What follows should be viewed as a more honest ‘part two’ of the preceding post authored by Andreago Ferreira of Akamai Tree blog, noting Andreago Ferreira is a pseudonym, the author does not publish under his authentic identity –
I’d moved on to read part two of the Akamai Tree assessment, part one being on Snowden, part two being on Wikileaks, and one should never be surprised at a second result at seeming cross-purposes with a first result. I spotted several ‘weaknesses’ (read mistakes) in the 2nd article and when I touched on those mistakes with a comment, the ‘mistakes’ morphed into disinformation with the author’s reply.
My comment:
There has been a growing ‘preponderance of the evidence’ the DNC mails were leaked by Rich. You can find that in the title ‘incompetent espionage and wikileaks’ at my blog, if interested. Also, the article disappoints in its’ missing ‘the other family’ which Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions (and more) belong to (of ‘C Street’ infamy, exposed by Jeff Sharlet.)
The Snowden piece (part one) is much stronger
Was met with this reply:
As far as I can tell, there is virtually no even remotely compelling evidence that Rich leaked the DNC emails. The ‘forensicator’ report is highly misleading and many of the claims in it are outright false (particularly the claims regarding data transfer rates/download speeds).
Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are way outside the scope of this blog post as well as the two-part series as a whole, so I really don’t feel as though their exclusion is of any consequence at all or that including them would have added anything to the core points being made here
Clearly, while throwing Snowden (probably deservedly/accurately) and Assange (deservedly but very inaccurately) under the bus, the blog author appears to be shielding Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions, and covering for the assassins of Seth Rich. Oops.
I will address self-labeled “propagandist” Andreago Ferreira’s (I have a screenshot of his old Blogspot ‘about me’) rebuttals to my comment in reverse order, dealing with his following, first:
Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are way outside the scope of this blog post as well as the two-part series as a whole, so I really don’t feel as though their exclusion is of any consequence at all or that including them would have added anything to the core points being made here
Well, I’m not really certain how Ferreira expects he can drive that particular square peg into this round hole:
If Trump were truly a dire threat to the deep state and the media was entirely in the pocket of the Clinton crime family as the altmedia goons suggest, subtle orders filtered down through media executives and top editors (nearly all of whom play ball with the power-elite and have intelligence connections) would have made sure that Trump be utterly blacked out in the media and treated as a mere nuisance as opposed to a legitimate threat to democracy, guaranteeing that he be relegated to obscurity, as for example Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were. Political outsiders are simply not given full control of the news cycle. The truth is that Donald Trump, contrary to both the alternative and mainstream media, is a long-time political insider who’s throughout his life had intimate ties to some of the most powerful men in the world and installed into the Oval Office by very same kinds of people his base loathes; he’s the latest in the line of phony political outsiders which includes Ross Perot, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ted Cruz, etc. and has been thrust into power by an alliance of the American conservative/defense establishment and the international Zionist syndicate under former CIA director and top neoconservative Zionist James Woolsey. These groups are vying for power within the administration as well as consorting and scheming with the liberal “globalist” establishment, which has managed to install numerous members in the administration
His preceding is actually a somewhat astute observation but cannot be squared with excluding Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions as “way outside the scope of this blog post” as Ferreira maintained in his comment/rebuttal of myself. How’s that? It is as simple as his paragraph’s last sentence:
These groups are vying for power within the administration as well as consorting and scheming with the liberal “globalist” establishment, which has managed to install numerous members in the administration
There is no group “vying for power in the administration” more successfully than the group represented in Mike Pence (whose role model is Dick Cheney), the administrations highest ranking member of the Coe cult, also known as ‘The Fellowship’ and ‘The Family’ which now holds the office of the Vice Presidency. Who’re these people? Here’s a small sampling:
Men under the Family’s religio-political counsel include, in addition to Ensign, Coburn and Pickering, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham, both R-S.C.; James Inhofe, R-Okla., John Thune, R-S.D., and recent senators and high officials such as John Ashcroft, Ed Meese, Pete Domenici and Don Nickles. Over in the House there’s Joe Pitts, R-Penn., Frank Wolf, R-Va., Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., and John R. Carter, R-Texas. Historically, the Family has been strongly Republican, but it includes Democrats, too. There’s Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance, a vocal defender of putting the Ten Commandments in public places, and Sen. Mark Pryor, the pro-war Arkansas Democrat responsible for scuttling Obama’s labor agenda. Sen. Pryor explained to me the meaning of bipartisanship he’d learned through the Family: “Jesus didn’t come to take sides. He came to take over.” And by Jesus, the Family means the Family
Other than Vice President Pence, known top ‘family’ members in the administration include Jeff Sessions who neatly abandoned Trump, resulting in special counsel Robert Mueller’s ‘the Russians did it’ coming travesty of Justice (Mueller should be famous for what he DID NOT investigate when heading up the FBI, like CIA narcotics trafficking and related money laundering), as well Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, plugging ‘the family’ into American intelligence across the spectrum.
My source closely investigating these people states Mike Pompeo is a suspected member and it would appear Betsy DeVos is aligned and closely collaborating.
Who was present when then president-elect Trump was introduced to the movement’s leader? Mike Pence, who is responsible for General Mike Flynn’s departure from the administration.
Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 has spoken at the breakfast, a point made at the meeting to Trump by the evangelical lay minister Douglas Coe, a leader in The Fellowship religious organization, according to Coons. Also attending the meeting with Trump was Boozman, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, and several of Trump’s faith advisers
Now, somehow these people are outside the purview of Ferreira’s “groups … vying for power within the administration” with his “Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are way outside the scope of this blog post” despite they’ve not only fired Flynn, and have undermined Trump with stepping out of the way of appointing Robert Mueller special counsel, they seem to have mostly brought Tillerson to heel (if indeed Tillerson was ever ‘friendly’ towards the Russians) and they’re likely behind having rid Trump of Bannon, related to Pence aligned generals consolidating control; recalling it was General Kelly sent Bannon packing:
Now, going to the ‘vying for control’, lets have a look a little closer at who’s actually doing the ‘vying.’ Would you believe Bannon’s nationalists versus the Coe Cult’s (read Pence’s) internationalists?
Khan, meanwhile, told me he was sought out by Doug Coe, head of The Family, the secretive fundamentalist group which, as Jeff Sharlet reported in his book The Family and C Street, facilitates prayer and meetings for the elite politicians and businessmen that group considers to be Jesus’s “key men”
So, we have Coe’s people (preceding) locked into a fight with (Bannon aligned) Islamophobes:
And May’s Sharia panel, which featured former CIA director James Woolsey
Huh. Why does Woolsey ring a bell? Probably because he’s a main bad guy (he TRULY IS bad) picked on by Ferreira, recalling his claiming accurately:
Donald Trump, contrary to both the alternative and mainstream media, is a long-time political insider who’s throughout his life had intimate ties to some of the most powerful men in the world and installed into the Oval Office by very same kinds of people his base loathes […] and has been thrust into power by an alliance of the American conservative/defense establishment and the international Zionist syndicate under former CIA director and top neoconservative Zionist James Woolsey
WHY, then, would self-labeled “propagandist” Ferreira use the classic disinformation technique of simply making a false and unsupported assertion (he’s too savvy not to know better) of…
Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are way outside the scope of this blog post
…when Pence and Sessions are clearly big-league players in his:
“groups […] vying for power within the administration”
This brings us to the other portion of his comment/rebuttal of my short remarks at his blog:
As far as I can tell, there is virtually no even remotely compelling evidence that Rich leaked the DNC emails. The ‘forensicator’ report is highly misleading and many of the claims in it are outright false (particularly the claims regarding data transfer rates/download speeds)
Because if you were a Clintonista…
^ Ferreira’s old Blogspot ‘about me’
…and Ferreira most certainly is, you’d have a lot invested in ‘the Russians hacked the election’ (a Hillary mantra, and Hillary, by the way, has more than flirted with the Coe cult in the past) and this requires not only supporting the aligned (through pretending they are outside the scope of discussion) Doug Coe cult’s Pence, whose people are also deeply invested in ‘the Russians did it’ bullshit, but also requires covering for the assassins of Seth Rich, the leaker who accordingly needed removed from every sense of reality, not only this life. But first, let’s go to his…
The ‘forensicator’ report is highly misleading and many of the claims in it are outright false (particularly the claims regarding data transfer rates/download speeds)
…and then have a look at what the supporting and dissenting experts say.
Given that the Snowden leaks didn’t really reveal much that we didn’t already know from William Binney, Tom Drake, James Bamford as well as whistleblowers from other agencies and exposes from the ’70s onward about the “Five Eyes”/ECHELON comprehensive electronic surveillance network
Noting Ferreira tossed a bone to both William Binney and Thomas Drake in his part one (the very good Snowden piece), the reader can examine how these two came down on opposite sides of the ‘forensicator report’ Ferreira claims is patently falsified in his comment to me at his Wikileaks article:
Drake’s group, in its challenge on interpretations of evidence, also maintains there is no verifiable evidence the ‘Russians did it’ (the Guccifer claims promoted by Ferreira) but maintain a ‘hack’ (as opposed to a leak) cannot be ruled out:
However, this VIPS memo could have easily raised the necessary and critical questions without resorting to law-of-physics conclusions that claim to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was an inside-network copy only and then asserting the “fact” that the Russians (or anybody else for that matter) did not hack the DNC
Binney’s group, in it’s rebuttal, says the Drake group dropped the ball:
Many of the points raised suggest the authors do not fully understand the analysis
Moreover, Binney’s group seems more strongly credentialed in the cyber world of intelligence whereas Drake’s group is more of a straightforward military and/or intelligence background. There’s a bit of crossover in both groups but they appear to be weighted just as stated. One can read the backgrounds of each group at the respective links. In any case, there is clearly a hung jury, but solely reflecting on the technical aspect, bringing us to the HUMIT (human intelligence.) Here is where I have to come down solidly on the side of Binney’s group because they’ve noted the statements of former UK ambassador Craig Murray:
An associate of Assange, former UK ambassador Craig Murray, has said the WikiLeaks source was a leak from an insider. “To my certain knowledge,” said Murray, “neither the DNC nor the Podesta leaks involved Russia.” Oddly, Murray has not been questioned by any US official or journalist
What do you know about that. Wikileaks has pulled some good people into its web, notably Baltsar Garzon who ordered the arrest of Pinochet and hardly could be sympathetic to Clinton or Trump, it was on Obama’s watch he was forced off the bench in Spain via USA pressure for his ‘crusading’ against among other international crimes, the USA’s renditions and assassinations. Another misled soul sucked into the Wikileaks web is Craig Murray, who notably tied (the likely MI6 assassinated) Russian FSB anti-corruption officer Livenenko to uncovering the NATO export of heroin from Afghanistan:
My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe. I watched the tankers of chemicals roaring into Afghanistan. Yet I could not persuade my country to do anything about it. Alexander Litvinenko – the former agent of the KGB, now the FSB, who died in London last November after being poisoned with polonium 210 – had suffered the same frustration over the same topic
This Murray guy cannot be ignored. Contrary to honorable, when Ferreira states…
As far as I can tell, there is virtually no even remotely compelling evidence that Rich leaked the DNC emails
…he’d had to ignore not only Murray but my drawing his attention to Murray:
There has been a growing ‘preponderance of the evidence’ the DNC mails were leaked by Rich. You can find that in the title ‘incompetent espionage and wikileaks’ at my blog, if interested
Because this follows is verbatim what I’d drawn propagandist Ferreira’s attention to; what more would one need to know to understand the Akamai Tree blog’s author has not only covered for The Coe cult’s Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions but has covered for the likely assassins of Seth Rich? Not only Craig Murray, but Seymour Hersh has weighed in and they’re the ones who truly can’t get any press:
Incompetent Espionage and Wikileaks
The entire sand-castle (a product of Obama CIA Director John Brennan’s imagination) the “Russians hacked the election” is finally washing away with an incoming tide. How this plays out is anyone’s guess.
The open question is, how the new information will be leveraged, if it were to actually break into the open widely, with the bad boy Trump essentially captured by the surreal evil that surrounds him. Other than pure evil (e.g. Pence), only a narcissist or a fool would ever desire to be president of this particular republic. In ‘The Donald’, we have both.
1 August 2017 an audio tape is leaked in which Seymour Hersh states the FBI knows it was Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails:
“What the [FBI] report says is that some time in late Spring… he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that’s in his computer. Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents — of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC” -Seymour Hersh
On 9 August 2017 The Nation magazine publishes a column on a group of independent experts…
“Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year”
…demonstrating the DNC mails were leaked, not hacked.
On 18 August 2017 Antiwar.com reports Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has met with Assange concerning the DNC mails and [the article] further credibly suggests Assange is holding the DNC leak evidence hostage as a bargaining chip to possibly acquire a pardon for himself and leverage wikileaks into legitimacy with a President of the United States who at this point is owned by the USA’s intelligence agencies, a hare-brained scheme destined to fail. Assange & company waited too long.
But this would fit Julian Assange’s self-centered, persecuted-savior complex which never ceases to amaze, this guy (as well, Craig Murray) has allowed the idiots surrounding Trump to push us towards the brink with Russia, for months. All because Assange is tired of his embassy confinement in London, a circumstance that is entirely his own fault for the fact he didn’t have the self-discipline to keep his dick in his pants (whether Assange’s admitted intercourse was a case of rape or not.)
What’s more is, this blog pointed to strong circumstantial evidence it was Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails this past January, and recalling this, it still stretches the imagination a former UK ambassador would make an amateur espionage move worthy of a cub scout playing spy. But that’s what Craig Murray had done in the case of the DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks.
Seymour Hersh states Seth Rich is the source of the DNC mails. Craig Murray states he had met with the source of the DNC mails. A + B = C:
Craig Murray met with Seth Rich
That Murray would be a high value target for American counter-intelligence to monitor for the reason of his high profile association with WikiLeaks is beyond obvious. For Murray then to state…
“I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things”
…goes to the practically bizarre when coming from a former United Kingdom ambassador to Uzbekistan. The UK is little different to the USA in the case of embassies providing cover for spies; in which case Murray should at least have some rudimentary espionage understanding such as YOU DO NOT MEET YOUR SOURCE DIRECTLY WHEN YOU ARE A HIGH PROFILE TARGET OF YOUR ADVERSARY’S COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE HUNTING YOUR (in this case, WikiLeaks) SOURCE(S)
Then, we had WikiLeak’s Assange giving what amounts to a ‘Glomar’ ‘I will neither confirm or deny’ response concerning the murder (assassination) of Seth Rich after appearing to suggest Rich was the source of the DNC emails leak:
Beyond this, WikiLeaks offering a $20,000 reward for the solving of the Seth Rich murder is laughable, that’s what an American west coast upscale community would offer for the arrest of a serial killer of the neighborhood’s cats. Two million dollars might get two seconds’ attention of a corruptible counter-intelligence agent with knowledge of a professional hit on Seth Rich, twenty million might even net an inside the agency sucker willing to take the exceedingly high risk to one’s life (almost certain death) that would attend selling out an agency hit man for substantial lucre. In truth, the WikiLeaks reward offer amounted to little more than a tabloid publicity stunt.
Narcissism is a blinding thing; and a self-righteous narcissism is no exception. Ambassador Murray could have every good intention but on the face of it, he had seriously screwed up. Murray and WikiLeaks should have immediately come clean, there was little to lose. Seth Rich was the source, Murray had met with him, and much could have been gained by stating so; there would be nothing given up any intelligence agency involved did not already know. Not only would it have been the right thing to do, the only thing at stake here for Murray was a hit to ego & image.
Craig Murray stating ‘I had a serious lapse of professional judgement and this resulted in the death of Seth Rich’ would be the most responsible and newsworthy move WikiLeaks could have taken; to counter the CIA’s ‘the Russians hacked the DNC’ propaganda lie, in which there is much invested by the agency; and the consequent damage to relations with Russia, and growing threat to what little world peace yet exists, is immense. WikiLeaks should have done the right thing a long time ago and they have not. Why not? Because Assange and WikiLeaks believes Assange’s comfort is more important than world peace. What fucks. This is beyond inexcusable, it’s criminal. But for Murray, there’s more at stake here than just a hit to ego & image.
Murray’s likely role in the DNC leaks case? A personal meeting with Rich to confirm for WikiLeaks Seth Rich was a bona fide insider with authentic material prior to a WikiLeaks cash payment to Rich and arrangements completed for the mails transfer.
Now, it is a question of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ release the evidence because WikiLeaks waited too long, and let the criminals surrounding Trump consolidate their power while investing deeply in the myth of the Russians hacked the election; a criminal cabal that will up the ante on the world stage to any level necessary to avoid accountability. WikiLeaks Idiots. WikiLeaks Morons.
Meanwhile, Murray subsequently barred from the United States (except that he applies for a visa, typically unnecessary for a British citizen) appears to have been, in a manner of speaking, a deep state message to Murray: ‘thank you very much for the lapse of judgement, we have taken full advantage with the assassination of Seth Rich and we won’t be requiring your services after this’ (he’d be smart to stay away.)
The really sticky problem for WikiLeaks in this scenario is, Seymour Hersh asserts in the recorded call WikiLeaks had paid Rich for the leaked documents, damaging or reducing to element of pretense WikiLeaks claims of journalism & providing rationale for deep state prosecutors & judges to find this had been straightforward espionage. But they won’t do it if the Rich-Murray meeting stays buried, a LOT is invested in ‘the Russians did it’ for the public consumption. If it DOES break open, Murray’s ‘goose is cooked.’ It’s now not only WikiLeaks problem in a larger sense, but Murray’s, whether he does or doesn’t admit the assassinated Seth Rich had been the DNC mails source.
Murray’s reputation? [and in this case, Ferreira’s] C’est la mort.
I’m still unclear as to why I should have included Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence in a two part series that centered on hackers and leakers. Sure, Sessions and Pence perhaps should have been included in previous posts covering those surrounding Trump, but I was just recently made aware of this Christian cult they’re both allegedly connected to and clearly they have very little to do with hackers, Assange or Snowden. So your point remains lost.
As for the DNC issue, I explicitly lay out several reasons as to why the Russian hacking narrative is likely false. As with the technical details in the forensicator and VIPS reports, they don’t explicitly point to or preclude any conclusion, at least to those familiar with IT/networking. My point with the forensicator report is that it was making outright false claims about file transfer rates (and being misleading and obfuscatory on other points) in order to bolster the leak narrative. the leak narrative is not ruled out by the openly available technical details and other evidences, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was positively a leak and not a “hack” of some kind (although by whom is an entirely different question which would likely never be answered).
And before you bring it up, no I don’t consider unsubstantiated assertions by ideologues and publicists like Seymour Hersh and Craig Murray to be compelling evidence of any kind of leak – anyone else could provide a litany of quotes from others claiming the exact opposite. It means just about nothing as far as what really happened goes.
I find it hilarious that you accuse me of propagandizing while you buttress this ludicrous alt media fever dream that was literally invented by the White House, Ed Butowsky and Fox News explicitly for the purpose of propaganda.
LikeLike
I’ll merely note in regards to your assertions concerning Sessions and Pence, if you are on the up & up (I don’t believe you are), you’re only doing what Binney’s group indicates what Drake’s group is doing, not looking at what’s in front of you in a coherent way. If that’s the case and you’re not covering for a faction vying for power, as it was you introduced the line of thinking re groups ‘vying for power’ in your Wikileaks article, it simply points to a common human frailty of psychology where one is too subliminally entrenched/threatened to see what is in front of their face. Still, the denials of Sessions and Pence relevance to your article don’t fly.
What’s more is, if you’d read the Binney group’s rebuttal, where they coherently explain the questions concerning the file transfer rates, you’d never admit it, because it appears you wish to steer away from the facts. At the end of the day, your work is too accomplished, comprehension too good and denials right out of the disinformation playbook, to convince.
That’s all
LikeLike