//
you're reading...
Politics, Uncategorized

Did the NSA lead a soft coup d’etat?


This article is being publish now in light of the recent article by The Nation, entitled:

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.

Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

By Patrick Lawrence, AUGUST 9, 2017

In this article, Lawrence reports how various experts from the intelligence community have clearly demonstrated how data was corrupted by the intelligence agencies themselves, in an attempt to implicate an outside party. The missing part to this is what entity might have motive to do such a thing?

I had written this article just post election and never published it for various personal and business reasons. However, I feel it is time to make it public, because I believe there was ample evidence for motive even 10 months ago.

Please read the Nation Article, and then read this one. Yes it is theory, but it is theory backed up with an awful lot of good evidence behind it. You will note that this article is rich with hyperlinks to various video and radio interviews as well as print journalism. If I recall correctly, at the time I was doing the research, there was at least 40 hrs of video interviews I had converted to text to make it easier to reference. I highly recommend accessing the linked material to get the broader meaning behind the short sentences which attempt to represent the large amount of information this article covers.

Did the NSA lead a soft coup d’etat
by Kristina Bruce

National-Security-Agency-NSA-surveillance-spying-800x430 NOV 9, 2016

Did a NSA Lead Soft Coup D’etat Hand Donald Trump the Election?

How the Deep State Changed the Course of the Election

Hillary Clinton had all but been crowned by the mainstream media as the heir apparent. Nearly every major publisher and news outlet in the country peddled the predicted hands down victory story right up until the 11th hour. Almost every poll in the country, including oddsmaker, Nate Silver, after running 20,000 simulations estimated a commanding lead. Silver, the statistician behind ESPN’s, FiveThirtyEight, who had successfully predicted the winner in each of 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2012, gave Hillary Clinton a hefty 71.4% chance of winning. According to Silver, she would likely receive 48.2% of the popular vote and a whopping 302 electoral votes. It seemed like an open and shut case. By 3 a.m. election night though, throughout most of the country, even those who voted for Donald Trump and the winner himself seemed stunned by the outcome. In his victory speech, surrounded by family, Trump was unusually subdued as was everyone else on the stage. It wasn’t the sort of celebration one would expect from the brash billionaire who’d just won the race for the most important political office on the planet.

What really happened here?

As has been the case since the release of supposedly “hacked” Democratic National Convention emails, the narrative from major media outlets is the Russian Government is to blame. Practically every talking head that mainstream T.V. shows and magazines rounded up have consistently pointed fingers at Vladimir Putin. Neither the FBI nor the NSA has given any real evidence of Russian involvement, only allusion, and innuendo that they provided thousands upon thousands of emails to WikiLeaks. So who, if not the Russians, handed WikiLeaks not only the DNC emails but those of longtime friend and Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta beginning October 7th,d and continuing in successive releases up to the election?

Possibly the term “hacked” is not the correct term to use for this dissemination of information? The word hacked implies that the information obtained was by those unauthorized to access the data. Unbeknownst to the average American, myriad agencies have access to not just this data, but ALL data. Just about any official with the right access could have obtained these files, but there is only one agency which holds the master key.

Is it possible that this information was rather “leaked” by those from within the NSA?

Enter William Binney, former Technical Leader for Intelligence at the NSA who believes that it is far more likely that this information was internally leaked by the NSA. You won’t be seeing him interviewed on the current topic by CNN or any other mainstream outlet. You would have to see, hear or read his commentary on some alternative news site if you’re ever to experience his views on this particular subject.

Binney is no run of the mill former NSA employee. He’s not some low-level technician like Edward Snowden. Binney spent 30 years with the agency and is one of the main architects of NSA surveillance. Back in the 1990’s, he founded a unit with research chief Dr. John Taggart which automated signals intelligence. He’s specialized in Russian intelligence, systems and traffic analysis, knowledge management and is a crypto-mathematician. Binney, described by J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA senior analyst awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service award as, “One of the best analysts in history.” William “Bill” Binney has over the years been interviewed on many security related topics by the mainstream media. He’s talked about his experiences at the NSA during 911, the collection and use of metadata by the department, domestic spying, leaks from within the Justice Department and many other topics, but you won’t be hearing about this. Back on July 31st of this year, Binney gave an exclusive radio interview to Aaron Klein, on the “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” broadcast on New York’s AM 970. None of the information or opinion that Binney expressed was ever picked up by any major news outlets though it should have been.

Binney contends that the NSA has the architecture in place to determine exactly who hacked the DNC and Clinton’s email server. According to him, the trail of evidence is easily accessible by the agency and should have revealed if an outside source was involved. If the Russians were to blame then it would have been logical for the FBI to produce evidence provided by the NSA implicating them.

Aaron Klein posed this question to Binney: “So to you, looking at this situation, if you had to just estimate here as an analyst who your best guess, what would be your best guess for who the hacker is, who Guccifer 2.0 is?”

Binney: “Well, let’s see, first of all in this situation, I was thinking about how many other people have this data and hacked into the DNC, as well as hacking into Hillary’s server at home and of course I go back to a statement made by Director Mueller of the FBI back in 30th of March of 2011 when he was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee (video), he said as one of the things they were doing to help stop a future Fort Hood, that is a terrorist internally getting radicalized in the U.S. and then killing people, and he said he got together with the Department of Defense and they created a technology database where he, as a member of the FBI, could go in with one query and get all past emails and all future ones as they came in on a person. Now what he is talking about is going into the NSA database which is shown of course in the third material release that shows a direct access into the NSA database by FBI and CIA, which there is no oversight of, by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of other agencies in the U.S. Government also have those emails. So if the FBI really wanted them they could go into that database and get them right now. And the other point is, Hillary, according to an article published by The Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised GAMMA (a sub-category of Sensitive Compartmented Information) material. Now that’s the most sensitive material at NSA. There were a number of NSA officials who were complaining to the press, or the people who wrote the article, that she did that. The material that was in her emails was lifted directly out of GAMMA reporting, so that’s a direct compromise of the most sensitive material of the NSA, so she’s got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past, so I don’t necessarily look at the Russians as the only one who got into those emails. I mean after all, whoever looked at the DNC server didn’t go through the network log which shows all the people going into and out of every transaction going across the network. They didn’t, as far as I know, look into that and see if there weren’t others, how many other people were trying to hack in, how many people successfully hacked in and so on. All of that is recorded in the network log. So as far as I’m concerned, those people haven’t done a thorough job. That’s what the FBI has to go in and do and find out how many other people have that. So until they do that, we really don’t know.”

Klein then asks Binney: “So, just extrapolating, using logic here, has it been logical to estimate that the NSA has all of Hillary’s emails?”

Binney: “Yes, that would be my point. They have them all and the FBI could get them right there. The other point I would add here is that from the reporting I have seen anyway, the attack that the Russian hackers used was a known attack.

If you have a service like the services that sell the different protective software, they update that periodically, so I mean why weren’t they able to protect them against a known attack? That’s just very sloppy security.”

Klein: “But you’re saying though that you believe that the NSA has all of Hillary’s emails, that’s clear.”

Binney: “Yes.”

Klein: “In an NBC interview, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, he said, “There is no proof whatsoever, he says, that Russian intelligence provided the emails and now we have Edward Snowden weighing in. He tweeted here, I’m reading Edward Snowden’s tweet on the hacked DNC emails, “Evidence that could publically attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at the NSA. Even if its hackers try to obfuscate the origin,” Edward Snowden writes, “XKeyscore makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally” he wrote, “against Chinese ops.” In other words, what he is saying is it seems that the NSA has the technical capability to go back and to trace it seems this data for essentially where the hack came from. Is this correct, does the NSA have this capability to basically find out exactly who hacked the DNC?”

Binney: “Yes that’s right. I mean that’s why I was telling you about in the network log, it tells you who, see every time if you’re in a network, if you click the mouse key or type in some instructions and hit the carriage return, that sends a line of code down the network. Well that gets logged and recorded in the network log, as to who it’s coming from, where it’s going to and then in the instructions of course that send down to download things or read things that carries the return address, so all those addresses and exchanges are in the network log and that’s what Snowden is talking about. You can go into that log and see every transaction. I used to do that when I had a network. I would go into the network log after I gave a technology brief or something and I would see who would come into my network and what they were looking at, how long they stayed, where they went and what they did while they were there and you could easily do that through that network log. That’s what these people who supposedly looked for the attacks on the DNC were supposed to do but I guess they did something then said that, here was this known hack from Russian hackers but I mean there are other kinds of hackers. The governments would do it like for example, if we were to do it with the Iranians we would do something that was totally different like the Stuxnet thing where you couldn’t trace it back to the U.S. Government, so I assume that the Russian Government if they were going to do something like that they would do something different than a known attack. I mean a known attack would get back to them directly and that’s I guess what the DNC is trying to infer. I mean there are major connections there between the hackers in Russia, with the Russian hackers and the Russian Government and there is also a disconnect in terms of proving that they actually forwarded the emails to WikiLeaks. I mean there are a lot of questions that haven’t been answered that are all recorded in the network log.”

So now we know that practically every Alphabet Soup Agency had access to, not just the DNC server, but also Clinton and Podesta’s files. That’s an awful lot of people with access to a tremendous amount of information.

Now let’s go just a bit further into what kind of motive one of these agencies might have for exposing Hillary Clinton. All three sources of the leaked information have placed Clinton in a very poor light and may have led to the deterioration of her Presidential hopes. Who would want a reversal of public sentiment to prevent her Presidency and why? Binney gives more clues in an August 5, 2016 interview with Alex Jones.

Jones: “William Binney, in closing, specifically on Hillary, I know you’re nonpartisan, but a woman that would have a secret server, lie about it, be caught, get away with it, all the foreign interests, I am so concerned about blackmail, think of what we don’t know, any other data on the issue or the fact that the NSA has her emails?”

Binney: “Well, I think the NSA certainly has a motive to not want to deal with her very simply because she exposed what is called GAMMA material in NSA and that’s basically the most sensitive data that they work with. It’s very compartmented and very restricted knowledge. They had several officials of NSA talking openly to reporters from the Observer for their article back in March of this year, talking about this GAMMA material, lifted directly out of GAMMA reporting, whole paragraphs and plugged into her email. Well, these emails are passed around to people who aren’t cleared and managed by people who aren’t cleared and put on servers that aren’t secure and so this basically compromised the fact that we were reading certain systems. The last GAMMA program that I remember being compromised was by Jack Anderson in 1971 and he compromised the fact that we were reading the encrypted phones in the limousines of all the leadership in the Soviet Union, Brezhnev, Kosygin and all of them. Once he compromised that, that all stopped and went away, but it also gave away a lot of the technical capacity. So much of an implication in terms of the ability for NSA to proceed and work and actually have and produce intelligence. You can’t have leaders who do that kind of thing. I mean, you just can’t. They’ll cripple your entire intelligence program.”

Jones: “Any other points, you’re just bottom line saying, look the NSA has Hillary’s emails, well why don’t we just call for a lawsuit or something, I mean these are public emails. The FBI wants them, can’t we just call for the FBI, should we call for the FBI to ask the NSA to release them?”

Binney: “You see, the FBI doesn’t have to ask them, they already have access to them.”

Jones: “So it’s not just the DEA that has access, it’s the FBI?”

Binney: ”it’s more than that. Here, the DEA specifically has a special unit, the Special Operations Division, the SOD, and it composed members of the DHS, the CIA, FBI, NSA of course, and IRS. So all of those people have direct access into this data.”

Add to this the fact that non-governmental Clinton insiders possessed highly classified GAMMA information. From a Sept. 6, 2016 article, EmailGate and the Mystery of the Missing GAMMA, published by Observer:

“Which leads to a troubling matter: What the FBI did not mention in its big data dump on EmailGate.

As I told you in this column back in January, Hillary emails included very highly classified intelligence from NSA. In early June 2011, the secretary of state received a long email from her longtime friend and factotum Sid Blumenthal regarding Sudan. This was an astonishingly detailed assessment of high-level political and military machinations in that country, specifically inside information about coup plotting.

This explosive information was timely and deep in the weeds on Sudanese happenings. It’s difficult to see how Blumenthal—a lawyer and Washington fixer, no sort of Africa hand or James Bond—got his hands on such juicy intelligence. As I’ve noted, “Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.” How did Sid obtain this amazing scoop for Hillary?

Not to mention that, in terms of verbiage and format, Blumenthal’s email read exactly like classified NSA reporting, as anybody acquainted with our SIGINT would immediately recognize. As one veteran agency official told me back in January, Blumenthal’s email was NSA information with “at least 90 percent confidence.”
Which was no coincidence, since an NSA investigation subsequently determined that Blumenthal’s Sudan assessment was derived from their reporting—in some cases verbatim. As I reported in March, NSA concluded that Blumenthal’s Sudan report came from four different agency SIGINT reports, all classified Top Secret/SCI. Then it got worse:
At least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

NSA had no doubt that Blumenthal somehow got his hands on some of their “crown jewels” information. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” an agency official of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret/SCI. To add to the mystery, Sid emailed Hillary his “personal” assessment on Sudan only hours after some of those classified NSA reports were issued.”

The NSA can be none too happy about this even if the FBI chose not to divulge the information. An earlier article by John R. Schneider at Observer, reported on January 9, 2016, explained that this top-secret information was given little attention in the U.S. press although it sent hairs standing on end around the rest of the world.

“But the biggest problem may be in a just-released email that has gotten little attention here, but plenty on the other side of the world. An email to Ms. Clinton from a close Clinton confidant late on June 8, 2011 about Sudan turns out to have explosive material in it. This message includes a detailed intelligence report from Sid Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend, confidant and factotum, who regularly supplied her with information from his private intelligence service. His usual source was Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA senior official and veteran spy-gadfly, who conveniently died just before EmailGate became a serious problem for Hillary’s campaign.”

“Remarkably, the report emailed to Hillary by “sbwhoeop,” which was Mr. Blumenthal’s email handle, explains how Sudan’s government devised a clandestine plan, in coordination with two rebel generals, to secure control of oil reserves in the disputed region of Abyei. This is juicy, front-page stuff, straight out of an action movie, about a region of Africa that’s of high interest to the American and many other governments, and the report is astonishingly detailed.”

Julian Assange denies Russian involvement in published documents.

Shortly after the DNC Convention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in an exclusive interview with RT News stated:

“In the U.S. media there has been a conflation between DNC “leaks”, which is what we have been publishing, and DNC “hacks” of the U.S. Democratic Party; which have occurred over the last two years by their own admission a number of times. Ok, so that’s the circumstantial evidence that some Russian was involved, or someone who wanted to make it look like a Russian was involved with these other media organizations. That’s not the case for the material that we released.”

He went on to add regarding the military coup in Turkey, July of this year:

“One of the key independent points of evidence not coming from interrogation in Turkey, where people may have been placed under duress, is that in the middle of the coup, NBC published that Erdogan was on his way to Germany to seek asylum, and they say that this was told to them by a U.S. military source. So what the hell is going on there? Because it went all the way around the world, and was used to further the chance of the success of the coup within Turkey. Because if the President has fled, he’s lost control.”

The Gulen Movement, blamed by the Turkish government as being responsible for the coup, is known to be a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had extensive contact with Gulenist, Gokhan Ozkok, who facilitated through her several meetings for members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference with President Obama. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have had long and extensive ties with Imam Fetullah Gulen and one of his many fronts, The Turkish Cultural Center of New York. After the coup, Turkey officially requested that Gulen, living in exile in rural Pennsylvania, be extradited to Turkey. Those requests were denied.

How then did the NSA come to be in possession of so much data?

It should be noted that to date there has been no statute nor act of Congress which gives the NSA explicit authority to collect without warrant, private email nor metadata on American citizens. The Foreign Service Intelligence Act (FISA), was passed in 1978. The original FISA Act, limited data collection on foreign targets and data was to be collected only from foreign endpoints, not domestic. Any data obtained regarding Americans in the continental U.S., not pertaining to spying, was to be destroyed.

Proceeding 9/11, then President George H. Bush, bypassed the FISA Court and began a mass domestic spying program on communications. By 2008 this program was revealed by whistleblowers and exposed by journalists. Congressional response was not to end the program, but rather to amend FISA, in particular the addition of Section 702. This new addition allows the NSA in concert with telecoms to copy, scan and filter internet and phone traffic coming through their physical infrastructure. However it also stipulates that the disclosure of content of communications, so long as it is “targeted” at sufficiently (51%) foreign targets. Since that time, at least 5 criminal defendants in domestic cases have been notified by the government, that criminal evidence leading to their indictments were gathered pursuant to Section 702. The dragnet that the NSA casts now seems to not only include telephone and email correspondence but the entire content of servers. Whistleblowers now of course, are a favorite target of the intelligence community today. Long before Edward Snowden, a series of insiders have attempted to expose the illegal, warrantless collection of American’s data by the NSA; people like Thomas Drake. Today the NSA’s control over data collection gives it power the East German Stasi could only have dreamt of.

To date the constitutionality of Section 702 for the purposes of warrantless data collection, with disregard to national security is still hotly debated and will be further fought in the courts. Regardless, data collection by the NSA it would appear exceeds even that which has been reported in the media. The collection of information according to former NSA Director William Binney, is ubiquitous and it is made available to every agency with the adequate security clearance. However, it is the NSA which archives and controls it all. They are the ultimate gatekeeper of all information.

Why the NSA had reason to leak information on Hillary Clinton.

If any single entity had reason to make sure that Hillary Clinton not become President, the most likely suspect is some faction within the NSA. Hillary Clinton had for years been using and sharing classified information with private entities to broker deals across the globe, influence leaders and possibly even undermine the governments of sovereign nations. In short, she was an extreme security risk to both the NSA and the National Security State’s unipolar control and hegemony in the world.

There’s an old saying that Presidents are selected, not elected. The person and personality of a candidate or a President for that matter is less important than their perceived role in the changing of the guard. Clinton was likely very much in line to be ushered in as the next President. She had put her time in, was a recognized as a power broker the world over and would have happily carried out any order given her by those well above her pay grade. The only problem was that she had a tendency to go off the reservation far too often. So frequently in fact that someone or some entity within the apparatus apparently decided she was a liability. The purposeful data leaks were enough to expose her activities to the point that the public would ultimately accept Donald Trump as President.

How the leaks influence the election outcome.

Although most of the corporate media continued to tout Clinton as the presumed victor in the race, a couple of polls actually called it right at the end. As more and more Clinton dirty laundry was aired, public sentiment shifted away from her candidacy. One poll conceived by Arie Kapteyn, Professor of Economics at the University of Southern California, and contributor to the Los Angeles Times was incredibly prescient. Prior to the election it was panned by the media for being almost the sole study putting Trump in the lead the last few weeks of the race. The final estimate, 46.8% of the vote for Trump and 43.6 for Clinton. Kapteyn credits the very different methodology of his poll for its accuracy. From a L.A. Times article today,

“The poll’s ability to pick up those voters, Kapteyn said, stemmed from its approach, which differs notably from the one used by most major surveys.

Instead of asking people to simply choose between the candidates, the Daybreak Survey asked respondents to rate, on a scale from 0 to 100, their chance of voting for Trump, Clinton or some other candidate. The poll also asked people to use the same 0-100 scale to rate their likelihood of voting.
That method, which Kapteyn had used four years ago to accurately forecast President Obama’s reelection, “is the most important part” of what the poll demonstrated, he said.

By asking people to give a probability, the poll avoided forcing voters into making a decision before they were truly ready. As a result, it may have more accurately captured the ambiguity many people felt about their choice.”

More interesting though is to look at the change in sentiment over the length of Kapteyn’s study and how Trump’s rise coincided with the massive amount of data releases at the end of the election cycle.

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at 12.37.57 PM

DNC convention July 18-25. WikiLeaks released 20,000 DNC emails on July 22, 2016. Trump’s popularity reached a high during this period. Amazingly that dump of information of the DNC sabotage of Bernie Sanders had little or no effect on the Clinton campaign. It actually had the opposite effect regardless of how incensed the millions of Sanders supporters were over the incident. Before the DNC was even over the Russians were being implicated as well as Guciffer 2.0 allegedly taking credit for the hack.

By the next week though James Clapper, Director of the NSA’ was reluctant to actually blame Russia for the leaks. He even made light of it:

Clapper is said to be amongst a faction who is resisting publicly blaming the Russians, since it is the kind of activity that intelligence agencies regularly engage in, including the US at times. Clapper also publicly comments, “[I’m] taken aback a bit by … the hyperventilation over this,” He adds in a sarcastic tone, “I’m shocked somebody did some hacking. That’s never happened before.” (Yahoo News, 7/29/2016)

The first Presidential debate was held on September 26th, and by that time Trump’s popularity had already reached its DNC high again. He was maintaining a substantial lead. However after the first debate polling numbers began to drop as his performance received tremendous criticism in the press.

On October 1, FBI director James Comey, ensured that the agency’s name would not appear on a document issued jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the now acquiescing NSA, accusing Russia once again without evidence, of hacking and disseminating sensitive data.

October 7, 2016, Wikileaks publishes first batch of Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta’s mails.

October 9th, 2nd Presidential debate and another extremely poor showing from Trump sees his lead over Clinton plummet in the aftermath now cut to a neck and neck race.

Over the course of the next week each day another release of Podesta emails, 16,000 in all.

October 19th, third Presidential debate and the race still too close to call with an additional Podesta data dump now bringing the count to almost 19,000 mails.

October 20th, the debates now over and the hits just keep coming. The grand total of leaked emails stand at 23,423.

WikiLeaks continues dumping a few thousand emails daily up until Election Day as Trump’s polling numbers finally break away from Clinton’s.

October 28th, the FBI announces that 650,000 emails were found on former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s Laptop by the New York City Police, belonging to both him and Huma Abedin; Clinton’s long-time personal aide of 20 years. All this is in connection with his third sex scandal and second involving underage girls. He is the recently estranged husband of Huma Abedin. These emails included correspondence from Clinton’s unsecured server over a very long period, and information which may ultimately incriminate both Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

Who tipped off the NYPD? Certainly it was not the FBI. If not for the fact that the NYPD copied all of Weiner’s data, likely the FBI wouldn’t have reopened the investigation into EmailGate. Although it initially required six months for the FBI to analyse 30,000 emails found on Clinton’s private server (many of which were classified top-secret documents) and determine this did not constitute criminal behavior, they managed to “investigate” and dismiss 650,000 emails in three days time. As an aside, it makes you wonder how the NYPD just happened to be investigating the husband of Clinton’s aide at the almost perfect time? Regardless, according to insiders, the information found on Weiner’s laptop was extremely heinous and claim that the NYPD will ultimately seek justice even if the FBI continues to be blocked by the Justice Department.

Just after this event Clinton’s polling numbers plunged to the most abysmal level they’d been throughout the entire campaign. Trump’s numbers soared near record high. That gap would hold over the next week running right up to the election.

If not for the barrage of information revealing her behavior to the public, this morning we’d likely have a Madame President-elect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s