Thursday, June 14, 2018

False-flag whistleblowing

"The Mueller Indictments Still Don’t Add Up to Collusion" (Maté).  Exemplary explanation of the state of play.  If you got your information from the Clintonista 'journalists' (e.g., Marshall), you wouldn't know any of this (though Marshall has mentioned the telling fact that Papadopoulos was pressured to take a plea through Mueller's threats to charge him with being an unregistered foreign agent of Israel - ironies abound when #Russiagate is a Khazar conspiracy to remove Putin from the scene as he is interfering in their land theft scheming - where the real possible collusion lies, though, of course, nobody dare mention it).

"On The Skripal Poisoning Case And The Questions It Leaves Unanswered" ('Adam Carter').  A summary.  See also Slane:  Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, with Part 5 yet to come.  I'm still of the opinion that attempts to tie Skripal to the Dodgy Dossier serve to obscure the real culprits, Ukrainian intelligence.

"Guccifer 2.0: Game Over" ('Adam Carter'):
"Anyone critically analysing the nature of Guccifer2.0 can see enough to identify whom he was most likely was or was serving through his activities online. - His lack of credibility and the inevitability of his Clinton Foundation server hack 'take' being exposed as nonsense makes it clear that Guccifer2.0 was a fraudulent construct intended to counter the leaks and try to take-down the credibility of Wikileaks as collaterol in the self-destruction of it's own reputation."
"It seemed like there was a good chance Warren Flood had involvement at first, however, he doesn't appear to have been actively working for anyone's campaign in 2016 and it had been 6 years since he had worked at the White House. His name and the fact it's on the GSA license could suggest that the dodgy Russian template document was generated on a computer at (or previously from) the White House (from when Flood was Senator Biden's technology director).

However, Flood himself didn't appear to be someone (or likely to be working for someone) with a motive to discredit Wikileaks and have Russian hackers blamed (nor the experience to pull off the mimicry and deceptions observed).

Those with a motive mostly strongly correlating with this at the time would have been the Clinton Campaign (to mitigate damage to HRC's electoral campaign) and the DNC leadership (who also had reputations at stake from the real leaks being published)

As of June 12th, they were in a position where Julian Assange had just announced WikiLeaks' upcoming release of Clinton's emails, Clinton was still under FBI investigation, Trump was attacking Clinton for her use of a private server with his supporters frequently chanting "lock her up!" at rallies).

The campaign and the DNC were in a desperate position and really needed something similar to a Russian hacker narrative (something that leaks have since shown the DNC had started building a month or two prior to the hacking claims) and one where they would be fortunate to have a seemingly clumsy hacker that leaves lots of 'fingerprints' tainting files and bringing the reputation of leaks into question. - Sure enough, 2-3 days later, Guccifer2.0, the world's weirdest hacker was spawned and started telling lies in an effort to attribute himself to the malware discoveries & to Wikileaks.

Of course, attribution to the HRC camp or DNC leadership is difficult because what we've seen from Guccifer 2.0 suggests an operation carried out by someone with considerable cyber-security and counter-intelligence skills (the misdirection and deception fooled a lot of the cyber-security industry and had multiple intelligence agencies convinced - they knew exactly what they were doing) and while their breach claims were discredited, they still had or had been given access to files.

Who we're really dealing with requires understanding the full picture (everything outlined above for starters), knowing about CrowdStrike's activities in April of 2016 (which you'll find in additional articles provided further down this page), considering the claims they made in an article released on 14 June 2016 and then considering that there is only really one party that could feasibly have pulled of the whole fake Russian hacker persona.

Surely, it had to be those who had access to everything and that, thanks to the DNC's handling of DHS/FBI, were the only party ever allowed to directly assess the alleged crime scene of the DNC's server, didn't it?

They also issued specious claims about the "Trump Opposition Research" being targeted (never demonstrated or explained) which, in turn, actually gave the Guccifer 2.0 persona the means of "authenticating" himself to the press the very next day (on which he, of course, appeared and used a deliberately "Russia-tainted" version of the Trump opposition research document to lure the press with).

So, at present, in my personal opinion, it looks a lot like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were more likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation."
"Guccifer 2’s West Coast Fingerprint" (The Forensicator).  CrowdStrike's main offices are in Sunnyvale, California.

"These Messages Show Julian Assange Talked About Seeking Hacked Files From Guccifer 2.0" (Collier).  Another embarrassing attempt (the comments are funny).  See:  "Attorneys In Seth Rich-Linked Defamation Case Demand Identifying Info Of Thousands Of Twitter Users [Updated]".  It seems obvious that people bizarrely trying to tie Seth's brother (wtf?) into this did so solely with the motive of trying to confuse the situation.

Ukrainian Americans with ties to the Clinton campaign, Ukrainian Khazar gangsters with ties to Israel, and the Khazar desire to start WWIII in order to rein in Putin's disruption of the Khazar land theft schemes, all of course tied together with the Khazar fascination with the false flag as a tool of war.
blog comments powered by Disqus