{"id":77393,"date":"2017-07-27T10:53:39","date_gmt":"2017-07-27T10:53:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/07\/27\/russiagate-protectionniste-offensif\/"},"modified":"2017-07-27T10:53:39","modified_gmt":"2017-07-27T10:53:39","slug":"russiagate-protectionniste-offensif","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/07\/27\/russiagate-protectionniste-offensif\/","title":{"rendered":"Russiagate \u201c<\/em>protectionniste offensif\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Russiagate \u00ab\u00a0<\/em>protectionniste offensif\u00a0\u00bb<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Les deux chambres du Congr\u00e8s US ont donn\u00e9 un spectacle devenu rarissime d’une quasi-unanimit\u00e9 dans le vote de deux projets de loi sur une nouvelle vague de sanctions antirusses mais partant dans toutes les directions, avec l’Iran et la Cor\u00e9e du Nord comme autres objectifs, \u00e0 tout hasard<\/strong>… Il faut encore unifier par fusion les deux propositions, pour en faire une loi \u00e0 laquelle le pr\u00e9sident pourrait tout de m\u00eame s’opposer par un veto (qui serait ignor\u00e9 si les deux-tiers du S\u00e9nat votent contre ce veto). Il est possible que la loi d\u00e9finitive ne soit pas vot\u00e9e avant le d\u00e9part en vacances du Congr\u00e8s, d\u00e9but août, ce qui donnerait un mois pour pr\u00e9parer une rude bataille, notamment sur deux fronts :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• autour de la question de savoir si Trump mettra ou non son veto \u00e0 cette loi ;<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• autour de la question explosive du d\u00e9clenchement tr\u00e8s possible d’une \u00ab\u00a0guerre commerciale\u00a0\u00bb in\u00e9dite et extraordinairement d\u00e9stabilisante, voire d\u00e9structurante, entre les USA et l’Europe (l’UE).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Comme l’expose Mike \u00ab\u00a0Mish<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb Shedlock sur son site MiskTalks<\/a><\/em> dans un article qui attaque furieusement l’irresponsabilit\u00e9 du Ciongr\u00e8s, « As is typically the case, and explained by the \u00ab\u00a0Rule of Nothing\u00a0\u00bb<\/a>, the best possible outcome is for nothing to happen. <\/em>To that end, Congress may go on recess before working out the differences between the House and the Senate versions. I propose a permanent recess before more damage is done.<\/strong><\/em> » Le s\u00e9nateur Black, l’un des deux seuls s\u00e9nateurs \u00e0 avoir vot\u00e9 contre la proposition de loi, a r\u00e9agi dans le sens d’une tr\u00e8s vive inqui\u00e9tude, selon RT<\/a> : « Black said he believes that in pushing for Russia sanctions, Congress is attempting to use a political tool to gain economic advantage. He notes, however, that President Donald Trump at the same time came under harsh criticism for applying his \u00ab\u00a0America First\u00a0\u00bb principle to address trade imbalances with other countries. <\/em>\u00ab\u00a0Here he<\/em> [Trump] is trying to have free trade with Russia, he is trying to reset the relationship with Russia – and the Congress itself has made a major move to block free trade and interfere with the market,\u00a0\u00bb Black said<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Cette loi constitue une initiative extraordinaire, \u00e0 la fois dans ses fondements et dans ses effets, lesquels peuvent d\u00e9boucher au mieux sur une \u00ab\u00a0guerre commerciale\u00a0\u00bb extr\u00eamement grave entre les USA et l’UE, au pire sur un conflit arm\u00e9 où les principales puissances de l’h\u00e9misph\u00e8re Nord seraient impliqu\u00e9es<\/strong>. Quant aux fondements (?) de cette loi, si la perception rationnelle en fait effectivement une initiative indirectement de type fortement protectionniste, sinon faite dans l’intention (\u00ab\u00a0protectionnisme offensif\u00a0\u00bb) de tendre \u00e0 une supr\u00e9matie US glonale directe ou indirecte en mati\u00e8re de ravitaillement d’\u00e9nergie, d’ailleurs bas\u00e9e sur des pressions et des menaces militaires de tous ordres, il reste que le premier d’entre eux (des fondements) reste la d\u00e9mence schizophr\u00e9nique qui s’est empar\u00e9e de l’establishment<\/em> et du Deep State<\/em> \u00e0 l’encontre de la Russie pour son intervention fantasm\u00e9e dans le processus \u00e9lectoral USA-2016<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Cette v\u00e9ritable passion de haine, ce v\u00e9ritable incendie de la psychologie<\/strong> dont on voit des traces chaque jour dans la presseSyst\u00e8me et dans toutes les d\u00e9clarations publiques, s’aggravent \u00e0 mesure que s’empilent les preuves de la totale fabrication de l’accusation<\/strong>. Moins on prouve plus c’est vrai, et si rien n’est prouv\u00e9 c’est que tout est vrai<\/strong> : le simulacre est devenu tellement \u00e9norme qu’il tend \u00e0 emplir tout l’espace de la communication, \u00e0 tenir enferm\u00e9s tous les esprits \u00e0 Washington D.C., qu’il apparaît dans les conversations, les raisonnements, les constats, comme un fait non seulement prouv\u00e9 mais \u00e9vident, existant sans m\u00eame la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une d\u00e9monstration quelconque et m\u00eame gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 l’absence de la moindre d\u00e9monstration<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Pour cette raison, il nous a paru int\u00e9ressant de reprendre la d\u00e9monstration effectu\u00e9e par le groupe d\u00e9sormais fameux Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity<\/em> (VIPS), regroupant un nombre de plus en plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 d’anciens officiers du renseignement sous toutes ses formes, y compris d\u00e9sormais du domaine de l’\u00e9lectronique et de l’informatique. Effectivement, de tels sp\u00e9cialistes int\u00e9gr\u00e9s au VIPS ont r\u00e9alis\u00e9 une reconstitution et une simulation de l’action qui est \u00e0 la base de l’accusation antirusse, pour en affirmer comme conclusion qu’il s’agit sans aucun doute d’un \u00ab\u00a0Inside Job<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb effectu\u00e9 aux USA<\/strong>, \u00e0 Washington m\u00eame, \u00e0 la fois pour les fuites, \u00e0 la fois pour la manœuvre tendant \u00e0 faire croire qu’il y a eu intervention russe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

D\u00e9sormais, les Europ\u00e9ens se trouvent en \u00e9tat de mobilisation, consid\u00e9rant la loi qui prend forme au Congr\u00e8s comme une agression protectionniste, du type effectivement de \u00ab\u00a0protectionnisme offensif\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>. Il y a eu une condamnation de la part des principaux États-membres (France, Allemagne, Italie) et de l’UE elle-m\u00eame, d’abord portant sur le caract\u00e8re absolument contraire \u00e0 la l\u00e9gislation internationale d’une telle loi. S’ils semblent avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 surpris par la rapidit\u00e9 et la vigueur de l’action du Congr\u00e8s, les Europ\u00e9ens adoptent une posture r\u00e9solue, y compris assortie d’avertissements quasi-mena\u00e7ants de Juncker en faveur d’une riposte, – sans qu’on puisse d\u00e9terminer sur quelle substance et sur quelle force de volont\u00e9 s’appuie cette r\u00e9solution. Les plus inquiets et les plus furieux dans cette affaire sont les Allemands, et WSWS.org<\/a><\/em> donne un aper\u00e7u de commentaires de la presseSyst\u00e8me allemande refl\u00e9tant les r\u00e9actions des dirigeants \u00e9conomiques allemands et du patronat…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Angry commentary over the sanctions bill in the German press underscore that influential forces in the German ruling class see the sanctions bill as yet further evidence of hostile US intent towards Germany and Europe<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

» \u00ab\u00a0What is particularly dangerous is that supporters of Russia sanctions in Washington are not only trying to put Putin and Trump in the same bag, but also helping the US economy against foreign competition,\u00a0\u00bb wrote the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Under the bill, the daily added, \u00ab\u00a0Europeans would be forced to burn less Russian natural gas and more American liquefied natural gas. This is an unfriendly act, especially against Germany.\u00a0\u00bb The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that, \u00ab\u00a0with all due respect for the Senate and its ambition to tie President Donald Trump’s hands on Russia policy, the draft law is unacceptable from a European perspective. <\/em>First, it breaks the diplomatic alliance between Europe and the United States in deciding on sanctions against Russia. … The argument that America is promoting Europe’s energy security is also quite insolent. That is Europe’s responsibility. This is how you lose friends.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Comme c’est de plus en plus souvent le cas \u00e0 cause des enchev\u00eatrements des initiatives et des orientations artificielles donn\u00e9es par les narrative<\/em> du proc\u00e9d\u00e9 d\u00e9sormais universel du simulacre, il est tr\u00e8s difficile de d\u00e9terminer quelle est la v\u00e9ritable orientation de l’acte du Congr\u00e8s, par rapport \u00e0 une logique antiSyst\u00e8me, avec diverses questions qui peuvent avoir des r\u00e9ponses exactement contraires<\/strong>. Par exemple, la loi peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme allant dans le sens de la \u00ab\u00a0politique protectionniste\u00a0\u00bb de America First<\/em> de Trump, et de son opposition affirm\u00e9e contre l’UE, ce qui est plut\u00f4t du domaine de l’antiSyst\u00e8me, de m\u00eame qu’elle peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une agression de plus du Congr\u00e8s contre Trump pour lui lier les mains et l’obliger \u00e0 une politique de confrontation avec la Russie, ce qui va dans l’autre sens. (D’où la r\u00e9ponse martiale mais finalement attentiste du porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche, puisque porte-parole et Maison-Blanche il y a : « Bien que le pr\u00e9sident soutienne des sanctions s\u00e9v\u00e8res contre la Cor\u00e9e du Nord, l’Iran et la Russie, la Maison Blanche \u00e9tudie ce projet de loi et attend une version finale avant de le promulguer<\/em>… »)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Quoi qu’il en soit, sont pos\u00e9es les bases d’un conflit tr\u00e8s s\u00e9rieux entre l’Europe et les USA, d’ailleurs pr\u00e9visibles selon le climat r\u00e9gnant actuellement entre les deux centres du bloc-BAO. On peut m\u00eame consid\u00e9rer que l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement respecte une bonne logique chronologique, mais selon un rythme ultra-rapide, apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9saccord expos\u00e9 entre l’UE et Trump au G7, \u00e0 l’OTAN et au G20, cette fois encore sous une lumi\u00e8re paradoxale puisque les adversaires de Trump \u00e0 Washington D.C., les m\u00eames qui soutiennent la loi, ne s’\u00e9taient pas priv\u00e9s de critiquer Trump parce qu’il mettait en danger les liens entre l’Europe et les USA<\/strong>. Il est int\u00e9ressant, \u00e0 cette lumi\u00e8re, de revisiter l’enti\u00e8ret\u00e9 de l’affaire qui est \u00e0 la base de cette initiative, c’est-\u00e0-dire le Russiagate <\/em>\u00e0 l’origine. Le simulacre n’a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 explor\u00e9 d’une fa\u00e7on aussi d\u00e9taill\u00e9e que dans ce texte, adress\u00e9 sous forme d’un m\u00e9morandum au pr\u00e9sident Trump, de la part du groupe VIPS, sur le site ConsortiumNews <\/em>le 25 juillet 2017<\/a>. (Le texte est suivi du nom et des anbciennes fonctions de ceux des membres du VIPS qui ont particip\u00e9 \u00e0 son \u00e9laboration.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

_________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 \u00ab\u00a0assessment\u00a0\u00bb that Russia \u00ab\u00a0hacked\u00a0\u00bb Democratic emails last year. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

MEMORANDUM FOR:<\/strong> The President<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

FROM:<\/strong> Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

SUBJECT<\/strong>: Was the \u00ab\u00a0Russian Hack\u00a0\u00bb an Inside Job?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Executive Summary<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Forensic studies of \u00ab\u00a0Russian hacking\u00a0\u00bb into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked)<\/em><\/strong> by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

After examining metadata from the \u00ab\u00a0Guccifer 2.0\u00a0\u00bb July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that \u00ab\u00a0telltale signs\u00a0\u00bb implicating Russia were then inserted.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack<\/em><\/strong>. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here<\/a> and here<\/a>].<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled \u00ab\u00a0Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,\u00a0\u00bb and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA \u00ab\u00a0alumni\u00a0\u00bb in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original \u00ab\u00a0Guccifer 2.0\u00a0\u00bb material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the \u00ab\u00a0hand-picked analysts\u00a0\u00bb from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the \u00ab\u00a0Intelligence Community Assessment\u00a0\u00bb dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

NOTE<\/strong>: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 \u00ab\u00a0hack\u00a0\u00bb of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here<\/a> and here<\/a>].<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described \u00ab\u00a0the conclusions of the intelligence community\u00a0\u00bb as \u00ab\u00a0not conclusive,\u00a0\u00bb even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed \u00ab\u00a0high confidence\u00a0\u00bb that Russian intelligence \u00ab\u00a0relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a \u00ab\u00a0Russian hack\u00a0\u00bb to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy\/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy\/leak process<\/em> was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by \u00ab\u00a0showing\u00a0\u00bb it came from a \u00ab\u00a0Russian hack.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mr. President:<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum<\/a>, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on February 5, 2003, warned that the \u00ab\u00a0unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,\u00a0\u00bb should the U.S. attack Iraq and \u00ab\u00a0justfy\u00a0\u00bb the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The January 6 \u00ab\u00a0Intelligence Community Assessment\u00a0\u00bb by \u00ab\u00a0hand-picked\u00a0\u00bb analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an \u00ab\u00a0assessment,\u00a0\u00bb not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker \u00ab\u00a0Guccifer 2.0\u00a0\u00bb hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian \u00ab\u00a0meddling\u00a0\u00bb in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Copied, Not Hacked<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked)<\/em> by a shadowy persona named \u00ab\u00a0Guccifer 2.0.\u00a0\u00bb The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to \u00ab\u00a0blame the Russians\u00a0\u00bb for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who \u00ab\u00a0hacked\u00a0\u00bb those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant \u00ab\u00a0mainstream\u00a0\u00bb media; they are still on a roll.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The Russians\u00a0\u00bb were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, \u00ab\u00a0We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,\u00a0\u00bb her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own \u00ab\u00a0forensic facts\u00a0\u00bb and prime the media pump to put the blame on \u00ab\u00a0Russian meddling.\u00a0\u00bb Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote<\/a> that her \u00ab\u00a0mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the \u00ab\u00a0hand-picked\u00a0\u00bb intelligence analysts contented themselves with \u00ab\u00a0assessing\u00a0\u00bb this and \u00ab\u00a0assessing\u00a0\u00bb that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

They found that the purported \u00ab\u00a0hack\u00a0\u00bb of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Time Sequence<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

June 12, 2016:<\/strong> Assange announces<\/a> WikiLeaks is about to publish \u00ab\u00a0emails related to Hillary Clinton.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

June 15, 2016:<\/strong> DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

June 15, 2016:<\/strong> On the same day, \u00ab\u00a0Guccifer 2.0\u00a0\u00bb affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the \u00ab\u00a0hack;\u00a0\u00bb claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with \u00ab\u00a0Russian fingerprints.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to \u00ab\u00a0show\u00a0\u00bb that it came from a Russian hack.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Key Event<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

July 5, 2016:<\/strong> In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It thus appears that the purported \u00ab\u00a0hack\u00a0\u00bb of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a \u00ab\u00a0Russian hack.\u00a0\u00bb This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Obfuscation & De-obfuscation\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled \u00ab\u00a0Vault 7.\u00a0\u00bb WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the \u00ab\u00a0Marble Framework\u00a0\u00bb program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as \u00ab\u00a0news fit to print\u00a0\u00bb and was kept out of the Times.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, \u00ab\u00a0did not get the memo\u00a0\u00bb in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: \u00ab\u00a0WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use \u00ab\u00a0obfuscation,\u00a0\u00bb and that Marble source code includes a \u00ab\u00a0deobfuscator\u00a0\u00bb to reverse CIA text obfuscation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a \u00ab\u00a0forensic attribution double game\u00a0\u00bb or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates \u00ab\u00a0demons,\u00a0\u00bb and insisting, \u00ab\u00a0It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Putin and the Technology<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be \u00ab\u00a0masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin\u00a0\u00bb [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Hackers may be anywhere,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Full Disclosure: <\/strong>Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. This is our 50th VIPS Memorandum since the afternoon of Powell’s speech at the UN. Live links to the 49 past memos can be found at https:\/\/consortiumnews.com\/vips-memos\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry\/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Russiagate \u00ab\u00a0protectionniste offensif\u00a0\u00bb Les deux chambres du Congr\u00e8s US ont donn\u00e9 un spectacle devenu rarissime d’une quasi-unanimit\u00e9 dans le vote de deux projets de loi sur une nouvelle vague de sanctions antirusses mais partant dans toutes les directions, avec l’Iran et la Cor\u00e9e du Nord comme autres objectifs, \u00e0 tout hasard… Il faut encore unifier… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[4366,3285,3438,4614,1097,13022,2730,5646,2609,6970],"class_list":["post-77393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-america","tag-congres","tag-first","tag-juncker","tag-protectionnisme","tag-russiagate","tag-russie","tag-sanctions","tag-ue","tag-vips"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}