Thursday 23rd of September 2021

The story of Fancy Bear


The story reads like a spy novel in which none of the characters are clean, few are identified and the origins of the work is still either secret or attributed by default, without ANY proof, to Russia. By this I mean that from early on it seems that the US secret services (?) or someone in the US cyber industry “knew” that “Russia” had infiltrated the DNC in a major breach. So the question is why was not this fully disclosed before now? The main investigation was carried out by SecureWorks. What was the relationship between SecureWorks and the DNC? 

SecureWorks Inc. is a United States-based subsidiary that provides information security services, protecting its customers’ computers, networks and information assets from malicious activity such as cybercrime. The company has approximately 4,400 customers across 61 countries, ranging from Fortune 100 companies to mid-sized businesses in a variety of industries. It became part of Dell in February 2011 and branched off to become a public organization in April 2016. It is still majority-owned by Dell.

What was the relationship between SecureWorks and the DNC? If they had a full working relationship, then SecureWorks did a lousy job at protecting the DNC. If they had no relationship, what is SecureWorks role in this affair? Is SecureWorks paid to investigate the leaks?

One can only remember, like Tony Abbott and his elephant paper-man, the story of a glazier employing thugs to break your windows to manufacture some ensuing business. One can also “pay insurance” to the glazier for not getting the windows smashed. The racket is not new. The Roman and the Greeks were already masters at it. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) are more elegant forms of this “insurance” in reverse. The war on Saddam with his “WMDs” was a crude form of the system — this one concocted from scratch by the CIA secret deception units, using some of Saddam’s fear of appearing naked to Iran. One Gus can only think of the “double-cross” system in the attack on the DNC. But far from me to suggest that SecureWorks is acting unethically here. Someone was to benefit from exposing the double-dealings of the DNC and of Hillary Clinton in particular.

Would the Russians benefit from a Trump victory? Though Putin expressed his preferences, he would have had CONSIDERABLE reservations about Trump becoming President of the United States. He would have known it would have been a difficult choice between Dumbo and Warriorwoman. I expressed this in a dubious cartoon. 

In reality, Putin HAD NOTHING TO GAIN by fiddling with the US elections because at one stage or another, he is too smart not to know that it would be child’s play for any spying agencies such as the formidable CIA to expose the deed. The link would be made. So far this link cannot be made. So was Putin very clever in hiding his personal link to the hacking of the DNC emails? No way. There was nothing for him to gain for pissing off the Americans in which ever way. Revenge? Putin is far more astute and honest than the “evil” guy painted by the Yanks press... 

So who could benefit from hacking the DNC emails? Trump? He would have no clues about anything to do with cyber stuff. He is all thumbs and even his own Twitter account was off the air for ten minutes... 

The business of cyber spying attack has grown far from the breaking of the Enigma machine coding system, but the processes are the same, though far more complicated. Double keys are still not secure. Banks change their encoding every 30 seconds and a good hacker can break their codes in 29 seconds. Your cash is secure because there are sniffer cyber dogs that chase hackers at the speed of light. That the DNC was opened to hacking, was hacked and that there is a “timeline” going back to 2015, shows that someone was not awake or that there was an insider feeding the keys by encoded messages, or their own emails could be hacked like butter.

Does SecureWorks perform analysis of links for no financial gains? Would they alert prospective clients that blah blah blah...? 

We know that in the world of Cyber warfare, the simple guy next door can use a complex cascade of URLs and webhosts that make him look like he is operating from Russia or Roumania or planet Mars. This site (YD) for example is hosted in the US, but operated from Aussieland. Cascades would be a piece of cake for any American versed into encoding, like a certain whatizname can import an arsenal of weapons into a hotel room in Las Vegas. Many people in the US are crazy. Or devious.

Some of these work in high places. If you listen to some editorials, Trump is one of them. But he is too dumb to set up a spying session on his own dicky ramblings, let alone on the DNC and Hillary Clinton. 

So who could benefit from the exposure of the shenanigans of Hillary? Former Democratic National Committee interim Chair Donna Brazile has accused Hillary Clinton of rigging the 2016 democratic primary in order to ensure the presidential nomination. Hoopla... No not her, nor Bernie. 

More than the “Russian” hypothesis, three Aussies DID sink Hillary. Here we must give credit to Rupert Murdoch, Julian Assange and John Pilger. No conspiracy between them (some of them HATE each other), just the circumstances of what they see and expose. John Pilger exposed time and time again the full responsibility of Hillary-the-warmonger in the destruction of Libya and other countries. Assange published the emails gathered by whomever, but not the Russians, according to him. He knows who did the deed, but far from him to reveal his sources. I trust Assange to tell the truth on the non-Russian (Kremlin) origins of the leaks. Rupert Murdoch anointed Trump early when every other media organisation was supporting the golden girl Hillary. “Our first woman president”. Murdoch ran by presenting Trump as a flawed character who could shine from time to time while he (his journos of course) painted Hillary as a bipolar, double-dealing “clever” woman. His clever ways was to encourage voters to go for the least smelly of the candidates, pointing out that Hillary was foul. 

So who could benefit from a Clinton defeat? The Russians? Sure but not to the extend as to fiddle in the election in ways that could be exposed easily. For the Russians (Putin), the US election would have been one of “don’t touch” thingy despite the USA having interfered in Ukraine in a big way. Putin is a patient man, though he is getting older, he still has a sharp youthful intellect. He may have know that some fiddles were happening with Clinton’s emails, as  “his” Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation or SVR RF, would have known. So would have the CIA. The CIA would know who the REAL characters are but talking about “the Russians” WITHOUT PROOFS, suits the narrative of blaming Putin for yet another thing. 

Were there people in the establishment, the “Deep State” that did not want another four years ± possibly eight years, of Democrat rules in the White House? Was the DNC secretly encouraged by the establishment to manipulate the DNC finances and purpose to block the surge of Bernie Sanders, then expose the deeds in order to sink Hillary? 

One has to remember, how egos can be manipulated by remote control. In Australia, when Julia Gillard was doing the best she could, the establishment with the help of Rupert Murdoch, encouraged division in the Labor Party by painting Rudd as a saint and Julia as a witch, while keeping its preferred looney, Tony Abbott, not far behind or in front. When Kevin Rudd took over from Julia, the Murdoch press kicked him in the nuts and promoted Tony Abbott as Jesus Christ the saviour who would destroy the gains made by mitigating “global warming” by declaring “global warming is crap” and destroying that tax on carbon. 

Could we look no further than the DENIALISTS of climate change for the exposure of Clinton’s emails? Business is business. Clinton was in favour of the sciences despite being a looney warmonger. There is more money to be made by denialism, burning coal, uranium and by demonising Russia than by doing more wars in a shrinking world, despite reconstruction, corruption and weapon manufacturing. These can happen anyway even with relative peace, as threats can encourage the stock market to manufacture more bullets, without having to use them... One has to also remember that Rupert Murdoch will do anything to demonise the sciences of global warming. He is a FULL-BLOWN DENIALIST and he will support religious dudes to pump out religious information to make religious people think that "global warming" is a Russian plot as well...

There is no smoke in Russia in regard to the Clinton email leaks, but plenty of purposes in the USA... 


Gus Leonisky

Your local cyber idiot

yet another clue...


Former Democratic National Committee interim Chair Donna Brazile has accused Hillary Clinton of rigging the 2016 democratic primary in order to ensure the presidential nomination. And according to US journalist and author Lowell Ponte, this development may indicate an attempt to save the party from Hillary’s ambitions.

Sputnik: Why has Clinton’s former supporter now turned her back on her of all times?

Lowell Ponte: Well I don’t know Donna Brazile personally, but as the interim head of the Democratic Party she doubtless sees Clinton as wrecking the party’s reputation and like any other leading democrat wants Hillary to go away. Frankly, Hillary is a megalomaniac who feels entitled to be president by hook and crook, as we say in America. She, after all, went after the American presidency twice and both times she lost to political newcomers:  to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. She’s cold, she’s imperious, she’s arrogant and she’s dragging down the Democratic Party which Donna Brazile is trying to save.

Read more :


One has to remember that Lowell Ponte is a FULL-BLOWN DENIALIST. He even wrote a book about the "cooling" of the planet.


Analysis of Lowell Ponte: The Cooling

For many years I have been tantalised by quotes from the semi-mythical book "the cooling" by Lowell Ponte. Now (thanks to the zShops second-hand booksellers program, a part of amazon) I got hold of a copy, shipped across the atlantic in little more than a week, for only $10.

The book is "popular science": as it says (remarkably) in the preface by Reid Bryson: "...There are very few pages that, as a scientist, I could accept without questions of accuracy, of precision, or of balance..." and any claim to utility it may have would have to come from bringing interesting ideas to the general public (of the time).

In this analysis, I'm interested in whether the book accurately reports the state of science as then known and what issues it chooses to focus on. Its also interesting to see what uses other people put it to, now. Its often cited in the "but 20 years ago people were predicting cooling" type pages.

Lets just prove that, shall I?

The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976 (from

What global warming proponents don't want people to remember is that just 20 years ago, they were predicting that global COOLING would destroy the world. Lowell Ponte wrote The Cooling on the subject in 1976 (which incidentally, can be found in Hodges Library). The theory then said that particulates reflected sunlight into space, thus preventing heat from reaching the earth. Predictions of a new ice age abounded. Then the earth started warming up. Whoops. (from

Book Structure

Foreward (by US Senator Claiborne Pell)

Preface (by Professor Reid A Bryson)

Part I: Forces that change climate (3-76)

Reports of decrease is sunshine / aerosol & dust / ice-albedo feedback

Cooling interrupts predicted warming / "GH" effect & CO2 / CFCs and ozone / Heat pollution / Warming vs Cooling

Some dodgy climatology / Why cooling might be accompanied by warming

Milankovitch-y stuff / Sunspots / Gravity weakening!?! / "Summary"

Part II: The human side of climate (77-176)

part III: Options in a changing climate (177-246)

Appendices: (247-296)

Back-cover quotes from Pell, and Stephen Schneider. Inside quote from Emilliani.

The "science" of the book in contained within part I, which I've read moderately carefully; I've skimmed parts II and III.

Ponte gets some points for noting (p13) that the "greenhouse effect" is misnamed. But that is the high point of his science.

Evidence for Pontes inability to tell sense from nonsense (or at least to check speculative results) is his assertion (p70) that gravity is weakening in the universe, and that this is proved by the moon moving away from the earth at 4 cm/year.

The first chapter starts off with stuff about decreases in sunshine (from few measurements from industrialised areas; I'd guess that was consistent with aerosols) then notes the Rasool and Schneider 1971 science paper (but only in passing. See main page for more on R+S). Ponte asserts that R+W estimate that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next fifty years. I think this is wrong: R+S actually say it is still difficult to predict the rate at which global background opacity of the atmosphere will increase with increasing particulate injection by human activities. However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years.... I think they are reporting other peoples estimates to use as feed for their model, not making their own.


Read more:



All three leak-branded sites have distanced themselves from Moscow. DCLeaks claimed to be run by American hacktivists. WikiLeaks said Russia was not its source. Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be Romanian.

read more:


be alarmed...

The biggest political issue facing humanity isn’t football — nor Hollywood male stars having raped female actresses.

Global warming is the biggest political issue facing humanity, but it has become a nasty difficult political football. 

So far not enough of us have understood the implications of global warming on this little planet. Since its inception, this site (YD) has exposed the oncoming dangers of warming and the inertia of politics in front of this massive phenomenon, which even scientists have problem to explain properly. It’s not because scientists don’t understand the problem. It’s because the only viable solutions demand mega shift in our human operations, with immediacy like an instant volte-face. Solutions are drastic and few politicians are prepared to even talk about a small portion of them, beyond the windmills and solar panels. We talk of de-carbonising our economies, but considering our economies rely 95 per cent on burning fossil fuels, the problems are gigantic. Furthermore, there are doubters and denialists — most of whom profit from burning carbon — who do everything they can to prevent any knowledge nor any solution to this, so far benign, developing nightmare. I call it a nightmare because the prospects are not good.

The record and the observations are simple enough: despite its small proportion in the gaseous mix, CO2 is the main warming gas that regulates the major variability of the temperature of the atmosphere. Less of it and the planet goes into a glacial event. More of it and the planet warms up. The most recent natural setting which so far has been studied for the last 3 million years is shown to be 180 parts per million for cooler periods and 300 parts per million for warmer periods. For this difference of 120 parts per million of CO2, the resultant difference of temperature has been between 8 and 10 degrees Celsius. Some people with bullshit arts degrees will dispute these figures but the science is very solid on these interpretation of the record and observations.

The problem, which should be obvious to all of us is that our very comfortable industrialisation has released more than 100 parts per million of EXTRA CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural conditions cannot absorb this EXTRA CO2. The scientific consensus is that this EXTRA CO2 is going to warm up the atmosphere beyond “natural conditions” — beyond comfort. But the process is “slow” in human history scale and “super-fast” in geological timelimes. We have already scientifically witnessed some variations, though for us, mere mortals, we cannot feel any “global warming” changes. Should we be able to feel these changes, as I always say, we would cook within five years. Should similar changes happen in a termite mound, the whole nest would perish. 

The extend of the oncoming problem of global warming is practically unknown, but bracketable by scientific deduction and study of previous events under similar conditions, going back 120 million years when sea level went higher than 75 metres above present — as well as doing many experiments of plants and soil behaviour in warming conditions. Major changes in crops, heatwaves, storms, sea level rise are on the cards. Extinction, coral bleaching and many other problem will rise. Coupled with our other activities, such as the use of insecticides and pesticides, we have further modified the reactivity of nature towards a degradation of our artificially created comfort zone, which we will try to maintain with more destructive drastic ways. 

Difference of potential. 

Most of the atmospheric traumas (storms, etc), stem from the difference of potential in energy contained in local, regional and climate banding areas. For example, November in Sydney is rather cold at the moment. The weather is crap. Nothing new. As the Antarctica loses ice, as the atmosphere carry the cold eddies and upper atmospheric rolls, from down south, certain parts such as Sydney will be dumped upon in this uncertain season between winter and summer. In Europe this would be called Spring, but here, in subtropical Sydney, it’s a mix of a hot day (up to 38 degree Celsius) and a cool day (below 18 degrees Celsius) the next. People suffer from various “shocks” from flu to hay-fever as many native plants are in bloom, while others have already gone into seeding and one does not know “what to wear”, including carrying the ubiquitous 40 per cent of an umbrella. But should the heat be evenly distributed, there would not be much disturbance in the atmosphere. Either a blanket of clouds or a clear sky depending on the humidity and the atmospheric pressure, influenced by the waves of high and low pressure. As mentioned before, should there be a cool air layer entering a warmer high cloud, this could suddenly lead to destructing downbursts. Thus a warmed atmosphere does not mean more storms but a more complex interaction between the layers and the various regions of the atmosphere. Some extreme scientists have calculated that under the new CO2 regimen, these layers and regions will get totally upshitcreek by 2045. My own calculation was 2032, based on estimates I made in 1994.

Evaporation (lake, sea) can induce a cooling spot in a hot region. In tropical latitude above 10 degrees this often lead to the formation of hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones which are the same thing. They are big eddies spurred by the Coriolis effect due to the rotation of the planet on its axis. The USA got their fair share of such storms this year and the cost of fixing things is getting beyond what is needed in cash to mitigate some of the “global warming”. But as usual we prefer fixing things rather than preventing disasters....

Elasticity of processes (feedback mechanisms) hide the REAL strength of the problem of global warming. A rubber band can be stretched without breaking until... The atmosphere is a stretchable substance with cool and warm regions rolling specifically into each other at flexible junctures (often marked by jet steams). The unpredictability of this stretchability we call the weather is unrelated to the predictability of global warming. But global warming will interfere with the unpredictability and power of the weather.

We value our freedom to do whatever. Most of this is an illusion as we are mostly dependant of religious and political decrees that dictate our behaviour. But on an industrial scale, we are free to exploit the resources of the planet till we die because this freedom is enshrined in the old godly stupid books written in times when plagues of frogs and of locusts were signs of misbehaviour. 

Fully accepting our responsibility for global warming would show that we have been careless people. So we hum and err about it because because... Our political systems are seriously inadequate to deal with this problem...

So, the last American presidential election was a choice between a puppet of the denialists and a puppet of the warmongers... Please let me cry. Urgency and timing was the key. In full respect of the situation, it had nothing to do between a sneaky female and a lame male. It is my simpletonian view that the establishment (the “Deep State”) would have known trump could become a puppet of warmongering easier than Clinton could become a puppet of denialism. Thus IT WAS A NO-BRAINER. Trump HAD TO WIN. 

Global warming is an unmitigated scientific issue. Warmongering is a philosophical issue. Both can be played out politically. This is where our politicians can bullshit with expertise on bullshit with bullshit, and we see nothing of the legerdemain...

The Hillary dump was one of these hand tricks, skilfully executed with the help of non-willing participant as well as a bunch of ‘deplorables” in just enough number to tip the scales... Add a bit of salt in the wound and voila...

Someone in a back room was doing stats so Trump could not lose... NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIANS.

Gus Leonisky

Your local global warming alarmist...

and now a warning word from roger stone...

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sued the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and Russia on Monday. Now, Republican political operative Roger Stone is planning to do what he has always done: capitalize on the fallout.

"The DNC lawsuit opens the door of discovery. My lawyers and I want to examine the DNC servers to settle this bogus claim of Russian hacking once and for all," Stone told The Daily Caller Monday. 

Stone's lawyers sent a letter to the DNC informing them that they "intend to test the basic underlying claims that ‘Russians' hacked, stole and disseminated DNC data, rather than the various other plausible scenarios, including internal theft," he told the outlet.

More than a year since the breach, the FBI still has not been granted access to the DNC's servers. Instead, the US intelligence community has relied on the word of CrowdStrike, a private contractor with a past of rushed allegations against Russia that were later proven false.

Stone has been accused of conspiring with the hacker Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, among others, to get the DNC's internal communications to the public. Stone has at times fueled those claims, by saying he contacted Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter, for example, but has a history of telling tall tales that overestimate his involvement in major political showdowns. He told The Daily Caller on Monday that the DNC's allegations against him over the alleged conspiracy are a "fairy tale, a hoax and a canard."

read more:

Infowars host Roger Stone, a former campaign adviser to President Trump who has said he still speaks with Trump "from time to time," testified on Tuesday before the House Intelligence Committee. 

The session was held behind closed doors, so reporters could not observe questions and answers related to the Trump campaign and Russia. Stone did, however, share his prepared remarks, which appear below as written by Stone.

The Fix has annotated Stone's testimony, using Genius. To view an annotation, click on the yellow, highlighted text on the original post

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Committee members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and staff. My name is Roger J. Stone, Jr., and with me today are my counsel, Grant Smith and Robert Buschel.

I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, The Trump Campaign and the Russian state. I view this as a political proceeding because a number of members of this Committee have made irresponsible, indisputably, and provably false statements in order to create the impression of collusion with the Russian state without any evidence that would hold up in a US court of law or the court of public opinion.

I am no stranger to the slash and burn aspect of American politics today. I recognize that because of my long reputation and experience as a partisan warrior, I am a suitable scapegoat for those who would seek to persuade the public that there were wicked, international transgressions in the 2016 presidential election. I have a long history in this business: I strategize, I proselytize, I consult, I electioneer, I write, I advocate, and I prognosticate. I’m a New York Times bestselling author, I have a syndicated radio show and a weekly column, and I report for at 5 o'clock eastern every day. While some may label me a dirty trickster, the members of this Committee could not point to any tactic that is outside the accepted norms of what political strategists and consultants do today. I do not engage in any illegal activities on behalf of my clients or the causes in which I support. There is one “trick” that is not in my bag and that is treason.

As someone whose political activism was born from the anti-communism of Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan; and whose freedom seeking family members were mowed-down by Russian tanks on the streets of Budapest in 1956, I deeply resent any allegation that I would collude with the oppressive Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

My colleague, Michael Caputo, voluntarily sat in this seat a couple of months ago, gave what I believe were candid and truthful answers to those who cared to sit in on the interview; and yet, when he was done, he was accused of perjury by a member who did not even have the pretention to show up for his interview. He was eviscerated by some Committee members and consequently, the press. The most unfair aspect of this turn of events, and behavior by some Committee members, is that this Committee refuses, to this day, to release the transcripts of his testimony for the world to read and judge for themselves.

Multiple members of this Committee have made false allegations against me in public session in order to ensure that these bogus charges received maximum media coverage. Now however, you deny me the opportunity to respond to these charges in the same open forum. This is cowardice. Fortunately, we will have the opportunity today to take the exact words of some members of this Committee and examine them in order to uncover the lies.

Members of this Committee as well as some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee aren’t alone in their irresponsibility. On January 20, 2017, the New York Times reported that the intelligence services were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts, which proved that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the benefit of Donald Trump. So, where are these records? Can this Committee or our intelligence agencies produce them? I didn’t think so.

Nor, is this irresponsibility entirely partisan. Sen. John McCain told CNN that I “…should be compelled to appear before the Senate to explain my ties to Yanukovych and the Russians.” This is very simple, Senator the answer is: “None” and “None.” In fact, I worked against Yanukovych’s party in the 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, and have no ties to any Russians.

Given this Committee’s consistent refusal to allow me to testify in a public session, in the interest of compromise, I have repeatedly requested that the transcript of my testimony here today, be released immediately upon conclusion of today’s session. Even this constructive suggestion has been rejected. What is it you fear? Why do you oppose transparency? What is it you don’t want the public to know?

I can assure each of you, I will not let myself be a punching bag for people with ill intentions or political motives. Understand, I will expose the truth in every forum and on every platform available to me.

As a 40- year friend and advisor of Donald Trump, I had continually urged him to run for the presidency, beginning in 1988. When he decided in 2015 to become a serious candidate against a weak slate of opponents, I became one of the Trump campaign’s first consultants, reprising a role I played in 2012 when Donald Trump briefly considered a candidacy in that election. I performed consulting work for the campaign for five months and the consulting relationship ended in August 2015. I, however, didn’t go quietly into the night, I continued to work, write, and advocate on behalf of his candidacy because to this day, I believe he has the potential to be a truly transformative president and to make our nation great again.

These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks. No member of this Committee or intelligence agency can prove this assertion. Because the DNC steadfastly refused to allow the FBI to examine their computer servers, this entire claim is based on a self-serving report by CloudStrike, a forensic IT company retained by, directed, and paid for by the DNC.

The Nation magazine recently reported on a study issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is comprised of numerous former high-level US intelligence officials. Based upon the VIPS study, The Nation concluded that, “There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5, 2016… not by the Russians and not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak — a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable datastorage device. In short, they reported it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the alleged initial “hack,” that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.” Additionally, these unproven allegations have led to a frivolous lawsuit filed by former Obama administration lawyers against me and the Trump campaign. In my motion to dismiss, I submitted a sworn declaration of Dr. Virgil Griffith, a cognitive computer graduate from the California Institute of Technology, who questioned the unproven assumptions that Russian hackers are responsible for theft of DNC emails and other data.

I recognize that those who believe that there was collusion between the Trump camp and the Russian state, now say Stone, “MUST HAVE” been involved, but that is not based on one shred of evidence. This is nothing more than conjecture, supposition, projection, allegation, and coincidence, none of it proven by evidence or fact. I understand the Committee’s interest in me, I use all clauses of the 1st Amendment to achieve my goals, I am out there, I am provocative and partisan, but let’s be clear, I have no involvement in the alleged activities that are within the publicly stated scope of this Committee’s investigation – collusion with the Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. I have every right to express my views in the public square. I actively participate in matters of great public concern. I also believe, and you should too, my friend, Tucker Carlson, who said last week, ‘You should never accept, uncritically, the imprecise conclusions of ….the “intel community.’’

The mantra-like repetition of the claim by our vaunted 17 intelligence agencies that the “Russians” colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the 2016 election, does not make it so. These are, after all, the same entities who insisted the North Koreans would not be able to launch a viable rocket for 3-5 years, that insisted Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib prison, and that the government had no bulk data collection program, until Edward Snowden revealed otherwise. Our intelligence agencies have been politicized. I realize they are deeply unhappy over President Trump’s refusal to expand the proxy war in Syria and their failure to obtain the no-fly zone promised to them by Hillary Clinton, which would be an open invitation for World War III. That the intelligence agencies have continued to leak, to the detriment of President Trump, in violation of the law, is proof positive of their politicization.

Members of this Committee have made three basic assertions against me which must be rebutted here today. The charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email, that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or that, my now public exchange with a persona that our intelligence agencies claim, but cannot prove, is a Russian asset, is anything but innocuous and are entirely false. Again, such assertions are conjecture, supposition, projection, and allegations but none of them are facts.

For example, Mr. Schiff, the ranking member of this Committee asked, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that is private emails would be exposed?” I want to know where I predicted this. Can Mr. Schiff read us the exact quote and source from where I predicted the hacking or Mr. Podesta’s email? Can Mr. Schiff even come up with a documented quote where I use Podesta and email in the same sentence - - before it happened?

My Tweet of August 21, 2016, in which I said, “Trust me, it will soon be the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary” Must be examined in context. I posted this at a time that my boyhood friend and colleague, Paul Manafort, had just resigned from the Trump campaign over allegations regarding his business activities in Ukraine. I thought it manifestly unfair that John Podesta not be held to the same standard. Note, that my Tweet of August 21, 2016, makes no mention, whatsoever, of Mr. Podesta’s email, but does accurately predict that the Podesta brothers’ business activities in Russia with the oligarchs around Putin, their uranium deal, their bank deal, and their Gazprom deal, would come under public scrutiny. Podesta’s activities were later reported by media outlets as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. My extensive knowledge of the Podesta brothers’ business dealings in Russia was based on The Panama Papers, which were released in early 2016, which revealed that the Podesta brothers had extensive business dealings in Russia. The Tweet is also based on a comprehensive, early August opposition research briefing provided to me by investigative journalist, Dr. Jerome Corsi, which I then asked him to memorialize in a memo that he sent me on August 31st , all of which was culled from public records. There was no need to have John Podesta’s email to learn that he and his presidential candidate were in bed with the clique around Putin. In fact,, a news organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation, reported, “There is nothing in the public record so far that proves Stone, a political operative and longtime Trump associate, predicted the Podesta email hack.”

Now, let me address the charge that I had advance knowledge of the timing, content and source of the WikiLeaks disclosures from the DNC. On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange, announced that he was in possession of Clinton DNC emails. I learned this by reading it on Twitter. I asked a journalist who I knew had interviewed Assange to independently confirm this report, and he subsequently did. This journalist assured me that WikiLeaks would release this information in October and continued to assure me of this throughout the balance of August and all of September. This information proved to be correct. I have referred publicly to this journalist as an, “intermediary”, “go-between” and “mutual friend.” All of these monikers are equally true.

In the March 20th public session of this Committee, Mr. Schiff asked former FBI Director Comey, “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” The way the question was asked was clearly designed to cast me in a bad light. I have never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist. Again, Mr. Schiff is guilty of a false assertion.

The fact is that during the March 20th Comey hearing and many times subsequent, members of this Committee, and even Democratic nominee for president, felt that they could go into the public square and make similar charges without any substantiation or basis in fact.

Congressman Heck of Washington, stated, for example, “… we’ve heard about quite a few individuals in the Trump orbit who fell somewhere on that spectrum from mere naïveté, disturbing enough if this naïveté is a feature of those (who) were supposed to be running our country and foreign policy, to unwitting Russian dupes, to willing blindness, to active coordination. This rogues gallery includes those already fired — Roger Stone, adviser to Donald Trump…” This is the worst sort of neo-McCarthyism. To be clear, I have never represented any Russian clients, have never been to Russia, and never had any communication with any Russians or individuals fronting for Russians, in connection with the 2016 presidential election.

To pile on, in an interview on MSNBC on May 19, 2017, Congresswoman Speier felt compelled to say: “I believe that Michael Caputo is part of this cabal including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, and others who had business relationships with Russia.” No, I do not have and I’ve never had any relationship with Russia or any Russian entity. You have falsely accused me without any evidence – you should apologize today.

One more apology I would demand in public, if she were here today, is from presidential runner-up, Hillary Clinton. Following the lead of the minority members of this Committee, in her new fiction book, she repeats the same false narratives about me as if they were the truth… they could not be further from the truth.

And then there is Congressmen Eric Swalwell who, as reported in Newsmax, said, “From Roger Stone, we hope to learn the same things we learned from Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Don [Trump] Jr., and others who were particularly active in their dealings with Russians during the summer of 2016.” Has Mr. Swalwell read my exchange with the Twitter persona which he alleges constitutes collusion? The exchange is innocuous at best. Since I had no other contact with Russians, what could he be referring to?

Finally, let me address this limited, benign, and now entirely public exchange with a persona on Twitter calling themselves Guccifer 2.0. While some in the intelligence community have claimed that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cutout and that it is responsible for the hacking of the DNC servers, neither of these assertions can be proven by this Committee or the aforementioned intelligence community. I wrote an article for Breitbart on August 5, 2016, in which I express my view that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset, at the same time reporting their claim taking credit for hacking the DNC. My only exchange with Guccifer 2.0 would begin on August 14, 2016, after my article appeared, and ran through September 9, 2016. Imagine my deep when Mr. Schiff purposefully conflated these dates before this Committee, reversing them to create the false impression that I had communicated with Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter prior to publication of the article questioning whether Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cut-out. Shame on you Mr. Schiff.

Now that more information is in the public domain, the very question of whether Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC must be revisited in light of the VIPS report cited by The Nation. As they concluded, “Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source — claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.” I am left to conclude that the President is right when he calls this Congressional investigation a, “witchhunt.”

Based on what we know now, it is clear that there was a foreign nation which was colluding with a presidential campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Therefore, I strongly urge this Committee to investigate the numerous, publicly documented contacts between Ukraine and the Clinton campaign, particularly in light of recent public reports that Ukraine is now providing sophisticated missile technology to North Korea.

Please do not continue to perpetuate falsehoods here today.

(Roger Stone)
Read from top... As some people pointed out of course, suing the Trump campaign, WikiLeaks and Russia is a political ploy to win votes in the mid-term elections — NOTHING ELSE as this ugly exercise by the DNC is stupid and nuts. What's wrong with them? The Democrats in the USA? Idiots! They got the shits because an idiot DumbDumb got the job instead of their chosen "lying warrior woman" as the "First Female President of the United States". Well it did not happen. Get over it and go back to your roots, that which Bernie Sanders cultivated, not the cannon merchants that all of the USA represent.

Read from top...

the voice of voz on disobedient media...



When taking all of these separate pieces into account, one observes a convergence of evidence that multiple US-based operators were behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona and its publications. This is incredibly significant because it is based on multiple pieces of concrete data; it does not rely on “anonymous sources within the government,” nor contractors hired by the DNC. As a result, much of the prior legacy press coverage of Guccifer 2.0 as a Russia-based agent can be readily debunked.

Such tangible evidence stands in contrast to the claims made in a recently published Daily Beast article, which reads more like a gossip column than serious journalism. In the Daily Beast’s recital, the outlet cites an anonymous source who claims that a Moscow-based GRU agent was behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation, writing:

“Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU), The Daily Beast has learned. It’s an attribution that resulted from a fleeting but critical slip-up in GRU tradecraft.

… But on one occasion, The Daily Beast has learned, Guccifer failed to activate the VPN client before logging on. As a result, he left a real, Moscow-based Internet Protocol address in the server logs of an American social media company, according to a source familiar with the government’s Guccifer investigation.

… Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow.”

[The Daily Beast, March 22, 2018]

Clearly, the claim made in the Daily Beast’s report is in direct contradiction with the growing mound of evidence suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 operated out of the United States. A detailed technical breakdown of the evidence confirming a West-Coast “last saved” time and how this counters the claims of the Daily Beast can be found in the Forensicator’s work.

The Forensicator explained to Disobedient Media that their discovery process was initiated by the following Tweet by Matt Tait (@pwnallthethings), a security blogger and journalist. Tait noticed a change revision entry in one of the Word documents published in Guccifer 2.0’s second batch of documents, (uploaded 3 days after Guccifer 2.0 first appeared on the scene).

read more:



Joseph Mifsud (born 1960)[2] is a Maltese academic, with high level connections to the Russian state.[3]

He is a former employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta, a former principal in the London Centre of International Law Practice, a professorial teaching fellow at the University of Stirling[4] in Scotland, and director of the Diplomatic Academy of London,[5]where he held seminars on Brexit.[6]

He was awarded a PhD upon acceptance of his thesis entitled "Managing educational reform: a comparative approach from Malta (and Northern Ireland); a headteachers' perspective" in 1995 from Queen's University Belfast.[7]

Investigators say Mifsud enticed George Papadopoulos, an advisor to the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign, with a promise of Russian "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.[1][8]


Read more:



Mifsud has denied the claim he was associated with Russian intelligence and insisted instead that he's a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Clinton Foundation. Casting even more doubt on the claim, Mifsud was photographed next to Claire Smith in 2012 at a training program on international security organized by the London Academy of Diplomacy, where Mifsud was director. Smith belongs to the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, which oversees the UK's spying agencies. [is this THE Claire Smith:]?

"But now it's now become really clear that he was very much well connected with the UK intelligence agencies and also had connections to campuses where the CIA and the FBI also trained their employees. So it's really a fascinating reversal of somebody who was portrayed as a Russian agent being exposed as somebody who was most likely a UK intelligence asset," Voz said.

"She was so high up in the UK intelligence community that there is absolutely no way that she would have participated in that program with an accident Russian spy," Voz concluded.


Read more:


See also:


Read from top.


ip address


Why the Evidence Mueller Has for the Indicting 13 Russian Nationals is Fraudulent


by George Elias


It’s almost a shame that a headline like that won’t spark anything more than casual curiosity when you consider the charges Richard Mueller is looking into. The Russian company Concord Management decided to answer [h]is charges in early May, which threw a wrench into Mueller’s strategy.

I’m more interested in showing what Richard Mueller’s sources are not, than who they are. This opens a much greater conspiracy that’s playing out in a complicit US media today. What do I mean? The flawed source for both investigators and journalists that know anything about the Russian troll factory in St. Petersburg, Russia is Shaltai Boltai. They are supposed to be connected to the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence).

Fancy Bear is also supposedly the GRU hacking team that everyone is actually looking for. Shaltai Boltai is supposed to have those connections. Is it an official Intel operation or was a criminal undertaking to discredit Russia?

Over a year ago, I found evidence of the identity of Crowdstrike’s Fancy Bear, just short of a confession. When I looked into Shaltai Boltai, I found additional information that is even better for identifying Fancy Bear. The next article will detail that clearly.

Once it’s clear that the source of Mueller’s evidence – Russian hackers called Shaltai Boltai (Humpty Dumpty) – did NOT hack Concord Catering or the Russian government, we can cross off a couple of hackers from our list on our way to Fancy Bear. Shaltai Boltai tried unsuccessfully to confess to the DNC hacks.

They aren’t the hackers they make themselves out to be. They are Information Operation (IO) specialists that were paid to build a narrative which became a convenient hook for Mueller to hang his coat on.

Unfortunately, the slam dunk he would have won if they stayed away was taken from his grasp the second real people materialized. You see, Robert Mueller has to prove the Internet Research Company existed in reality and did the things he alleges.

He now has to authenticate the communications from the Troll Farm that his Russian interference investigation is based on and he can’t do it. This was the reason Mueller asked to delay the trial instead of moving forward. His case is built on fraudulent (nonexistent) evidence. Even that is laughable because what he is alleging goes against the grain of some of his foundational documentary evidence.

The source for Mueller’s indictment are Russian traitors that were hired for the purpose of destroying Russia. That Mueller’s evidence was an Information Operation to discredit both the Kremlin and the current US government changes everything because fabricated evidence is still considered too tainted to use in a court of law, even if the defendant is Russian.

Let’s get down to brass tacks and avoid any confusion. Once you understand that the original source of information for the Internet Research Agency, viz. hackers calling themselves Shaltai Boltai (Humpty Dumpty), fabricated the evidence, you understand the irresolvable problem Mueller stepped into.

Mueller’s problem in this scenario, according to what should be a foundational article by Scott Humor at the, is that the “Internet Research Agency”, which existed only on paper, ceased to exist in 2015. It was liquidated and merged with construction retail company called TEKA. I found Humor’s article after almost finishing this one. He left little need for any additional research on the matter.

About the troll farm, he notes the results of a court case that an NGO was pushing to get legal recognition of the troll farm as a working business in St Petersburg. It didn’t work out.

One example, a woman with the last name Malcheva filed a lawsuit in court against the companies “Internet Research, LLC” and “TEKA, LLC,” claiming unpaid wages.

The court asked her to produce evidence of her work, and then denied her claim after she produced a photo of a computer with an IP address on its screen as evidence of her employment.

IP Address
inetnum: –
descr: S-Peterburg Hotel Corintia Wi-Fi

An IP address that was assigned to a luxury hotel in Saint-Petersburg. A hotel that was awarded multiple international awards for excellence. An immensely popular hotel among discriminating travelers. A very expensive hotel located in the center of a historic city. The woman claimed that she was an “online troll’ working from this location ten hours a day with hundreds of other virtual trolls. The judge didn’t believe her. Would you? – Scott Humor

Secondly, and more importantly, is that although charged with treason by the Russian government, the “hackers” did not serve time for hacking. They served time for conspiring against the Russian government. This is an important point.

First things first, how do I know it is an information operation against the United States? Everything hinges on how carefully and accurately this single question is answered.

If Mueller is alleging that this entity interfered in the 2016 US election, yet all the information about it is faked, it is safe to say the word Information Operation.

The reason is simple. The “Anon” information Mueller uses for his indictment about the Russian Internet Research Agency every MSM news story is based on states quite clearly in the posts that it IS an Information Operation. Shaltai Boltai reiterates this fact throughout different posts!

If only this single fact is true, Robert Mueller needs to step down to answer some questions. The first one is why he would knowingly take part in a foreign influence operation to publicly destroy the credibility of the United States Government?

Before getting into some of the fraudulent information, watch how the source purposefully discredits itself. I don’t think the hacker imagined things would bloom this large. The following are a couple of questions the hacker answered for a journalist. Question 2 was asked because this hacker group is anti-Putin and anti-Russian government as it stands.

The answer to question 3 states they are an Information Operation seeking to influence (policy). While it is a surprise that even a highly politicized investigation would claim fabrications as legitimate evidence, it’s more of a surprise that it wasn’t caught by MSM . You’ll see for yourself, the hackers were honest. Mueller, on the other hand, is not.

From the June 5th, 2014 post– These were questions that a Russian journalist asked the Anon group that found the Russian Internet Research Agency(IRA) of St. Petersburg and released the information currently used by Mueller and the MSM including the New York Times.

2. Journo:  Many consider you a “wiring”(wire service) for the discharge of Kremlin secrets. What do you say to that? 

Shaltai Boltai: How many people, so many opinions. We do not intend to prove or deny it. We will be told for already laid out “stories” and those that we will lay out.

3. Journo:  What is your ultimate goal?

Shaltai Boltai:  We never concealed it. The goal is published in our blog and twitter – we create realities and give meanings to words. More – trying to change reality, create another reality. To launch certain events according to a certain scenario.

So, there it is. This informative post is a confession by the original source made directly after posting information about the Russian Internet Research Agency for over one month in May 2014.

If the information that Mueller used in his indictment was true, it would still have to be thrown out of a court of law because of the source. In the US, a police officer can’t lie to a judge or grand jury about probable cause to get a search or arrest warrant and expect anything he found to be admissible in court. Special Prosecutor Mueller can’t either. He cannot cite information that :

  • Was purported to be hacked and was obtained illegally if that were true
  • Cannot use information where the source states the information was manufactured to create new realities, in this case political realities.
  • Fake emails do not constitute evidence. None of the MSM stories even provide him with an inch of cover.
  • He doesn’t get a free pass today.

Let’s step back and look at how this developed. The second point that deserves special attention from Robert Mueller’s investigative team is the “Russians” shown through the hacked documents don’t seem to speak Russian or English well. It’s kind of like Mr. Bean does James Bond. It’s funny and at the same time absurd because it could never work.

The Russian language mistakes are grammar school stuff like you’d expect from a foreigner. They consist of basic spelling, gender confusion, and other simple grammatical errors that won’t be found in communications from law firms or multimillion dollar businesses.

This is important because according to Mueller the IRA (Internet Research Agency) is supposed to be composed of handpicked professional journalists, information war specialists, attorneys, and business people. These are supposed to be educated people. After all, they got past 19 Intel agencies right?

The hackers material almost conclusively shows that the Concord communications shown below were from people that use Russian as a 2nd language. I will post a link and show you how to search the blog easily. If they take the blog down, I saved it on the Wayback machine. It is entirely searchable and it is saved for posterity.
Next up, looking at the basic technical information. The proofs were posted by the hacker before anyone was looking for them, so that’spretty bad. They seem very juvenile.

According to Paul Craig Roberts, “Mueller claims to have emails from some of the 13 Russians. If the emails are genuine, they sound like a few kids pretending to friends that they are doing big things. One of the emails brags that the FBI got after them so they got busy covering up their tracks.”

And Rollingstone Magazine wrote “All 13 individuals are named in the indictment, including Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch who is the man behind the Internet Research Agency, the so-called “troll factory” located in St. Petersburg, Russia… Prigozhin, who is otherwise known as “Vladimir Putin’s chef,” operates a catering company and a related consulting firm, Concord Catering and Concord Management and Consulting LLC, both of which participated in the 2016 U.S. election conspiracy and both of which were also indicted by Mueller.

Prigozhin is supposed to be at the center of this. If you know anything about well-heeled Slavic Oligarchs, or just fat cats in general, regardless of who they are, they take a lot of pride in the look of their organizations.

This is where the source information gets interesting.


Continue reading:


Read from top

a ukrainian outfit...


This investigation shows clearly who the Fancy Bear hackers are in relation to real-life hacking crimes.

The Fancy Bear hackers work for: the Ukrainian government, Ukrainian Intelligence, Ukrainian SBU, the Atlantic Council, Bellingcat, Dimitri Alperovich and Crowdstrike, the Ukrainian World Congress, the UCCA, the Ukrainian -American Diaspora, the UK-Ukrainian Diaspora, the Australian-Ukrainian Diaspora; they may also be associated with the leadership of the Democratic Party USA, Republican Party USA leadership, and Team Clinton.

The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear’s hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following:

  • – Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17
  • Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab
  • Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich
  • Fancy Bear is Ukrainian Intelligence
  • How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
  • Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently fraudulent data
  • Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper’s January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can’t make this shit up.]
  • Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as foreign spies.

Key organizations working directly and indirectly with Fancy Bear are BellingcatInformNapalmStopfakePropornot, InterpreterMagEuromaidan PressHamilton 68 Dashboard, Facebook, and Twitter. We’ll be going into a lot of detail on these later. Who’s behind Mark Zuckerberg’s new censorship program? Fancy Bear and related groups are. But, more on that, later.

Next up: @bellingcat – @AricToler – @EliotHiggins role working for Fancy Bear, and Ukrainian Intelligence fabricating evidence while working for ultranationalists, including Pravy Sektor members.


Read all:


Read from top.

reporting on the reporter...


from Lee Stranahan


I was as surprised as anyone last Friday, when just days before US President Donald Trump’s historic meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, special counsel Robert Mueller dropped an indictment against 12 Russian nationals claiming that they were Guccifer 2.0, the entity that took credit on June 15, 2016, for the hack of the DNC and DCCC.

I was even more surprised to find that I was discussed in Mueller's indictment.

Section 43c of the indictment says, "On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter Movement. The reporter responded by discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release."

I am that reporter.

Part of the reason I was surprised is that I have never been contacted by anyone from Mueller's investigative team. That's one reason I personally know that this is a shoddy investigation, but I'll come back to that in a moment.

When I saw that I was being discussed in the indictment, I immediately mentioned it on Twitter. I also made it clear to the media that I was available for interviews. No media outlet has contacted me.

I went public because I have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, the reason that Mueller's team knew about my contacts with Guccifer 2.0 is because I posted the direct messages we exchanged over Twitter myself a year ago.

For the record, I didn't know who Guccifer 2.0 was at the time and I still don't, despite Mueller's indictment. I have never believed that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian state actor and have seen no evidence that persuades me otherwise.

At the time of this contact with Guccifer 2.0, I was the lead investigative reporter for Breitbart News; today, I co-host the best morning news radio show in America, Fault Lines with Nixon and Stranahan, which airs Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Eastern Time on Radio Sputnik. Fault Lines is broadcast on 105.5 FM and 1390 AM in Washington, DC, and around the world on the Sputnik News website.

Of course, just seeing both Russian-funded Sputnik and formerly Steve Bannon-led-Breitbart News on my resume is enough to give many in the media the flutters. Never mind that I also wrote for years at the Huffington Post or did independent journalism on issues like the Syrian war, which I traveled to Beirut in 2013 to cover. All of that and more gets left out of media narrative on Russian CollusionTM!

Thus, the New York Times only mentions my work at Breitbart and Sputnik in their scarily titled article, Tracing Guccifer 2.0's Many Tentacles in the 2016 Election. And like Mueller's team, the New York Times also never bothered to get in touch with me for their story.

A few hours after the Mueller indictment came out, I left for my planned trip to Helsinki to cover the Trump-Putin summit for Sputnik.

A couple of days later, CNN's Jake Tapper retweeted my initial tweet about my cameo in the indictment and added the comment "Employee for Sputnik confirms that when he was at Breitbart he was in touch with who DOJ says was Russian military intelligence masquerading as hacker Guccifer 2.0."

I've spoken to Jake privately a number of times in the past. He's praised my work on other stories. I'm easy to reach. Yet despite highlighting my contact with Guccifer 2.0, Tapper has also not reached out to interview me.

It's almost like the media and Muller have no interest in hearing what I have to say. No, wait — it's exactly like that, because there's plenty that the indictment and the media leave out.

For example, when Guccifer 2.0 contacted me on August 22, 2016, Steve Bannon was no longer leading Breitbart News. Whoever Guccifer 2.0 is, they expressed no interest at all in the fact that Bannon had left Breitbart to head the Trump campaign.

Furthermore, when the indictment says I was given material on the Black Lives Matter movement, it's not exactly accurate, something Mueller would know if he'd ever talked to me.

In fact, I was sent a file with a few documents, including one that was a memo about the Black Lives Matter movement that was sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). That document sparked my interest because I'd been covering Black Lives Matter for months and had been arrested a little over a month earlier while covering the protests over the death of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge. I was one of four journalists arrested. (All charges were dropped and we reached a very small settlement with the city.)

If the Muller investigation was legitimately trying to get to the truth, I'd think they would have asked me for this set of files, since it might contain useful information for a forensic investigation. I'd think they would also want to see my direct messages with Guccifer 2.0 for themselves.

That might not be possible now. You see, after Mueller's indictment was released, the public Twitter account for Guccifer 2.0 was removed from Twitter. I no longer have live access to my direct messages, nor can the public see the account for themselves live on Twitter. For anyone wanting to make up his or her own mind about this facet of the Russiagate narrative, including through viewing the original information for themselves, this is an interesting development.

Luckily, researcher Adam Carter has saved screen captures of the entire account as well as Guccifer 2.0's Wordpress site on his must-read site dedicated to Guccifer 2.0.

People disinclined to simply take Mueller at his word on his unproven accusations will also want to read this article by Carter showing the contradictions between the information in the Mueller indictment and what is available already in public record.

Anyone who looks at that record for themselves can see what the media isn't telling you — that I was far from the first journalist to talk to or interview Guccifer 2.0. It also makes clear that I did not request info from Guccifer 2.0, but was offered it.

However, as I've said, I did nothing remotely wrong in talking to Guccifer 2.0, no matter who is ultimately shown to be behind the account. I was following a story and working a lead. I wanted to find out who Guccifer 2.0 really was and I still do.


read more:


Read from top...


See also:

on military "intelligence"...


cats and dogs in moscow...

those ruskies again...

The United Kingdom has accused Russian-backed hackers of trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment research from academic and pharmaceutical institutions around the world.


Key points:
  • Britain's National Cybersecurity Centre made the announcement, which was coordinated with authorities in the US and Canada
  • It was unclear whether any information had been stolen 
  • The NCC said individuals' confidential information had not been compromised


Britain, as well as the United States and Canada, allege that hacking group APT29, also known as Cozy Bear and said to be part of the Russian intelligence service, was attacking academic and pharmaceutical research institutions involved in coronavirus vaccine development.

The persistent and ongoing attacks have been interpreted by intelligence officials as an effort to steal intellectual property, rather than to disrupt research.

Britain's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) made the announcement, which was coordinated with authorities in the US and Canada.


"We condemn these despicable attacks against those doing vital work to combat the coronavirus pandemic," NCSC Director of Operations Paul Chichester said in a statement.


It was unclear whether any information had been stolen but the NCSC said individuals' confidential information had not been compromised.

The NCSC said the group's attacks were continuing and used a variety of tools and techniques, including spear-phishing and custom malware.

"APT29 is likely to continue to target organisations involved in COVID-19 vaccine research and development, as they seek to answer additional intelligence questions relating to the pandemic," the NCSC statement said.

Cozy Bear has been identified by the US as one of two Russian government-linked hacking groups that broke into the Democratic National Committee computer network and stole emails ahead of the 2016 presidential election.



Read more:


As we know from the war on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, it is very easy for the intel agencies such as MI5, MI6, the CIA, etc, to manufacture fake information. Gus knew this way before this cock-up, by studying "Spying 101 to 47- 064 for dummies" in the 1970s. Manufacturing fake information in one of the primary goals of these agencies, even before spying on other countries to know what they are up to. It's easier to make fake proofs of this and that, than discover the truth which on all account would not create the hysteria necessary to hate Russia or China or the Martians. The Western media love it.


Now is Cozy Bear the same as Fancy Bear?... Read from top.