A reasonably bright high schooler, after just one careful reading, will be able to understand this new-ground breaking article by VIPSers Binney and Johnson. But most sophisticates in Washington — including the many presstitutes pushing Russiagate — will pretend not to understand, or will simply ignore it. Dumb Dem. partisans like Robert Reich are likely to again call Bill Binney a “conspiracy theorist.” (Reich, of course, is not dumb; he is super smart on economics but, sadly, a slave to his party’s party line — and a bind follower of Adam Schiffwreck on Russia-gate.)
More important: why do you suppose Robert Mueller has refused to interview Binney and others in VIPS, who have been pointing out the technology fallacies of Russia-gate for more than two years.
And why did Mueller not interview WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray. Both have first-hand knowledge of these matters; both have offered to testify. Will Mueller prefer to complete an incomplete investigation? And why did President Barack Obama brand “inconclusive” what the Intel chiefs told him were conclusive judgments regarding how the DNC emails go to WikiLeaks? ***
“Watching the Hawks,” January 10, 2019, Part 2** Ray’s segment runs from minute 14:35 to 24:56.
In this short clip, Ray recounts a personal experience with then House Judiciary chair John Conyers, as Conyers tried to explain why Nancy Pelosi took impeachment “off the table” 12 years ago. An additional motive might be found in the modus operandi of the intelligence case officers who brief selected senior members of Congress on particularly sensitive operators — often of dubious legality.
Ray describes how Congresspersons get cajoled into complicity by “being briefed” on unconstitutional actions — like blanket surveillance and torture. They almost never object, or even demur; consequently, they have to trim their sails afterwards because they have been compromised. Moreover, often they are afraid to share “classified” information with colleagues in Congress.
J. Edgar Hoover would “salivate” over the kinds of intrusive surveillance enabled by today’s technology — all with the blessing of members of Congress too cowardly, or too compromised to honor the 4th amendment and exercise real “oversight.”
Asked why the legacy media are not doing their job, Ray recounts a revealing dialogue he had with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in Atlanta on May 4, 2006, after a public mini-debate Ray had earlier that day with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw. )
————————
** Part 1 of this January 10 “Watching the Hawks” interview (See:
An Open Letter to My Sister, Miss Angela Davis November 19,1970
Dear Sister:
One might have hoped that, by this hour, the very sight of chains on black flesh … would be so intolerable a sight for the American people, and so unbearable a memory, that they would spontaneously rise up and strike off the manacles. But, now, more than ever, Americans appear to measure their safety in the chains and corpses of others. And so, Newsweek, can put you on its cover, chained.
You look exceedingly alone—as alone, say, as the Jewish housewife in the boxcar headed for Dachau, or as any one of our ancestors, chained together during the ocean passage. …
Well. Since we live in an age in which silence is not only criminal but suicidal, I have been making as much noise as I can, here in Europe, on radio and TV. In fact, I have just returned from a land, Germany, which was made notorious by a silent majority not so very long ago. …
Let me put it this way. As long as white Americans take refuge in their whiteness … they will allow millions of other people to be slaughtered. … So long as their whiteness puts so sinister a distance between their own experience and the experience of others, they will never feel themselves sufficiently worthwhile to become responsible for themselves. As we once put it in our black church, they will perish in their sins—that is, in their delusions. … [Emphasis added]
Now we do feel ourselves sufficiently worthwhile to change our fate and the fate of our children! … We know that a person is not a thing and is not to be placed at the mercy of things. We know that air and water belong to all mankind and not merely to the wealthy. We know that a baby does not come into the world merely to be the instrument of someone else’s profit. ..
My dear sister Angela, some of us, white and black, know how great a price has already been paid to bring a new consciousness. If we know that, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own—which it is. We must render impassable with our own bodies the corridor to the gas chamber. For, if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.
Tyrel Ventura of “Watching the Hawks” interviewed Ray McGovern on January 10, giving Ray a chance to point out how Donald Trump apparently was administered the initiation-rite-for-presidents-elect — with rubrics designed by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. It seems highly likely that then-FBI Director James Comey rendered a good impersonation of Hoover on January 6, 2017, when he briefed President-elect Trump on the scurrilous “Steele dossier” that the FBI had assembled on Trump.
The interview with Ray is the first segment. (12 and a half minutes)
To dramatize the sensitivity of the dossier, Comey asked National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the heads of the CIA and NSA to leave Comey alone with the President-elect, after the Gang of Four briefed Trump on the evidence-impoverished “Intelligence Community Assessment” alleging that Putin himself ordered his minions to help Trump win. The ICA was published that same day. The dossier had been leaked to the media; Buzzfeed published its text on Jan. 10.
Apparently, it took Trump four months to realize how he was being played, and that he could not expect the “loyalty” he is said to have asked from Comey. So Trump fired Comey on May 9. Two days later he told NBC’s Lester Holt:
“When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’” The media and Russia-gaters immediately seized on “this Russian thing” as proof that Trump was trying to obstruct the investigation of Russian interference with Trump campaign collusion in the 2016 election. During the interview with Lester Holt, it seems more likely that was thinking back on Comey’s J. Edgar Hoover-style, one-on-one gambit with Trump on January 6, 2017.
Would Comey really do a thing like that? Was the former FBI director protesting too much in his June 2017 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, when he insisted that he had tried to make it clear to Trump that briefing him on the unverified but scurrilous information in the dossier wasn’t intended to be threatening. Whatever. In any event, it seems clear that after a few months, Trump was able to reason to what he decided Comey was up to.
“… Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff. … the dossier … Now, that was totally made-up stuff … I went there [to Moscow] for one day for the Miss Universe contest, I turned around, I went back. It was so disgraceful. It was so disgraceful.
“When he [James B. Comey] brought it [the dossier] to me, I said this is really made-up junk. I didn’t think about anything. I just thought about, man, this is such a phony deal. … I said, this is — honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn’t know I was just there for a very short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that I really didn’t, I didn’t think about motive. I didn’t know what to think other than, this is really phony stuff.
“I think he shared it so that I would — because the other three people [Clapper, Brennan, and Rogers] left, and he showed it to me. … So anyway, in my opinion, he shared it so that I would think he had it out there. … As leverage.
“Yeah, I think so. In retrospect. In retrospect. You know, when he wrote me the letter, he said, “You have every right to fire me,” blah blah blah. Right? He said, “You have every right to fire me.” I said, that’s a very strange — you know, over the years, I’ve hired a lot of people, I’ve fired a lot of people. Nobody has ever written me a letter back that you have every right to fire me.”
So How did those damaging DNC emails get to WikiLeaks?
After plugging his memoir at the Carnegie Endowment in November, ex-National Intelligence Director Clapper said he had “no doubt” that the Russians did it — those same Russians whom he has described as “almost genetically” deceitful. Clapper backed down a bit later, saying he’s “pretty sure” the Russians did it.
Ray summed up VIPS’s findings during the two and a half minutes RT gave him on Jan. 10, 2019.
The segment with Ray runs from minute 3:05 to 5:30.
Clapper claims before a typically under-informed audience that his case rests largely on “forensics.” But how many listeners would know, or remember, that the FBI avoided doing forensics on the DNC computers (as former FBI Director James Comey sheepishly admitted under oath). Curious.
Even outgoing President Obama, who almost always showed himself to be putty in the hands of intelligence gurus, refused to play along with their whole story, admitting that he remained far from convinced on one key aspect of what has become “Russia-gate.” On Jan. 18, 2017, just two days before leaving town, Obama told a press conference that the “conclusions of the intelligence community” regarding how such sensitive material got to WikiLeaks were “inconclusive.”
Now why would the “mainstream media” have missed that?
Obama’s words came less than two weeks after Clapper and the heads of the CIA, FBI, and NSA had fully briefed him on the misnomered, evidence-impoverished “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated Jan. 6. That flawed piece of analysis drafted by “handpicked analysts” pretended to serve up what would be seen as conclusive conclusions on that critical point. Answering Ray’s question on Obama being out of step on this at Carnegie, Clapper said: “I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we’re, we’re pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails.”
Right. Now it’s “pretty sure.”
The prior three minutes of the RT program deals with yet another case of “Russian hacking” that, it turns out, “really wasn’t there” — this time during the recent Senate race in Alabama. That segment is also worth watching.
