The Putin Summit - God help us.

"Great moments in self-owning presents Bill Binney, interviewed a week prior to the Mueller indictment naming GRU agents and units: "If it truly was a Russian hack, they [NSA] should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia"

https://twitter.com/outsh1ned/status/1024559957809610752

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Two parts to the argument: (1) No evidence that Russian government (emphasis on "government") involved in those accounts or farms. (2) Those who claim it was Russian government are not presenting anything of consequence with regard to the elections.

We won't go back into the Crowdstrike and Motherboard stuff or your belief that it was leaked via floppy disk or something, but there is a simple question: Do you think Podesta leaked his own emails?

 I find Assange associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray's explanation plausible.

Who would have legal access to Podesta's personal email besides Podesta? (I guess you think that the phishing email that originated in the Ukraine was made up?)

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Two parts to the argument: (1) No evidence that Russian government (emphasis on "government") involved in those accounts or farms. (2) Those who claim it was Russian government are not presenting anything of consequence with regard to the elections.

We won't go back into the Crowdstrike and Motherboard stuff or your belief that it was leaked via floppy disk or something, but there is a simple question: Do you think Podesta leaked his own emails?

 I find Assange associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray's explanation plausible.

"Murray’s interview is well worth the listen, as he has nowhere near the same personal stakes in this story as Assange and — as he makes clear in the interview — because he seems to have had a role in handing over the second batch of emails. Ultimately, his description is unconvincing. But it is an important indication of what he claims to believe (which must reflect what Assange has told him, whether Assange believes it or not). Importantly, Murray admits that “It’s perfectly possible that WikiLeaks themselves don’t know what is going on,” which admits one possibility I’ve always suspected: that whoever dealt the documents did so in a way that credibly obscured their source.
Murray explained that the two sets of documents handed over to Wikileaks came via two different American sources, both of whom had legal access to them.
He describes a lot more about the Podesta emails, of which he said he had “first hand knowledge,” because of something he did or learned on a trip to DC in September. In this interview, he says “The material was already, I think, safely with WikiLeaks before I got there in September,” though other outlets have suggested (with maps included!) that’s when the hand-off happened. In that account, Murray admits he did not meet with the person with legal access; he instead met with an intermediary. That means the intermediary may have made false claims about the provenance.
And even the claims about the provenance don’t make sense. Murray claimed the documents came from someone in the national security establishment, and implied they had come from legal monitoring of John Podesta because he (meaning John) is a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.

Again, the key point to remember, in answering that question, is that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak are two different things and the answer is very probably not going to be the same in both cases. I also want you to consider that John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government — that’s open and declared, it’s not secret or a leak in a sense. John Podesta was paid a very substantial sum every month by the Saudi government to lobby for their interests in Washington. And if the American security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government paid lobbyist then the American intelligence services would not be doing their job. Of course it’s also true that the Saudis’ man, the Saudis’ lobbyist in Washington, his communications are going to be of interest to a great many other intelligence services as well.

As a threshold matter, no national security agency is going to monitor an American registered to work as an agent for the Saudis. That’s all the more true if the agent has the last name Podesta.
But that brings us to another problem. John Podesta isn’t the lobbyist here. His brother Tony is. So even assuming the FBI was collecting all the emails of registered agent for the Saudis, Tony Podesta, even assuming someone in national security wanted to blow that collection by revealing it via Wikileaks, they would pick up just a tiny fraction of John Podesta’s emails. So this doesn’t explain the source of the emails at all."
Update: Now Assange is saying his source wasn’t Guccifer. He also snipes about Murray’s comments.

“Craig Murray is not authorized to talk on behalf of WikiLeaks,” Assange said sternly.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/15/craig-murrays-description-of-wikileaks-sources/ 

 Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 Two parts to the argument: (1) No evidence that Russian government (emphasis on "government") involved in those accounts or farms. (2) Those who claim it was Russian government are not presenting anything of consequence with regard to the elections.

We won't go back into the Crowdstrike and Motherboard stuff or your belief that it was leaked via floppy disk or something, but there is a simple question: Do you think Podesta leaked his own emails?

 I find Assange associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray's explanation plausible.

Who would have legal access to Podesta's personal email besides Podesta? (I guess you think that the phishing email that originated in the Ukraine was made up?)

 And NSA employee would.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Who would have legal access to Podesta's personal email besides Podesta? (I guess you think that the phishing email that originated in the Ukraine was made up?)

 And NSA employee would.

 An NSA would have legal access to Podesta's personal email account? And what do you make of the phishing email?

Paul is working closely with Q to tease out the truth.  All will be known soon enough.

paulsurovell said:

 Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

Maybe you missed this:  

"Great moments in self-owning presents Bill Binney, interviewed a week prior to the Mueller indictment naming GRU agents and units: "If it truly was a Russian hack, they [NSA] should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia"

https://twitter.com/outsh1ned/status/1024559957809610752

Check the video. 

eta - At the end of the video, Binney says he thinks Seth Rich stole the emails and that the FBI has a file which it won't release. 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Who would have legal access to Podesta's personal email besides Podesta? (I guess you think that the phishing email that originated in the Ukraine was made up?)

 And NSA employee would.

 An NSA would have legal access to Podesta's personal email account? And what do you make of the phishing email?

 Yes. Snowden told us about that.

The phishing email is a story that suggests that Podesta and the DNC are incompetent.

paulsurovell said:

The phishing email is a story that suggests that Podesta and the DNC are incompetent.

 A necessary element of any good conspiracy theory is that none of the players can be incompetent.  Of course, in real life, Podesta could be one of these people who really shouldn't be allowed near a computer.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

 Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

Maybe you missed this:  
"Great moments in self-owning presents Bill Binney, interviewed a week prior to the Mueller indictment naming GRU agents and units: "If it truly was a Russian hack, they [NSA] should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia"
https://twitter.com/outsh1ned/status/1024559957809610752
Check the video. 
eta - At the end of the video, Binney says he thinks Seth Rich stole the emails and that the FBI has a file which it won't release.

 He didn't say that.

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

 Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

Maybe you missed this:  
"Great moments in self-owning presents Bill Binney, interviewed a week prior to the Mueller indictment naming GRU agents and units: "If it truly was a Russian hack, they [NSA] should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia"
https://twitter.com/outsh1ned/status/1024559957809610752
Check the video. 
eta - At the end of the video, Binney says he thinks Seth Rich stole the emails and that the FBI has a file which it won't release.

 He didn't say that.

Are you serious? Did you look at the video? Those are his exact words - "If it truly was a Russian hack, they (NSA) should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia."  Which is exactly what the indictment does.  

That part is at 11:55. 

The discussion about Seth Rich starts at 13:00. 

paulsurovell said:
The phishing email is a story that suggests that Podesta and the DNC are incompetent.

Yes, the phishing scam from Ukraine was successful because he was sloppy. You've been yearning for "evidence" and you finally acknowledge some. Congrats! 

Looking forward to your evidence of that this was the work of someone in the NSA.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

 Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

Maybe you missed this:  
"Great moments in self-owning presents Bill Binney, interviewed a week prior to the Mueller indictment naming GRU agents and units: "If it truly was a Russian hack, they [NSA] should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia"
https://twitter.com/outsh1ned/status/1024559957809610752
Check the video. 
eta - At the end of the video, Binney says he thinks Seth Rich stole the emails and that the FBI has a file which it won't release.

 He didn't say that.

Are you serious? Did you look at the video? Those are his exact words - "If it truly was a Russian hack, they (NSA) should be able to tell us it came from that building, in that city, in Russia."  Which is exactly what the indictment does.  
That part is at 11:55. 
The discussion about Seth Rich starts at 13:00. 

-- Give us the transcript re: Seth Rich and you'll see that you misrepresented him.

-- On the indictment, it's just that -- an accusation with no evidence. See Scott Ritter's piece.

-- On Binney's view of the indictment see https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/08/opinion-on-the-latest-establishment-attack-launched-against-wikileaks-independent-media/

Note that Binney stands by his claim that Guccifer 2 -- central to the indictment -- is a fabrication.

We need to hear directly from Binney to clarify the differences between the Disobedientmedia piece and the ComputerWeekly article.

paulsurovell said:

-- On Binney's view of the indictment see https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/08/opinion-on-the-latest-establishment-attack-launched-against-wikileaks-independent-media/

 I have no use for Disobedientmedia since it was founded by William Craddick of Pizzagate fame. 

paulsurovell said: Marcy misses the obvious point -- that the NSA has access to all electronic communications in the US.

 Yeah, I don't think that means what you think it means.

Can we work the Illuminati into this already?  

paulsurovell said:

Julian Assange has said repeatedly the Russian govt did not provide Wikileaks with the emails. 

 Well, I am not so gullible as to trust him when he says that.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Julian Assange has said repeatedly the Russian govt did not provide Wikileaks with the emails. 

 Well, I am not so gullible as to trust him when he says that.

 You shouldn't trust him, but you also shouldn't trust a media and prosecutor who don't interview him. And you should ask you they don't interview him.

Excellent discussion with Aaron Mate on who's promoting Russiagate and why.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Julian Assange has said repeatedly the Russian govt did not provide Wikileaks with the emails. 

 Well, I am not so gullible as to trust him when he says that.

 You shouldn't trust him, but you also shouldn't trust a media and prosecutor who don't interview him. And you should ask you they don't interview him.

 Any interview would be him repeating statements that I'm not gullible enough to trust.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:Julian Assange has said repeatedly the Russian govt did not provide Wikileaks with the emails. 

 Well, I am not so gullible as to trust him when he says that.

 You shouldn't trust him, but you also shouldn't trust a media and prosecutor who don't interview him. And you should ask you they don't interview him.

 Any interview would be him repeating statements that I'm not gullible enough to trust.

 It's not about you, it's about the media and the prosecutor.

One of the key motivators of corporate media, political leadership Russiagate-obsession:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1026482714432753664

I wish Greenwald hadn't deleted those tweets after WikiLeaks got leaked on.