Sunday, December 31

Bet you never saw this clip of Obama saying "Under my plan the cost of electricity will necessarily...

When emperor Hussein Obama was just "candidate Obama," running for election in 2008, he attended a luncheon/fundraiser with a group of top Democrat donors in San Francisco.  The donors were all leftists, and one of their hot-button issues warming.

Which, the Left claims, is a) really happening; b) to a dangerous extent; c) is caused by CO2; d) emitted by human activity.  So naturally they asked the future emperor what he planned to do to stop this awful menace.

The future emperor replied that he intended to impose regulations on coal-fired powerplants so severe that it would no longer be profitable to run them.

Literally he said "Oh, companies can still build them, but it'll bankrupt 'em to do so."

One of the few moonbat leftists with any understanding of the laws of supply and demand asked the candidate, Won't that make electricity cost more?  To which His Excellency replied "Under my plan, electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket."

If a Republican candidate had said that, the Lying Media would have made it front-page news.  They'd have kept telling voters every week until the election that the awful, horrible candidate was thoughtlessly proposing a policy that would cost poor and middle-class people another thousand or two every year!

Oh, the humanity!!

"But wait...I didn't hear anything on the networks, or in the WaPo or NYT about him saying that!  If he'd said anything remotely close to that, they all would have reported it!  You're just a right-wing nut!

Really?  Take a look for yourself.  (Only a minute long.)  Then ask yourself why the Lying Media never showed this, or told you anything about it, when they would have been screaming bloody murder if the Republican candidate had said it:

Saw this 9 years ago but didn't copy the link and couldn't find it again til just now.

HuffPo: "Women should be believed." Wait, Hilliary did her best to *discredit* Bill's victims

Liberal mags like Huffington Post are having a cathartic experience complaining about the recent wave of revelations of women being harassed by powerful men in the media and Hollywood.  And good on 'em--glad all this awful behavior is finally coming to light.

For example, a writer for HuffPo penned an article titled

The Life-Changing Magic Of Being Believed About Rape

Yes, absolutely.  But it's interesting that NOW you're demanding that we should believe women who say they've been raped.  Yet back when Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton was president, wife Hilliary did everything she could to discredit the numerous women who claimed--credibly--that her husband raped them.

Interesting.  When the perp was a Democrat you didn't think the victims should be believed.  Moreover, you seem to have been utterly fine with supporting a woman who did everything possible to discredit those victims.  But now, suddenly, all women claiming to have been assaulted should be believed.

I'm fine with that last part.  You don't have to work to convince me that sexual assault is awful, and that at least a third of men are pigs who shouldn't be trusted.  What I find interesting is liberals' double-standard.

Imagine what a sea-change it would be if Hilliary and leading Democrats and media shills stood up one day and said "We are SO sorry that we did everything possible to discredit victims of a Democrat president for political gain.  We were wrong to do that."

Think how that would help women.  Of course the odds of that happening are....

Leaked: Democrat objectives for 2018

One of our spies has leaked this document to us:

   1.  Fan hate against GOP and TRUMP

   2.  Impeach Trump; Pence will be easy to control.

   3.  Promise more FREE STUFF to base:  The slogan "free college tuition for everyone" has tested *very* well with millenials.  As has the phrase "We'll make rich republicans pay for everything."

   4.  Open Borders; keep pushing "compassion" and "Rethuglicans wanna break up families!"  The slogan "Democrats will end the awful Republican policy of breaking up loving families" tests very well.

   4a.  Supporting "DREAMERS."  Our consultants say this tests *very* well, since no one can possibly be against "dreamers." 
    [editor's note: Democrats are masters at crafting acronyms for bills and programs that sound totally different from what the program really is.  Coming up with the name "Dream act" required some huge leaps.  It stands for "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors."  "Development"?]

   5.  Stress the theme that Trump's elimination of regulations puts your children in danger.  The following phrase tests *very* well:  "The rules and regulations Trump has thoughtlessly killed were put in place by caring Democrats to keep your children safe.  Killing those rules shows Republicans are willing to kill your kids to please their corporate masters."

   6.  Keep pushing "Single Payer health care."  Stress that it will be "free to you."  Do NOT use the phrase "nationalized health care" as that makes many voters uneasy.

   7.  Keep telling voters that Trump's tax bill gave millions to the rich and corporations but only $50 or so to them.  (Our media friends are deleting references to articles that described President Obama's one-time $40 tax rebate as a fabulous benefit.)

   8.  Push the meme that Democrats as "the *true* patriots."  No need to explain what that actually means -- our media allies know not to ask.

   9.  Keep pushing the meme that Republicans hate all immigrants, whether legal or "temporarily undocumented."  The phrase "Why do Republicans hate immigrants so much?  After all, almost all of us are immigrants" has tested very well.

   10. "Collusion between Trump and Putin to steal the election" still tests very well.  Thanks to our media friends almost half of all Americans believe there's no way Trump could have won without outside help.  Our polls show our base is still very fired up about this, so we'll be pushing this through the mid-term elections and into the 2020 campaign.

   11.  Keep pushing the meme that Trump's whole family has values that are alien to most Americans.  Don't say "wealth is bad"--our advisors tell us listeners will fill that in by themselves.  But keep reminding voters that *Trump* and his family have values vastly different from ordinary Americans.  Our focus groups show that listeners will interpret that as uniquely bad.

   12.  Legalization of marijuana in more states:  Thanks to a few of our governors leading the way, this is no longer a controversial issue but actually wins votes.  But more important, pushing this nets our party *huge* contributions.

   13.  "Social justice" is a huge winner and should be constantly pushed.  But see the caveat below:  Best approach is to simply say you support "social justice," without going into any detail.

Topics to avoid (unless you're in a special district):

    * transgender issues; the trans block already supports us, and polls show pushing trans bathrooms and locker-rooms cost us votes last year;

    * "Black Lives Matter:"  While we totally support our colleagues from majority-black districts, candidates from non-majority-minority districts should avoid mentioning BLM by name.  Instead, just emphasize that Democrats totally support "social-justice," without going into detail.  Polls show that everyone supports justice.

    * Unless you're running in California or Texas, don't mention citizenship for children brought in by DACA.  Our polls say this is a vote-loser with most middle-class voters.  If you get a direct question on this, the phrase "We need to show compassion for poor young immigrants," tests well.  Another good response is "This is outside my area of expertise, so I'll have to defer to Speaker Pelosi and other experts on this topic."

Saturday, December 30

Faced with coldest New Year's Eve in a century that can't be hidden, Left counterattacks

With tens of thousands of people slated to jam New York City for New Year's Eve--which is thoroughly covered by all the networks--the "global warming is caused by humans emitting CO2 and is killing the planet" crowd knew they had a problem:  They knew they couldn't hide what's looking like a temperature that will be the coldest in a century.

Let me explain.

The whole "AGW" scam ("anthropogenic global warming, meaning the claim that significant, dangerous global warming is not just happening but is caused by CO2, specifically emitted by human activity) depends on the gullibility and scientific ignorance of most Americans.  Accordingly, it depends on propaganda.  Smoke and mirrors.  "Sizzle."  Emotion.

By contrast, numbers have virtually no effect.  When Minot, North Dakota, sees 40-below, no one from Dallas really gets it.  Yesterday a ski area in Vermont closed its lifts because of a daytime temp of minus-31 degrees, but you didn't hear about it.  And except for this, you won't.

Doesn't help the Narrative.

Besides, virtually no one without a strong math background can make sense of abstract numbers.  For most people personal experience and perception far outweigh assertions--even emotionally-based ones.  (Think how often the Left has used the debunked pic of the polar bear on the tiny ice floe, and how effective it was.) 

But if tens of thousands of young Americans personally experience the record cold, they're far less likely to believe the Narrative.

But even worse from the warmies standpoint: How many millions of young Americans will be watching television coverage of New Year's Eve Part from NYC?  How many will hear the hosts repeatedly complaining of the bitter cold?  Think that might get a lot more people to doubt the propaganda?

So how does the Left react when it looks like one of their cherished Narratives is about to take a big hit?  The Huffington Post shows you:

Much Of America Will Kick Off 2018 With Record Low Temperatures

Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world will be abnormally warm.

Yep.  Of course no one has a ghost of a chance of finding out whether that dire, ghastly, deadly prediction will turn out to be true.  But gullible leftists will seize on the claim.

Obama's view of "we are a nation of laws"


Friday, December 29

Leftist nutjobs create "hate tracker" account --which immediately flags #Jesus and #Christmas

The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is a totally leftist group that sees a threat in everything white or Christian.  And in case you weren't "woke" enough to recognize the things they declare as "threats" by yourself, they've created a twitter account called "hate tracker" that identifies hashtags the SPLC considers hateful.

Seriously.  It's at , and on the left side of the page they tell you its purpose:
What the far-right is talking about today. The Hate Tracker detects trends in a community of far-right Twitter users identified and reviewed by SPLC analysts.
And what does the SPLC's "hate tracker" consider hateful?  Apparently #Jesus.  And #Christmas.  And #Jesusisthereasonfortheseason.  Seriously.

Are you surprised to learn that the Left claims that people who use the hashtag #Jesus are far-right haters?  Maybe even have a hard time believing the SPLC could be that insane?

So, citizen, your betters on the Left have now warned you:  If you use the hashtags above, you're officially on their radar as right-wing haters.

The carefully-ignored clip of Obama saying " Muslim faith.." on live TV

The average college freshman was ten or 11 when Obozo was elected.  Kids that age don't pay attention to news or politics, so you probably didn't hear about the live interview candidate Obama gave with Democrat shill George Stephanopolous, in which Obama used the phrase "my Muslim faith."

George quickly prompted the candidate, interrupting him by saying "My Christian faith."  It took Obama a moment to realize what was up, after which he echoed the "reassuring" phrase so helpfully provided by Democrat Stephanopolous.

But remember, citizen, anyone who says he was a Muslim is lying!  You haff no evidence at all zat zis goot krishtian Democrat iss Moozlim.  Und anyvun who claims he iss iss a raaaaaacist!

And with that kind of air-cover, liberals elected him.  Twice.

Naturally you don't believe Obozo ever said "my Muslim faith," let alone live on a national TV network Sunday morning talk show.  Cuz that would have made it SO hard for the Dems to claim he wasn't Muslim.  So here's the video:

WaPo does 4000-word piece on sex harassment in Obama's DOJ w/o mentioning Holder, Lynch or Obama

Wanna see yet another example of how the Lying Mainstream Media cunningly provide cover for both wrongdoing, incompetence and negligence by Democrat politicians?  Check out this article in the Washington Post.

It's 4000 words on sexual harassment in Obama's laughably-misnamed "Justice Department."  According to a report by DOJ's inspector-general, victims repeatedly complained to superiors, yet the perps were almost never punished or even called to account.  Insteaad the perps even got bonuses and promotions.

The I-G was looking at incidents that reportedly occurred when Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were the federal government's top law-enforcement officials (i.e. attorneys-general), appointed by Obama.

Now for the "cover" part:  As noted above, all the incidents reported by the I-G occurred while either Eric "gun-runner' Holder or Loretta "accidental meeting" Lynch were running the DOJ.  Yet in 4000 words,WaPo reporter Sari Horwitz never mentions either one, nor that both were hand-picked by the emperor.

So, for example, a teenager reading the WaPo story could easily assume that the harassment had occurred under Attorney-general Sessions, appointed by the eeeebil Donald Trump, the man the Lying Media have repeatedly said is the worst president evah!

If this had happened under an A-G appointed by a Republican, ya think ol' Sari would have rushed over to that A-G's new digs and asked "What did you know about this and when did you know it?  What did you do to stop this, and to see to it that perps were fired or otherwise punished?"

But since it happened when Democrats were running the show, she'd never even think of asking the obvious questions.  Cuz doing so would hurt her party.

Thursday, December 28

Olympic committee now says transgender males can compete as females without surgery

It's pretty well known that men are physically stronger than women, so until 2003 men weren't allowed to compete in womens' olympic events.

But the IOC being composed of wacked-out snowflakes, in 2003 they trashed this extremely reasonable idea, ruling that men could compete as women if they'd had "sex reassignment surgery."

Of course as you could easily have predicted, this wasn't enough of a concession for the trans lobby, and it didn't take 'em long to start pushing for that last restriction to be trashed as well.  And sure enough, in January of 2016 the IOC caved, saying no surgery was necessary.  Instead all that was needed was that men desiring to compete as women had to keep their testosterone levels below a certain level.

The totally side-splitting thing about this is that the IOC claims its new rules aren't actually rules per se, but merely "guidelines" couched as "recommendations" for international sports federations and other bodies to follow.

IOC officials said they changed the "policy"--remember, they're not rules-- "to adapt to current scientific, social and legal attitudes on transgender issues."

Let me know when you've stopped laughing.

IOC medical director Dr Richard Budgett said “I don’t think many federations have rules on defining eligibility of transgender individual.  This should give them the confidence and stimulus to put these rules in place.”

Wait, I thought the IOC just said these were merely "guidelines," NOT rules.  Maybe it was a translation error, eh?

So, do you think this is unfair to women?  While it's great that the men wishing to compete as women will have low T levels, that doesn't undo their longer bones or greater muscle mass.

I'd guess that if you're a parent of a competitive female athlete, you might think this is unfair.  But of course it's far, far more important to protect the feelings and rights of 3 or 4 transgender males than to go back to the "old, outmoded" system, protecting the rights of thousands of female athletes.

And if you disagree with that you're a hater!

Drug addicts claim disability pension for being addicted; liberals refuse to allow drug testing for welfare

In an advanced English-speaking nation it was discovered that a large number of drug or alcohol addicts were getting disability payments for...naturally...drug and alcohol use.

As word of this interesting dodge spread, the number of people applying was climbing sharply.  The  government-- under the impression that drug or alcohol addiction shouldn't be encouraged by tax money being used to paying users to buy more drugs and alcohol-- inserted a measure into a bill that would have required people applying for disability to be drug-tested.

Of course you can guess what happened:  The outcry from druggies was huge, and social-welfare apologists in the national senate forced the government to remove the provision.

So far, situation-normal for nations essentially controlled by snowflakes.  What makes the story interesting is...reading the comments at the link.  Half the commenters are outraged that the government would have the gall to test them for drugs before they could get a welfare check.

Other commenters cited people they knew who constantly used drugs, paid for by taxpayers, and were totally delighted with the stupidity.  No one wanted to work if they could sit around and do drugs all day, paid for by taxpayers.

Now, can anyone predict what will happen?

Well, not if you're a liberal, apparently.  Far better to just keep supporting 'em, no matter what the cost.  One of the big rationalizations is At least if we give 'em money each month they won't be forced to steal quite as much to pay for their habit.


U.S. media responds to Afghan "refugee" fatally stabbing 15-yr-old German girl in a store at mid-day

In a drugstore in Kandel, Germany, at 3:40 in the afternoon, an Afghan male--claiming to be 15years old-- fatally stabbed a German girl of the same age. 

Witnesses overpowered the killer and held him until police arrived.

The two had been dating and the girl had ended the relationship two weeks earlier.  A day before the killing, the Afghan had noted on Fakebook that he wanted to "catch" the girl.

Now:  You are NOT to consider this accurate "news," citizen.

Let me repeat that:  This is NOT news, citizen.  You are instructed to ignore it completely.

In the first place the story did NOT appear in any reputable U.S. newspaper, like the New York Times or Washington Post, nor did you see it on any of our trusted national TV networks.  So how can you possibly believe it's true, citizen?

If it were true, you would have seen it on one of our trusted, reliable outlets.  But you didn't, so right away you know it's suspect.  Reasonable, socially-conscious, politically-savvy people know to ignore all so-called "news" unless they see it in a trusted, major outlet like the Times or Washington Post.

And you ARE reasonable, right?  Socially conscious?  Savvy, right?  Need we say more?

Cool people know you can't infer anything from this alleged event.  How do you know this girl is even dead?  How can you be sure she even existed?  If you don't know those things, how can you draw a single conclusion from the article?

Remember, citizen, this happened in Germany--the country that produced Hitler and Nazis.  Experts say Germans have strong right-wing leanings.  So how can you trust journalists from Germany to accurately report things?

By contrast, you can totally trust the journalists of the Times and WaPo, NBC and CNN to tell you the truth.  You don't want to believe fake news pushed by the alt-right, do you?

The story is probably a fabrication by right-wing neo-Nazi's trying to stir up their knuckle-dragging followers against the poor, oppressed refugees.  And the girl probably wasn't covering her face, which would make the alleged attack totally understandable.  Because the poor young man was from a different--but totally equal--culture in which proper women never appear in public with their face uncovered.

All the cool people understand this.  And you are part of that group, right?

So don't believe what you read from overseas, citizen.  You can't draw any conclusions from this alleged incident, just as you can't from any the other thousands of similar alleged attacks by poor, innocent young refugees on right-wing German girls.

And from now on, stick with news sources you trust, citizen.

Update: here's a pic of the killer--who claims to be 15 years old.  No one believe that except German authorities.  Third-world adult males wanting to hit the welfare jackpot in Europe routinely tell European authorities they're underage, and the authorities take their word for it.
"Immigrant" murderer who claims to be 15 years old

New York's Dem attorney-general says federal government is "biggest threat to New Yorkers"

Democrats and their standards:
"The biggest threat to New Yorkers right now is the federal government."
     --New York's Democrat Attorney-general, Eric Schneiderman
When Obozo was emperor I don't recall a single state attorney-general or governor saying the biggest threat to his/her constituents was the federal goverment.  Had any of them said such a thing the Times would have been screaming about it for months.  But now...?

Different rules, citizen. 

Different.  Rules.

Also:  When G.W. Bush was president, Dems and their media allies constantly claimed dissent was the highest form of patriotism.  But the minute Obozo took over, dissent was suddenly terrible!  Awful!  Anyone who criticized Duh Won was attacked as un-American.  Labelled a "skinhead."  Oh, and raaacist.

But now once again, Dems and the media are all pushing dissent as a great thing, even slyly endorsing tweets from wackos urging that Trump be assassinated.

One wonders what could account for these incredibly abrupt changes?

Different rules, citizen.  If you supported the tax-cut bill you must be a hater.  Wanna reduce fraud and waste in every government program?  Hater.

Want the government to spend less on frivolous bullshit like finding how cocaine use affects gays in Peru?  Hater.

Want the government to enforce U.S. immigration law?  Hater.

Just listen to the liberals screaming at you.  Cuz they're great, and you're an awful, horrible person who voted for Trump.  Or simply didn't vote often enough to elect Hilliary.

H/T Ace.

Trump-hating former intel officer (?) looks approvingly at Lincoln's assassination so "deal with" Trump

If you don't believe there's a group of "deep staters" in and out of gruberment who are doing everything they can to sabotage Trump and all his policies, you really need to click this link.  It's the twitter accout of a crazed, lying, demented son of a bitch named John Schindler, who says he's a veteran intel officer.

Reading just a few of the crazy, fat f***'s tweets will show you how much he hates Trump.  In fact, he approvingly cites the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as a model for how "America" deals with those he terms traitors.  At first I thought he was recommending Obama for Lincoln's fate, but on reading his twitter feed it's totally clear he's after Trump.

Two days ago he tweeted

He writes, "This is what is coming for you.  Really."  And he adds...

Schindler and whoever supports him is/are determined to kill the president to get they want. 

Astonishing.  If a former intel officer had published these things when the emperor ran the nation, the NY Times et al would have been screaming about it for months!

Tuesday, December 26

When Bradley says "I'm Chelsea" media complies; but won't call American terrorist by his Muslim name

Everitt Aaron Jameson is an American convert to Islam.  A week or so ago FBI agents arrested him, claiming he was plotting to kill as many people as he could in San Francisco.

A blogger noticed something odd about the reporting of this...incident:  According to a letter written by Jameson, Jameson referred to himself as Abdallah abu Everitt ibn Gordon.

Now follow me here: If this goofball had declared that he is a woman, the Lying-But-Oh-So-Politically-Correct Media would have used his "claimed" name and female pronouns every single time they mentioned "her."  But notice that when he declared that he's now a Muslim named Abdallah, they keep calling him Everitt.

Now, why would the Lying Media insist on doing that for this goofball, even though he seems to have said he prefers the Muslim name?
FBI agents conducted a search warrant on Wednesday at the suspect’s Modesto home and found a note signed by Abdallah abu Everitt ibn Gordon al-Amriki, dated Dec. 16, which in part said, “I Abdallah [abu] Everitt ibn Gordon have committed these acts upon the Kuffar [non-Muslims], in the name of Dar al Islam [the Muslim world], Allahu Akbar!
Bruce Jenner says he "identifies as a woman" and the Lying Media--along with U.S. feminists and every member of the so-called "elite" plays along.  But they refuse to allow this goofus to take on the identity he wants--as Abdallah.

Kinda makes ya wonder if they might be worried that someone might associate Islam with terrorism, eh?

Timeline of FBI/DOJ conspiracy to prevent Trump from being elected

For "seemingly ordinary" events outside their immediate reach, the average person has a memory of about ten days.  So when you look at just ten days of the vast FBI/DOJ conspiracy to prevent Trump from being elected (thus to elect Hilliary), you only see a couple of recent points, not even a fraction of the whole picture.
   Fortunately blogger Doug Ross put the whole time-line together.  It's the *huge* list below, complete with links to the facts revealed in the mainstream media. 
   This appears to be the biggest political scandal in the U.S. history.  Never before has an outgoing administration attempted to fix a presidential election. That's usually the stuff of third-world countries.  But then, Obama took the United States a long way toward third-world status.

June 17, 2011:  In one of the Hilliary emails that wouldn't be released for four more years, from to (James Jacob Sullivan), Clinton orders her staff to "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure" if they couldn't send classified emails to her via secure fax hardcopy.  In any impartial investigation this would have convicted her.

July and December, 2014:  A reddit user later identified as Paul Combetta asks reddit users for help: “Hello all.  I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?”  This is only discovered in Sept of 2016, two months before the election.
   The timing of two of Combetta’s two Reddit posts coincides with critical events in the Clinton email saga.  The first, on July 24, 2014, came one day after the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the State Department reached an agreement on producing records. The second, on Dec, 10, 2014, describes a 60-day email retention policy, and came the same month that a longtime Clinton aide requested that their email retention policy be shortened to 60 days.

03/02/15     NY Times reveals Hillary used her own private email server for all official business while she was SecState
03/09/15     Clinton associate Terry McCauliffe meets with Andrew McCabe's wife to encourage her to run for office (shows McCabe has close ties to Hilliary)
03/12/15    Jill McCabe announces her candidacy for Virginia state senate
06/24/15   Time magazine: classified information found on Clinton’s private email server; the matter is referred to the FBI

07/15/15   FBI begins "investigation" into Clinton's email server and mishandling of classified data; led by...Andrew McCabe
07/24/15   State Dept. makes "security referral" re classified information possessed by Clinton and associates

07/24/15     After complaints from Clinton campaign, NY Times edits story about email probe, removing "criminal" references
08/15/15     McCabe uses his official FBI email to promote wife's candidacy for Virginia senate
10/01/15     McCabe's wife starts receiving bulk of $700,000 from Clinton associate Terry McCauliffe's political entities (shows McCabe had powerful reason to push Hilliary investigation to reach no-wrongdoing conclusion)

10/06/15     FBI seizes previously unknown backup of Clinton emails held by Datto, Inc.
10/15/15     McCabe emails his FBI comrades that Clinton will get an "HQ Special" (apparently special or lenient treatment)
10/11/15     On "60 Minutes," Obama says Clinton's private email server did not pose "a national security problem."  (Based on what information?  None.)

12/21/2015  The Hill's Brent Budowsky emails Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin...
01/15/16     Head of FBI's National Security Division retires; reportedly on seeing Clinton probe go "sideways"

01/19/16     Inspector-general for intel community reports Clinton's private email server held docs with the *highest classification level.* (Comey testified that the FBI only found docs with the *lowest* classification ("confidential").

01/29/16     FBI director Comey promotes Andrew McCabe to deputy director, retains job of supervising Clinton email server investigation

02/15/16     State Dept. finds that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails produced by Clinton were classified and should not have been sent via unsecure email

03/04/16     **FBI agent Peter Strzok texts his mistress Lisa Page, an FBI attorney, calling Trump "an idiot", whose nomination would be "good for Hillary"**

03/19/16     E-mails to and from Democrat operative John Podesta reach Wiki?

04/05/16     FBI "investigator" Strzok interviews key Clinton aide Huma Abedin

04/09/16     FBI's Strzok interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills

04/09/16     Wife of FusionGPS founder Simpson visits White House, meets with Obama and/or Obama aides

04/12/16     Using money supplied by the Clinton campaign and DNC, law firm Perkins Coie hires FusionGPS to dig up dirt on Trump

04/30/16     Democratic National Committee tells FBI their email server was hacked.  FBI offers to examine server but DNC declines, instead hires a private firm--Crowdstrike.  *No government agency has ever had the chance to examine the DNC server, nor Hilliary's before she was able to wipe it clean of all data.*

05/02/16     FBI director Comey drafts statement exonerating Clinton **before even interviewing Hilliary and other key witnesses** (but no bias at all)

05/03/16     Clinton IT specialist Paul Combetta admits lying to the FBI about erasing Hilliary's server beyond recovery, despite knowing the data had been subpoenaed.  Astonishingly, Combetta isn't charged with any crime.

05/05/16     Washington Post reports there is "scant evidence" of any crime by Clinton through use of a private email server (despite finding docs on it with the highest classification)

05/15/16     Firm hired by DNC to examine the server DNC said was hacked says Russians were responsible; DNC still refuses to let the FBI examine it to confirm

05/16/16     Two weeks after FBI director Comey drafted statement exonerating Clinton before interviewing her or her key aides, he circulates the draft to FBI leaders for comment

05/15/16     Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ "associate deputy attorney-general" Bruce Ohr, is hired by FusionGPS.  FBI says Ohr never disclosed this information.

06/04/16     Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post reports, from unnamed sources, that Russians hacked the DNC server

06/12/16     Wikileaks' Assange announces that more Clinton emails will be leaked

06/15/16     FusionGPS hires ex-MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump; funding is from Hilliary campaign

06/15/16     FBI agent Peter Strzok changes wording of FBI director's statement clearing Clinton “grossly negligent” (which is a criminal designation) to “extremely careless"

06/20/16     FusionGPS contractor Christopher Steele releases first memo related to Russian "dossier"

06/27/16     Attorney-general Loretta Lynch secretly meets with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac; they later deny discussing the investigation

07/02/16     Hilliary interviewed by FBI and Peter Strzok for 3.5 hours.  Astonishingly, she is not placed under oath (thus not sworn testimony, under which false statements would be subject to perjury charge) **nor is the interview recorded,** neither electronically nor with a stenographer.

07/05/16     FISA Court denies FBI request for surveillance of Trump campaign

07/05/16     FusionGPS contractor Christopher Steele shares Russian "dossier" with the FBI

07/05/16     FBI director Comey announces he will not recommend charges against Hillary for having "confidential" classified info on her email server

07/06/16     A.G. Loretta Lynch accepts Comey's recommendation not to charge Clinton for mishandling classified information

07/10/16     DNC staffer Seth Rich murdered in what's billed as a robbery, despite fact that "robbers" didn't take his Rolex, billfold, cash, credit cards, cell phone or gold necklace.  Case is still unsolved.

07/22/16     Wikileaks releases dozens of emails from Democrat National Committee showing DNC undermined Sanders campaign to nominate Hilliary

07/24/16     Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigns as DNC chair after leaked emails show DNC conspired to give Hilliary the nomination
07/25/16     FBI says it will investigate alleged hack of DNC email server; Peter Strzok handpicked to lead investigation

07/30/16     FBI opens investigation into claim that Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians to win election; Peter Strzok selected to lead this as well

08/06/16     FBI investigator Strzok texts mistress about a "menace", presumably meaning Trump    DC

08/10/16     Washington Post implies John Brennan may have shared "Dossier" with Obama around this date

08/15/16     Lead FBI investigator Strzok texts mistress about an "insurance policy" against the possibility of Trump winning the election.  Here's what Strzok actually texted to Page:
   "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" [apparently referring to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe] "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.  It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . "

08/16/16     FBI writes Congress defending decision not to charge Clinton with a single crime, stating it was ‘extreme carelessness’ and not ‘gross negligence’

08/25/16     Obama's CIA director James Brennan tells senate Democrat leader Harry Reid about possible "collusion" between Trump campaign and Russia

08/27/16     Reid sends a letter to Comey referencing allegations made about Carter Page in the FusionGPS dossier

09/05/16     Two months before the election, Hilliary accuses Russia of interfering with U.S. election

09/09/16  Washington Post claims Trump is "the most unpopular presidential nominee in modern history" and that the only reason the race is still close is because of Hilliary's email server.  (In unintended irony, the Post's slobbering pro-Hilliary piece is published in a column called "The Fix."  Really.)
   "Senior political reporter" Aaron Blake claims the email story is "ruining what might otherwise be a coronation."

09/20/16  Wash Post reports that back in July and December of 2014, user "StoneTear" at Platte River Networks asked reddit users how to remove a VIP's name from email To/From
    "StoneTear" turns out to be Paul Combetta, who would later admit totally erasing the hard drive on Hilliary's private email server beyond possibility of forensic reconstruction.  FBI gave Combetta immunity from prosecution.

09/21/16     NY Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News all briefed by Steele on contents of anti-Trump "dossier"

09/23/16     Yahoo News publishes report based on Russian "dossier" and alleged collusion between Trump campaign and Russia

09/27/16     John Carlin, head of DOJ National Security Division and involved with FISA requests, announces he is resigning

09/28/16     Believing his draft statement clearing Hilliary will never be revealed, FBI director Comey falsely claims his decision to clear Clinton was made *after* FBI agents interviewed her

10/03/16     After NYC cops discover thousands of emails to and from Hilliary on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner (estranged husband of top Hilliary aide Huma Abedin), FBI agents seize computer

10/07/16     Wikileaks releases archive of emails to/from Clinton operative John Podesta

10/07/16     Obama administration officially accuses Russia of meddling in 2016 presidential election

10/12/16     FBI agents tell McCabe and Strzok they've found "tens of thousands" of emails to and from Hilliary on Weiner's laptop

10/13/16     McCabe organizes FBI response to WSJ revelations that his wife's campaign was funded by Clinton associates

10/14/16    Strzok's wife Melissa Hodgman given a major promotion to deputy director of SEC’s Enforcement Division

10/15/16     FBI meets with FusionGPS contractor Steele and offers to pay him for more Russian anti-Trump material

10/24/16     CBS reveals McCabe's wife received $700K in campaign donations from Clinton associate Gov. Terry McCauliffe

10/27/16     During Comey staff meeting, McCabe and Strzok are asked why they're sitting on the Huma/Weiner email disclosure

10/28/16     Comey announces he is reopening investigation into Clinton's email server due to information found on Anthony Weiner's computer

10/30/16     Judge Kevin Fox grants FBI a search and seizure warrant for Clinton emails on Huma Abedin's laptop

10/30/16     Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's writes to James Comey asking him to release "explosive" information on Russian "collusion"

10/31/16     FBI chief counsel James Baker reportedly leaks "dossier" information to David Corn of Mother Jones showing Trump "collusion" with Russia

10/31/16     Clinton campaign issues statement, citing Slate, about server in Trump Tower that secretly communicated with Russia

11/01/16     Despite glaring conflicts of interest, Andrew McCabe waits until now before finally recusing himself from Clinton email probe

11/06/16     After emails found on Weiner laptop are reviewed "around the clock," Comey again clears Hilliary

11/08/16     Stunning all the experts, Donald Trump wins the election

11/15/16     Former associate deputy attorney-general Bruce Ohr secretly meets with FusionGPS founder Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele regarding Russian "dossier"

11/15/16     FBI agrees to continue funding Steele and his "Dossier"

11/18/16     Sen. John McCain told of the Russian "Dossier"; a copy is sent to McCain and key aides

12/09/16     With no evidence, CIA tells Congress they believe Russians hacked DNC to help defeat Hilliary

12/09/16     Unaware that the FBI knows all about the dossier, John McCain gives a copy of anti-Trump "dossier" to FBI director Comey

12/09/16     Obama orders intelligence community to investigate Russian influence on U.S. election

01/02/17     Wikileaks' Assange says the emails he released did not come from Russia; that Obama administration is trying to undermine Trump

01/05/17     After months of silence, FBI admits DNC refused to let its experts examine their server for evidence of hacking

01/06/17     Comey briefs President-elect Trump on existence of "salacious and unverified Russian dossier"

01/10/17     Believing Obama doesn't know about the dossier, U.S. intelligence chiefs Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rogers brief Obama on "dossier" and alleged Russian attempts to "influence" Trump

01/10/17  BuzzFeed releases full FusionGPS "dossier"

01/11/17     WSJ identifies author of Russian "Dossier" as Christopher Steele

01/19/17     NYT reports law enforcement officials "intercepted" communications of Trump officials, including Paul Manafort

01/24/17     Michael Flynn gives voluntary interview to FBI re alleged Russian "collusion;" interviewer is anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok

01/26/17     Acting A.G. Sally Yates and Bill Priestap inform White House counsel that Flynn was "compromised" by Russian actors

01/30/17     Acting A.G. Sally Yates fired by President Trump for refusing to enforce his travel ban orders

02/14/17     In meeting with Trump, Comey says Trump asked if Comey would consider "letting Flynn go"

03/02/17     A.G. Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia "collusion" investigation, citing prior contacts with the Russian Ambassador

03/20/17     Comey testifies before Congress that FBI secretly investigated potential Trump "collusion" and hid that fact from Congress

03/20/17     FBI director Comey denies accusations that the Trump campaign was wiretapped by the U.S. government

05/09/17    Trump fires FBI director James Comey

05/17/17     DOJ names former FBI director Robert Mueller special counsel to investigate alleged Russian influence on election

06/08/17     Comey admits he leaked his notes of conversation with Trump to spur the naming of a special counsel

06/15/17     Former DHS head Jeh Johnson tells Congress DNC refused to turn over its server to let FBI look for evidence of alleged hack

07/07/17     Comey asserts dossier was "salacious and unverified" but was important because media was prepared to report it

07/13/17     CNN reports Trump-loathing FBI agent Strzok is part of Mueller's special counsel investigation

07/20/17     DOJ inspector-general finally gets compromising texts sent by Mueller investigator Peter Strzok from FBI cell phone

07/24/17     A group of former intelligence professionals says there is no evidence that Russians hacked DNC server

07/27/17     DOJ inspector-general tells Mueller and Rosenstein about Strzok's text messages.  In any other scenario this would have ended the investigation.

08/09/17     The Nation reports evidence that DNC insiders, not Russian hackers, compromised Democrat IT systems

08/10/17     DOJ Inspector-general requests all communications between Strzok and Lisa Page

08/22/17     Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson meets with Senate committee for 10 hours, refuses to say who funded the anti-Trump "dossier"

08/24/17     House Intel chair Nunes subpoenas DOJ and FBI for documents related to "dossier"

09/14/17     Obama national security advisor Susan Rice admits she surveilled Trump administration after the election and later unmasked the identities of key aides

10/18/17     Two Fusion GPS officials plead the Fifth Amendment during House Intelligence Committee testimony

10/24/17     Washington Post says FusionGPS and Russian "dossier" was paid for by Clinton campaign and DNC

10/31/17     House Intel Committee asks FBI lead agent Strzok to testify; **FBI refuses.**

At this point an honest Attorney-general would have demanded that the director of the FBI order Strzok to testify, and if the director refused to do so, would have both fired him and charged him with obstruction of justice.

12/02/17     Washington Post reveals existence of incriminating texts between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page showing glaring anti-Trump bias

12/04/17    CNN reveals Strzok changed wording of Clinton investigation, removing language that would have triggered criminal charges against Hilliary

12/06/17     DOJ "associate deputy attorney-general" Bruce Ohr demoted after it's revealed he secretly met with Fusion GPS, which had secretly employed his wife Nellie.  Amazingly, Ohr is still employed at DOJ.

12/06/17     Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff accused of leaking privileged notes of meeting between Trump. Jr and House Intelligence Committee to CNN

12/07/17     Ohr was in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time the FISA application was submitted and granted.  Speculation that his mistress, Lisa Page, submitted the applications for the wiretaps

12/07/17     Rep. Jim Jordan asks new FBI director Wray if info in the anti-Trump dossier was used to secure FISA warrants.  Wray **refuses to answer**

12/07/17     Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case, Rudolph Contreras, is recused, according to court statement for reasons unknown

12/11/17     Fox News reveals that FusionGPS hired Ohr's wife to do "opposition research" against Trump

12/12/17     CNN releases contents of 375 damning text messages between Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page

12/12/17     Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe--who was scheduled to testify before congressional committee--cancels testimony after revelations about Nellie and Bruce Ohr's ties to FusionGPS.  McCabe's office claims his cancellation is due to a "scheduling error."  Amazingly, he isn't arrested, nor is he fired.

12/13/17     Deputy A.G. Rosenstein refuses to tell Congress whether the FBI paid for the FusionGPS "dossier"

12/18/17     Demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr slated to testify before congressional committee; fails to appear.  Not arrested.  Retains his cushy job at DOJ.
12/19/17     Deputy FBI director McCabe testifies in private to House Intel Commitee; is unable to answer questions about the "Dossier"

End of Doug Ross time-line.   

Nation's oldest Left-wing mag demolishes the entire DNC "We wuz hacked" fable!

The following article appeared in the left-wing magazine The Nation.  It's hugely significant because the Left can't trash The Nation as a reliable (for them) source.

The article totally demolishes the claim--by Hilliary, top Democrats, the CIA and NSA and virtually all the media that "the Russians" hacked into the DNC email server and stole two gigabytes of DNC emails--which were then leaked, and which--in the Democrat/Lying Media Narrative--resulted in Trump's election.
   The claim that "Russia hacked the DNC server" is the foundation of the bullshit claim that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia to somehow steal the election.  Thus the Democrat party and its supporters must defend this to the bitter end, or be exposed as having invented the entire story.

New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
   Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by  someone with access to the DNC’s system.
By Patrick Lawrence, August 9, 2017

[Because The Nation is a left-wing mag, and this article demolishes the Dem claim that the DNC server was hacked--allegedly by the Russians, to throw the election to Trump--three weeks after publication of this article the editor of The Nation decided she needed to write a LONG preface to the article (which obviously would only appear on the on-line version), in which she rationalizes publishing the story.  In essence she's apologizing to her Left/Democrat base.  Everything down to her signature is the editor's preface.]

Editor’s note, 9/1/2017: For more than 150 years The Nation has been committed to fearless, independent journalism. We have a long history of seeking alternative views and taking unpopular stances. We believe it is important to challenge questionable conventional wisdom and to foster debate—not police it. Focusing on unreported or inadequately reported issues of major importance and raising questions that are not being asked have always been a central part of our work.

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.

That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC **and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks,** in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

[Really?  You're claiming the ICA report "concluded that...Putin *personally ordered* his agents not only to hack into the DNC server but also to disseminate the emails via Wikileaks??  Pretty sure even the fable-writers of the ICA report weren't that dumb.  But hey, ya never know...]

This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations.

To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

That is why The Nation published Patrick Lawrence’s article “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.” The article largely reported on a recently published memo prepared by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which argued, based on their own investigation, that the theft of the DNC e-mails was *not* a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.

VIPS, formed in 2003 by a group of former US intelligence officers with decades of experience working within the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and other agencies, previously produced some of the most credible—and critical—analyses of the Bush administration’s mishandling of intelligence data in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The most recent VIPS memo, released on July 24, whatever its technical merits, contributes to a much-needed critical discussion. Despite all the media coverage taking the veracity of the ICA assessment for granted, even now we have only the uncorroborated assertion of intelligence officials to go on. Indeed, this was noticed by The New York Times’s Scott Shane, who wrote the day the report appeared: “What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

As editor of The Nation, my purpose in publishing Patrick Lawrence’s article was to make more widely known the VIPS critique of the January ICA assertions, the questions VIPS raised, and their counter-thesis that the disseminated DNC e-mails resulted from a leak, not a hack. Those questions remain vital.

Subsequently, Nation editors themselves raised questions about the editorial process that preceded the publication of the article. The article was indeed fact-checked to ensure that Patrick Lawrence, a regular Nation contributor, accurately reported the VIPS analysis and conclusions, which he did. As part of the editing process, however, we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims.

We have obtained such a review in the last week from Nathan Freitas of the Guardian Project. He has evaluated both the VIPS memo and Lawrence’s article. Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties “must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.” His findings are published here.

We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members. With that in mind, we asked Drake and those VIPS members who agree with him to present their dissenting view. We also asked VIPS members who stand by their report to respond.

In presenting this follow-up, The Nation hopes to encourage further inquiry into the crucial questions of how, why, and by whom the DNC e-mails were made public—a matter that continues to roil our politics. We especially hope that other people with special expertise or knowledge will come forward.

—Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher


It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

    There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

    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.

This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting.

One, there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016 political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove or disprove any of them. Who delivered documents to WikiLeaks? Who was responsible for the “phishing” operation penetrating John Podesta’s e-mail in March 2016? We do not know the answers to such questions. It is entirely possible, indeed, that the answers we deserve and must demand could turn out to be multiple: One thing happened in one case, another thing in another. The new work done on the mid-June and July 5 events bears upon all else in only one respect. We are now on notice: Given that we now stand face to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously skeptical questioning. Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail address was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so. Neither is there anything far-fetched in a reversal of the truth of this magnitude. American history is replete with similar cases. The Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898. Iran’s Mossadegh was a Communist. Guatemala’s Árbenz represented a Communist threat to the United States. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet puppet. The Sandinistas were Communists. The truth of the Maine, a war and a revolution in between, took a century to find the light of day, whereupon the official story disintegrated. We can do better now. It is an odd sensation to live through one of these episodes, especially one as big as Russiagate. But its place atop a long line of precedents can no longer be disputed.

Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line. Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one.

It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media, which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC matter from the start.

Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone.

The customary VIPS format is an open letter, typically addressed to the president. The group has written three such letters on the DNC incident, all of which were first published by Robert Parry at Here is the latest, dated July 24; it blueprints the forensic work this article explores in detail. They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation. In a letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the group explained that the NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” the letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.”

The day after Parry published this letter, Obama gave his last press conference as president, at which he delivered one of the great gems among the official statements on the DNC e-mail question. “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking,” the legacy-minded Obama said, “were not conclusive.” There is little to suggest the VIPS letter prompted this remark, but it is typical of the linguistic tap-dancing many officials connected to the case have indulged so as to avoid putting their names on the hack theory and all that derives from it.

Until recently there was a serious hindrance to the VIPS’s work, and I have just suggested it. The group lacked access to positive data. It had no lump of cyber-material to place on its lab table and analyze, because no official agency had provided any.

Donald Rumsfeld famously argued with regard to the WMD question in Iraq, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In essence, Binney and others at VIPS say this logic turns upside down in the DNC case: Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group knew that (1) if there was a hack and (2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs. “Everything that they say must remain classified is already well-known,” Binney said in an interview. “They’re playing the Wizard of Oz game.”

New findings indicate this is perfectly true, but until recently the VIPS experts could produce only “negative evidence,” as they put it: The absence of evidence supporting the hack theory demonstrates that it cannot be so. That is all VIPS had. They could allege and assert, but they could not conclude: They were stuck demanding evidence they did not have—if only to prove there was none.

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut.

By this time Binney and the other technical-side people at VIPS had begun working with a man named Skip Folden. Folden was an IT executive at IBM for 33 years, serving 25 years as the IT program manager in the United States. He has also consulted for Pentagon officials, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Folden is effectively the VIPS group’s liaison to Forensicator, Adam Carter, and other investigators, but neither Folden nor anyone else knows the identity of either Forensicator or Adam Carter. This bears brief explanation.

The Forensicator’s July 9 document indicates he lives in the Pacific Time Zone, which puts him on the West Coast. His notes describing his investigative procedures support this. But little else is known of him. Adam Carter, in turn, is located in England, but the name is a coy pseudonym: It derives from a character in a BBC espionage series called Spooks. It is protocol in this community, Elizabeth Vos told me in a telephone conversation this week, to respect this degree of anonymity. Kirk Wiebe, the former SIGINT analyst at the NSA, thinks Forensicator could be “someone very good with the FBI,” but there is no certainty. Unanimously, however, all the analysts and forensics investigators interviewed for this column say Forensicator’s advanced expertise, evident in the work he has done, is unassailable. They hold a similarly high opinion of Adam Carter’s work.

Forensicator is working with the documents published by Guccifer 2.0, focusing for now on the July 5 intrusion into the DNC server. The contents of Guccifer’s files are known—they were published last September—and are not Forensicator’s concern. His work is with the metadata on those files. These data did not come to him via any clandestine means. Forensicator simply has access to them that others did not have. It is this access that prompts Kirk Wiebe and others to suggest that Forensicator may be someone with exceptional talent and training inside an agency such as the FBI. “Forensicator unlocked and then analyzed what had been the locked files Guccifer supposedly took from the DNC server,” Skip Folden explained in an interview. “To do this he would have to have ‘access privilege,’ meaning a key.”

What has Forensicator proven since he turned his key? How? What has work done atop Forensicator’s findings proven? How?

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. In theory the operation could have been conducted from Bangor or Miami or anywhere in between—but not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone. Combined with Forensicator’s findings on the transfer rate, the time stamps constitute more evidence that the download was conducted locally, since delivery overheads—conversion of data into packets, addressing, sequencing times, error checks, and the like—degrade all data transfers conducted via the Internet, more or less according to the distance involved.

In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

To be noted in this connection: The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to. (The tool can also “de-obfuscate” what it has obfuscated.) It is not known whether this tool was deployed in the Guccifer case, but it is there for such a use.

It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring.

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

    On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
    On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.
    On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.
    On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.

Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

“We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.

In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high.

I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”

Editor’s note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with this response:
“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”