Ray on RT International early Friday morning after latest WikiLeaks “Vault 7” release revealing CIA high sophistication in “obfuscating” who is hacking whom, and in blaming the chosen enemy of the day

March 31, 2017 (four minutes)



FBI never got access to DNC computers, used secondary forensics – Ray McGovern 

We could forgive Crowdstrike, but not the head of the FBI who said they never got direct access to DNC computers. That is a very poor admission to make, says former CIA officer Ray McGovern. 

The CIA possesses a tool for disguising the source of its hacks, that’s according to the latest release of classified documents from WikiLeaks, called “Marble”. Previous batches of CIA documents released by WikiLeaks also revealed some other tactics the agency is said to have used to link cyber-attacks to other countries.

At the same time, the agency is also believed to have a program, called UMBRAGE, which allows it to mimic all sorts of hacking techniques, and can leave traces that will point to foreign sources instead of the US.

RT: Do these tactics revealed by WikiLeaks seem to you, as to a former CIA agent, to be credible? Could the US really have this capability?

Ray McGovern: It is genuine. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have a 100 percent record on authenticity. That matters. I am an intelligence analyst. This is the kind of unadulterated evidence after which I lust. After which any investigator or newsman should lust. Because Julian Assange doesn’t change anything. It is documentary. And what does that mean? And that means that as an intelligence analyst, I can analyze and interpret it. And there is no way other to interpret this than the poor people from the Crowdstrike, the computer company that the DNC hired to look into who was hacking into their computers, it was beyond its capability to determine who had this virus in there.

CIA has worked with NSA for 15 years on this kind of program. How many lines of code are there? 700 million. How much does each line of code cost? 25 dollars. Do the math. So, only CIA as a beneficiary of NSA technology can do this. Why does CIA do it and not NSA, because the CIA takes riskier actions. As an intelligence analyst, I would say we could perhaps forgive Crowdstrike, but we could not forgive the head of the FBI who was very embarrassed to say 10 days ago, “We never got direct access to DNC computers. So, we had to use secondary forensics and that came from Crowdstrike.” That is a very poor admission to make.

RT: The investigation into Russian alleged meddling in the US is still underway, yet no real proof has been provided. This story has been ongoing for quite a while…. Can we expect any concrete evidence to come out this late?

RM: The problem is that the mainstream media in the US accuses RT of being a propaganda organ. It is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. The black reality is that some of this information never appears in the mainstream media, witnessed by the fact that one of the deputy assistance secretaries of state of the Pentagon admitted that she was very concerned at the end of Obama administration that the very sensitive information that indicated how the Obama administration, i.e. the CIA, was getting us information that was leaked on personages within the Trump campaign. We had to protect that information because we can never let them know how we got it. That has not even been published and that is three days old.


The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate


Will Trump Take on the Spooks?


By Ray McGovern and Bill Binney

March 28, 2017


The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate


Amid the frenzy over the Trump team’s talks with Russians, we may be missing a darker story that is taking on momentum – the accumulated power of the Deep State’s bulk surveillance capabilities to control the nation’s leaders.  Can the 4th amendment be revived?

Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

This news presents Trump with an unwelcome but unavoidable choice: confront those who have kept him in the dark about such rogue activities or live fearfully in their shadow. (The latter was the path chosen by President Obama. Will Trump choose the road less traveled?)

What President Trump decides will largely determine the freedom of action he enjoys as president on many key security and other issues. But even more so, his choice may decide whether there is a future for this constitutional republic. Either he can acquiesce to or fight against a Deep State of intelligence officials who have a myriad of ways to spy on politicians (and other citizens) and thus amass derogatory material that can be easily transformed into blackmail.  …

(please click on the above link to continue)

“How to Think About Vladimir Putin:” A MUST READ

By Christopher Caldwell

How to Think About Vladimir Putin


FINALLY, a fact-based appraisal of Putin and his times – and from a senior editor of the conservative Weekly Standard.  The text is adapted from a speech Christopher Caldwell gave on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College in Phoenix, Arizona.


Christopher Caldwell is a graduate of Harvard College.  His work has appeared in the Claremont Review of Books, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times Book Review, the Spectator (London), Financial Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West, and is at work on a book about post-1960s America.

PLEASE, read it.

Cooling the Anti-Russian Hysteria

Ed Lozansky and Jim Jatras



What journalism has become:


Hatred is never a good thing.  Dislike of Trump, his team, and his policies, however, is readily understandable. In an ideal world, though, it should not color media reporting and result in the jettisoning of widely accepted (until now) standards journalism.


In topsy-turvy Washington, it is a sad day when the Moonie Times is more on point than its sister Gray Lady.  Even democracynow.org’s Amy Goodman, who used to be the paragon of sang froid, is now – like other HSHW (Hillary Should Have Won) folks – sang tres chaud).


Here’s Amy from earlier this morning after reporting House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes “claim” he has new information showing intelligence surveillance of some Trump people that was illegally leaked to the media.  (Note to Amy: It is not just a “claim.”)  Typically, the video clips democracynow.org chose to use gave as much time…. actually a little longer …to the committee’s ranking Democrat, “Russia-Did-It” Adam Schiff, who attacked Nunes.


Schiff is a smooth, slippery party hack.  Some may recall the two-minute “Q & A” Ray had with this Democratic Schiffwreck on January 25:



But here’s the coup de grace – as if more were needed – showing how “progressive” journalism, too, is far from immune to bias – conscious or unconscious (surprise, surprise!).


After showing Schiff making his statement, Amy added (and displayed a slide showing that CNN claimed “People connected to the [Trump} campaign were in contact [with Russian officials] and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready.”


Readers of consortiumnews.com and of this site will easily spot what is wrong with that.  But how many others can?


This morning, ace pundits like Shimon Prokupecz are busy ringing changes on this same anonymously-sourced theme for TV viewers on, you guessed it, CNN.  It may no longer be necessary to watch those savants, if Amy Goodman is feeding off and regurgitating the same drivel from “unnamed U.S. officials” quoted by CNN.


If facts matter at all these days; if the media is still susceptible of embarrassment; if Nunes has the courage to release relevant documents and identify the culprits; and if enough Americans pay close attention (granted – a whole bunch of big “ifs”) … well, let’s see what happens.  (Hint: former CIA Director John Brennan is scheduled to testify before the committee next week.  Will anyone give odds on whether he actually shows up?)


Meanwhile, it seems increasingly clear that the Democrats, and other HSHW-ers, who remain unable to accept the reality that Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate, are squandering what credibility they have left.  This would not be all that bad, were it not for the likely sabotaging of whatever peace-dividend might otherwise come if President Trump were able politically to move toward an entirely possible, decent relationship with Russia.  The ones who would suffer from this, of course, would be the those identified by Pope Francis as “the blood-drenched arms traders” [who own and operate most of the Fawning Corporate Media].

But they do not own democracynow.org.


Watching CNN’s Carl Bernstein, the iconic investigative reporter from Watergate days, pronounce pompously last evening on the need for strong investigative reporting to see if there is any fire under the smoke enveloping Trump was – for those like Ray (who read every word of the Bernstein’s and Woodward’s reporting on Watergate, back in the day) – particularly sad.  Carl ought to doff his fancy shirt and tie and hit the pavement.  And he probably would do so, if he had the slightest prospect of finding something worth reporting – like back in the day.  How many months have already been devoted to the search for provable evidence.  And Obama himself telling us on January 18 that he does not know how the “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks?


But who needs evidence these days?  The smoke (and mirrors) — and the animus — are quite enough for today’s “journalists,” thank you very much.