and every step of the process up to the conclusions being reached has been checked over by several independent third parties. 

What's worse is the omission here. Feldman has omitted the fact that in Lawrence's article it is explained that the transfer speeds, at that time, would have been impossible
to get when transferring the files over long distances, even specifically mentioning "transoceanic" to clarify the context. 

These are important qualifiers and Feldman completely omits these in the version he gives to his readers to give himself an argument he can actually dismiss rather than those actually being presented in Lawrence's article. 

The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection.

No, they don't claim that it's impossible to get those speeds over the Internet, that's a misrepresentation through omission of the qualifiers that were provided in Lawrence's article and willfully omitted by Feldman. It seems that Feldman doubles down immediately in an effort to hammer his distortions into the minds of his readers (who are starting to look like victims of manipulation at this stage).

Misrepresenting Evidence, Further Omissions and Criticizing A Misrepresented Claim 

If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

1. The premise that Feldman is demanding evidence for and that he injected earlier in the article has nothing to do with the primary assertions covered in Lawrence's article.

2. It's NOT the strongest evidence showing that Guccifer 2.0 was a fake and Feldman has seen fit to omit that from his article too.

3. The only reason the claim is "bizarre" is because Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence's article, so, while Feldman's misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.

It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. 

I suspect Lawrence was trying to explain things in terms that don't require a high degree of technical knowledge to understand and get the gist of. Handily, Feldman gives me an example to demonstrate this to be the case with:

As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. 

I'll explain:

Instead of just looking at timestamps ("metadata" / "top layer of metadata") of the files, Forensicator recorded timestamps of all files collectively, ordered everything by timestamp sequence, calculated relative differences and subsequently identified the transfer speeds involved from the derivative data set ("layer beneath").

Another part of the "layer beneath" comes from looking at timestamp resolutions, something not easily spotted unless you're looking for a sequence of timestamps that are rounded up to the nearest two seconds (or where you can see the microseconds of the timestamps to establish their resolution) - this pattern is an indication of FAT filesystem usage, something that is rarely seen except for where USB storage devices are used. (FAT disk partitions are a possibility but they're a technology that was starting to become redundant 20 years ago!)

Forensicator also went further to analyse gaps in transfer operations to determine the size of the original batch of files (of which the NGP-VAN archive's contents appear to only be a sub-set a fraction of the size).

Furthermore, he analyzed timestamp timezone formats and determined that file transfer operations were all carried out in the Eastern time zone. (Meta data integrity is given a lot of consideration in the research that Forensicator has done, some of which I've explained on a recent article I wrote recapping what has been discovered over the last 6 months.)

These are effectively all the hidden "layers" (derivative data and data that is typically concealed or unnoticed by people browsing through the files) that I believe Lawrence was trying to give a less jargon-filled explanation of. 


Feldman uses a combination of strategic deceptions, misrepresents what he's arguing against, constructs strawman arguments and makes use of propaganda-devices in what, really, is a relatively short article. - in short, what he's done, is just produce a disgracefully sleazy hit-piece."


Added: Disobedient Media article referencing Adam Carter analysis above:

8/13/17, "New York Magazine Attacks The Nation for Questioning Russian Hacking Narrative,"  Elizabeth Vos, 

"A few days ago, New York Magazine published an article attacking Patrick Lawrence‘s coverage of new information from an anonymous analyst known as the Forensicator. Patrick Lawrence is a foreign correspondent at The Nation, the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America. His [8/9/17] article mentioned Disobedient Medias report on analysis published by the Forensicator which suggests that files published by Guccifer 2.0 had been copied locally, not hacked ["it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak"] which has serious implications for the Russian Hacking narrative and for the DNC.

The New York Magazine‘s coverage of the issue was disconcertingly inaccurate. They characterize the Forensicator as having claimed that DNC information must have been leaked by an insider. The New York Mag wrote: “Yesterday, The Nation published an article by journalist Patrick Lawrence purporting to demonstrate that last summer’s pivotal DNC hack was, in fact, an inside job.”

However, the Forensicator’s work only purports that the Guccifer 2.0 files were copied locally, and that the information was not hacked.

The Forensicator‘s work never attempts to positively identify the perpetrators of the DNC leak or the identity of Guccifer 2.0. The Forensicator‘s analysis simply shows in a methodical and precise manner who it could not have been; namely Russian hackers supposedly behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona. 

The author of the sardonic article, Brian Feldman, also took to Twitter to express his views on the subject:

In their coverage of this topic, The New York Mag ignores the voices of a well respected group of former intelligence officers known as VIPS, or Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who published a memorandum sent to President Trump that cited the Forensicator’s work. That the Foreniscator‘s findings were the starting point for a memorandum sent by experienced intelligence veterans such as Bill Binney, Ray McGovern and Skip Folden as well as many others, speaks to the significance of the Forensicator‘s work.

The New York Magazine dismissed these highly credentialed individuals, instead focusing on some of the individuals who had tweeted The Nation’s article, in order to somehow discredit the contents of the article by association. Such a dishonest framing device does not address the contents of the analysis in any way, and represents a small fraction of those who have reported on this important analysis. This intellectual dishonesty continues when Lawrence’s work is called “the extremely long-winded product of a crank.”

The sarcasm which drips from the entire piece by the New York Magazine seems to be intended as an attack on the reputation of the author, Patrick Lawrence, and the publication, The Nation. Mr. Feldman spends little to no time making coherent criticisms of the article’s content and its cited sources.

Fascinatingly, the New York Magazine article not only fails to substantively counter the Forensicator or VIPS’s conclusions, it also does not provide any substantive evidence that the DNC was hacked. The piece also neglects to mention that authorities have never analyzed the DNC servers, instead relying on the word of the private company Crowdstrike.

Disobedient Media previously reported  the analysis of Adam Carter, which suggested that the Guccifer 2.0 persona may have been perpetrated by Crowdstrike in concert with the DNC to pre-emptively smear any DNC information published by Wikileaks. Crowdstrike has notable connections to the Atlantic Council, a think tank sponsored in part by controversial financier George Soros.

Adam Carter also published a response to the New York Mag article earlier today, which delves into the line-by-line misrepresentations in the piece. Carter writes: “Feldman misrepresents the goals of the article, VIPS’ interest and the goal of the researchers/analysts that all of this relates to.”

Ray McGovern, a cofounder of VIPS, has appeared on RT to speak about the implications of the Forensicator’s analysis, in addition to appearances with LarouchePAC and others. 

Consortium News reported the memorandum published by VIPS, which corroborated some important aspects of the Forensicator’s analysis, and cited their work. Signatories on the document included William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military Analysis, Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst, and others, which are shown in full below, via the report by Consortium News."


Added: NY Mag article linked above

8/10/17, "The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk," NY Magazine, Brian Feldman




Sunday, August 13, 2017

Otherwise sensible people refuse to accept the meaning of Trump's victory. Trump is president because voters wanted change and neither political party was offering it. The Washington DC bureaucracy wants no change and isn't interested in what voters want-Michael Goodwin, NY Post

8/12/17, "DC hasn’t come to grips with Trump’s presidency," Michael Goodwin, NY Post, columnist 

"From warnings offire and fury” to declarations of “locked and loaded,” President Trump is dealing with the North Korean crisis his way. Naturally, heads are exploding all over Washington.

You can’t change the way things are done, the chin-strokers and gatekeepers shout hysterically! You have to follow the road most traveled!

Nearly seven months into Trump’s term, it’s not just the irredeemable haters who can’t accept the outcome of the election. 

Even otherwise-sensible people refuse to come to grips with the meaning of Trump’s victory.

Voters wanted change, but Washington doesn’t. And that clash of wants defines the endless war over the Trump presidency.

Now that clash revolves around the potential for an actual war, a nuclear one at that. Because the results would be catastrophic, it is worth recalling how we got to this moment of brinksmanship.

If you listen only to Trump’s critics, Kim Jong-un wasn’t bothering anybody until the president started making trouble. Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota actually charged that Kim is “acting more responsible” than Trump, a claim reinforced by the left-wing media echo chamber.

Perhaps Ellison, who is No. 2 at the Democratic National Committee, missed some of Kim’s threats and their significance now that he has nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland.

“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,” Kim has said.

After successfully testing an ICBM last July 4th, Kim said it was a “gift” to the “American bastards” and promised many more gifts. Other provocations include a state video showing North Korean nuclear missiles blowing up Washington, DC, and threats against South Korea and Japan. The latest was a vow to attack Guam. 

Given Kim’s warnings and his arsenal, the really odd thing isn’t that Trump is asserting American military supremacy and the willingness to use it if necessary. It’s that his predecessors didn’t. The three previous presidents over a combined 24 years — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — all followed near-identical paths, and all failed to stop the North Korean nuclear program.

All three used diplomacy as a euphemism for kicking the can down the road. And they kicked it all the way to Trump’s desk, with Obama, on his way out the door, reportedly telling Trump that Kim had nukes.

Thanks for nothing, pal.

Yet instead of recognizing those decades of failure for what they are and conceding that the situation has changed because the current Kim has weapons of mass destruction and the ability to strike American cities, the establishment is horrified that Trump would dare take a different approach.

Lost in the manufactured outrage over his comments is that Trump offered to meet Kim, and pushed China to rein in its client state. And that aides continue to conduct back-channel negotiations and talk of wanting to avoid war.

To concede those facts would muddy their jihad against the president.

Yet there is actually something worse than the assaults on Trump: It is the ultimate position of the other side. It was belatedly confessed by Susan Rice last week.

“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

Forget the false equivalency she establishes between the Soviets then and North Korea now. The bombshell is that Rice says it is OK for a madman to have nukes.

While it’s surprising she would admit such idiocy, the idea that she believes it isn’t exactly a shock. After all, that was the suspected bottom line of the Obama administration’s policies toward the nuclear programs of both North Korea and Iran.

Publicly, it opposed those programs, but privately, it obviously prepared to accept them. Now North Korea has achieved its nuclear and missile breakout, and Iran will, too, thanks to the running room it got under the cover of Obama’s flawed pact.

All the sophistry in the world can’t obscure the result: To wit, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize left the globe a far more dangerous place because of his leading-from-behind fecklessness. 

One of Obama’s legacies is that he didn’t stop the nuclear proliferation to two pariah states that both swear to eliminate America. 

And now, Rice, who calls Trump’s words “unprecedented and especially dangerous,” says he should get in line and play the same game as her boss. 

A popular definition of insanity comes to mind — “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” 

The entire episode is another example of the crisis of our democracy that led to Trump's victory. Is our sprawling government capable of reforming itself and confronting the urgent problems of national security and the economy?

Or is it so hopelessly hidebound and our politics so polarized that we can do nothing except tear ourselves apart — even as our adversaries vow to smash America into the dustbin of history?"


Comment: They don't accept that Trump won because they don't have to--they recently nullified the election. Both parties in congress voted near unanimous approval of Russian sanctions as punishment for Russia allegedly interfering in the Nov. 2016 election (evidence of which has never been provided). Congress also wrote rules preventing Trump from developing better relations with Russia on which he campaigned and which his voters wanted. This means the US government has been overthrown and Americans are slaves. It also provides proof if needed that so-called "gridlock" doesn't exist, both "parties" are on the same side. We may have elections, but they're like elections in Communist countries. You can rubber stamp them or not. The Deep State desperately wants war with Russia--paid for by US taxpayers. Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are prepared to watch the United States burn to the ground.   



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.