Systematic News Suppression in Today’s U.S.

 

    by Eric Zuesse — May 7, 2018 (six years ago)

 

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, and in the 1980s chaired the National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief. But now retired, he’s a critic of the very same government he had spent his career representing, and especially of its virtually fully controlled press, which he claims misrepresents systematically, as if it were owned outright by the controlling owners of the very same mega-corporations that manufacture and sell weapons to the Pentagon and to its allied militaries in Europe and the Middle East. Basically as a “military-industrial complex” scam upon the public, but really as a military-industrial-media complex, which is even more powerful than the more limited type that Eisenhower had warned against.
Here, then, is from an interview that Ray McGovern did on Talk Nation Radio, on April 24th:

 

Putin — this is in an interview; it’s March the 7th now, so six days later [than Putin’s major speech] — somebody says, Hey, listen, Mr. Putin, why would you destroy the whole world? If there were a first strike on Russia, would you really respond? It would be too late to save Russia. You know what he says? Look, He says, yes, this would be a global catastrophe, but “as a citizen of Russia and as the head of the Russian state, I ask, What need will we have for a world if there was no Russia?” So he’s saying, Look, you’ve got to take this stuff seriously. Yes, we would retaliate, even if it meant that the rest of the world would be blown up as well as Russia.
Two days later, four senior senators, okay, three Democrats — let’s see if I can remember them — Feinstein, Wyden [it was actually not Wyden but the other Senator from Oregon, Jeff Merkley], the fellow up there in Massachusetts [Ed Markey], and [in addition to those three, the independent Senator] Bernie Sanders — they issue a call, a letter to then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Look, this is really getting out of hand. We don’t like the fact that Putin is brandishing these weapons that we really haven’t ever heard of before, but he’s calling for arms control talks, so let’s talk. Let’s talk. Guess what? That appeal appeared on all those four senators’ websites but was totally — totally — ignored by what passes for the mainstream media. So one suspects that this is an unwelcome subject, and there is proof positive.
The last thing I’ll mention, we were talking about four senior senators [Merkley is actually Oregon’s junior Senator] appealing for arms control talks on their websites but it never getting past their websites, no publicity for it. I’m thinking that Chuck Schumer [a reliable agent of the “military-industrial complex”] said, No, no. Arms control, no, no. We’re making the devil incarnate Vladimir Putin. Don’t mention arms control talks.
So that’s the reality in the mainstream media. When Trump had the audacity to say, You know, Putin won the election, he’s going to be around for six more years. Probably I’ll send him a congratulatory telegram [5:51 inaudible]. His staff says, No, no, no, don’t congratulate him. No, no, no, don’t congratulate him. Well, he not only congratulates him but he says, You know, the situation is such that we ought to get together sooner rather than later, and we ought to talk about arms control.
For those of your audience who listen to The New York Times website or read what’s in The New York Times, they are totally oblivious to that, because the Times cut out — they did a lede, a title or a headline, saying “Trump calls for arms control talks.” Now, that lasted 2 hours. What I’m trying to say here is that the only conclusion here is the old, hackneyed military-industrial-Congressional-intelligence-media complex. You ran a conference on the fiftieth anniversary of Eisenhower’s speech on the military-industrial complex. Well, it’s gotten worse, astronomically worse. And the people who make the arms, the people who sell arms, the people that Pope Francis, to his credit, before Congress two and a half years ago called “the blood-drenched arms traders,” those are the people that are running the show. And Putin and his folks are sitting back in Moscow and they’re saying, Whoa, we thought the military-industrial complex had a hold on Obama, and we were right. Now it looks even worse.  

This is America’s ‘democracy’ today. How can it be a democracy if the public get deceived so systematically — both Parties, just the same? The public are deceived in order to pump up the stock-values of the privately owned (which is crucial here; and, by contrast, Russia’s weapons-firms remain state-controlled, so as not similarly to become tails that wag the Government) corporations, such as Lockheed Martin; or, for another example of this, Amazon, whose only profitable division is the one selling to the federal Government — to the CIA, NSA, and Pentagon — cloud computing services, which Amazon division is so profitable that it turns the entire Amazon corporation’s red ink, from Amazon’s consumer divisions, into black ink overall, which profitability keeps owner Jeff Bezos’s net worth rising to what it now is — and he also just happens to own the Russia-hating Washington Post. Is that anti-Russia stance a mere coincidence? Bezos’s purchase of the WP wasn’t a business decision to increase his net worth? Really? What a lucky fellow he must be!
Here is that letter, from Feinstein, Merkley, Markey, and Sanders, which was ignored by the press.
The letter that McGovern referred to, opens:

We write to urge the State Department to convene the next U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue as soon as possible.
A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing.

It then states:

Senior officials from the United States and Russia have said that the INF Treaty plays an “important role in the existing system of international security.” As such, we urge the State Department to resolve Russia’s violation through existing INF Treaty provisions or new mutually acceptable means.
Second, we urge the United States to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The Trump administration’s own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) references Russia’s robust nuclear modernization program as a main justification behind the U.S. need to recapitalize its three legs of the nuclear triad. An extension of New START would verifiably lock-in the Treaty’s Central Limits – and with it – the reductions in strategic forces Russia has made…
Lastly, as the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review notes, Russia maintains a numerical advantage to the United States in the number of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The Senate, in its Resolution of Ratification on New START in 2010, took stock of this imbalance and called upon the United States to commence negotiations that would “secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.” Attempts by the Obama administration to negotiate an agreement on this class of weapons met resistance from Russia. However, even absent the political space for a formal agreement or binding treaty with Russia, we urge the State Department to discuss ways to enhance transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons.
Extending New START, resolving Russia’s INF violation, and enhancing transparency measures relating to non-strategic nuclear weapons will also help quiet growing calls from many countries that the United States is not upholding its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. 

A Google-search of the concluding key phrase — the one which is essential to any news-report about this letter, the phrase beginning “Extending New START, resolving Russia’s INF violation, and enhancing transparency measures relating to non-strategic nuclear weapons will also help quiet growing calls from many countries that the United States is not” — produces no major media at all, and few even of alleged ‘alternative’ media. That is breathtaking, and Ray McGovern pointed it out. Thank you, Ray McGovern! Was this letter, from four U.S. Senators, not “News That’s Fit to Print”? Not in any of those ‘news’ media? Really?
The present news report is being submitted for publication, without fee, to all U.S. newsmedia, many small media, and also to many major media in America’s allied countries.

 

https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/07/systematic-news-suppression-in-todays-u-s

 

READ FROM TOP

 

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

How to get good publicity? Ban journos     By Duncan Graham

 

A tip for politicians worried about bothersome journos upsetting talking points with probing questions: Don’t invite peskies to your pressies.

Instead, gather a bevy of narcissists who call themselves social media ‘influencers’ and take them to anything they want to admire while being admired.

Lovelies telling their fans of a wonderful government makes for easier viewing than seeing knockabout wordsmiths stuffing mikes up newsmakers’ nostrils for a denial of the obvious.

It’s a more subtle system than the Australian tactic of only inviting on-side journos to junkets, but the policy of outgoing Indonesian President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo goes further.

He’s using it to sell the benefits of his new cash-hungry separate city project Ibu Kota – (capital city) Nusantara on East Kalimantan, a province on Borneo Island.

Objective journalists, economists and academics in Indonesia and overseas -mainly Australia – have been dissecting the $45 billion (so far) vanity cash splash in a nation with great needs, like helping almost 26 million poor get decent housing rather than the Prez getting a third palace.

The pragmatists reckon IKN will drown the Republic in further debt and isn’t the right raft for the sinking, overcrowded and polluted capital Jakarta.

The problem is serious and a new city one solution – preferably in Java, the political, administrative and cultural centre of the Republic.

Malaysia’s answer to an over-stressed Kuala Lumpur was to build Putrajaya 35 km down the rail line and make it the admin centre. The Parliament and many ministries remain in nearby KL so the shift has been half-hearted.

IKN is 1,200 km northwest of Jakarta, so public servants will need to abandon their families to keep their jobs. Few are enthusiastic.

Jokowi has stomped around China and the Arab world seeking monster loans to keep the concrete pouring but there’s been much reluctance since the Japanese SoftBank knocked back the chance to be a lead investor.

This was despite tax breaks and other sweeteners, though no guarantees of handsome returns; the new city’s business will be manufacturing undesired bureaucracies rather than wanted consumer goods.

Australian super funds haven’t been persuaded by ‘influencers’ to risk members’ monies in the Jokowi dream. Jakarta’s record for corruption (ranked 115th among 180 countries surveyed by Transparency International) would have frightened decision makers.

Indonesian Press Council Chairperson Dr Ninik Rahayu wasn’t happy with the new policy of by-passing the media: “I was surprised why the president came yesterday to the IKN and invited YouTubers and influencers. ”

Her awkward discovery is that superficial presenters pull millions when old media lurking behind paywalls only draws a few lakh. Ninik’s reasoning is right for the public good – though not the pollies’ interests:

“(Jokowi) should have invited the press (to) … see all the comprehensive policies of the IKN so the public knows all about the new capital city”, she said, claiming reporters use “journalistic principles, work democratically and professionally and present high-quality news.”

The IPC was set up by the authoritarian Soeharto government last century to keep scribes in check. Media conference attendees got snacks and uang lelah, a practice your correspondent has experienced. (The cash was returned to the organisers’ astonishment. The food was eaten.)

This century the Council became an independent authority. One academic wrote that it has ‘outstanding powers to draft and ratify regulations about media accountability, to arbitrate complaints against journalists, to cultivate media professionalism, and to safeguard press freedom.’

All good – but it can’t stop newsmakers talking to ‘influencers’ rather than the media.

The international agency Reporters Without Borders press freedom index ranks the world’s fourth largest nation at 111 from 180 countries.

Last month Tempo weekly published an analysis of Jokowi’s rule titled A Decade of Declining Democracy, claiming he’d “transformed Indonesia into a country characterised by autocratic legalism.”

A day later Jokowi publicly apologised for his shortcomings – the Jakarta Post reported he ‘tearfully’ accepted he’d made mistakes.

The daily listed these as “the regression of democratic values and governance with intimidation against government critics and political opponents as well as shrinking public participation in legislation.”

The Jakarta Post list should have included murder. In late June TV journalist Rico Sempurna Pasaribu, died alongside his wife, son and grandchild when his home was firebombed.

He’s been investigating a gambling syndicate allegedly involving the military in North Sumatra. Three months earlier in the same region another journo who’d been checking the drug trade also had his house torched.

Last year the Alliance of Independent Journalists recorded “89 cases of attacks and obstruction involving 83 individuals, five groups and 15 media outlets’.

Anita Wahid, a daughter of the late Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Indonesia’s reformist fourth president (1999 – 2001), is now a PhD student at ANU.

She’s written that the targets “were mainly reporting on “public accountability, corruption, social and criminal issues, and environmental issues.

“The attacks included verbal and physical threats (including torture, confinement and kidnappings), gender-based sexual harassment and assaults, terror and intimidation.”

The 1999 Indonesia Press Law is supposed to guarantee media protection and citizens’ right to information. It doesn’t.

Jokowi’s fauxpology is a typical Javanese gesture that will make no difference. His successor taking over in October is the disgraced former general Prabowo Subianto, a man unfamiliar with the word ‘sorry’.

The word on the street is that Prabowo will continue crushing critics. Whether this means more ‘influencers’ and fewer reporters will become apparent as Prabowo settles into the Jakarta Palace.

Anita Wahid again: “Journalists are needed now more than ever to monitor a government that has adopted increasingly authoritarian practices, in addition to rising corruption and human rights violations.”

Who’d want a journo’s job in Indonesia when the threats are real and fearful? Better start a shopping website and get the VIPs keen to chat about their smart doings without the scrutiny needed to keep the bastards honest.

https://johnmenadue.com/how-to-get-good-publicity-ban-journos/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

International Eurasia Press Fund (IEPF) is an independent international non-governmental organization established by a group of journalists from different countries and registered in Azerbaijan in 1992. IEPF works in cooperation with UN agencies, US State Department, European Commission, World Bank, International Press Institute, International Federation of journalists, embassies of foreign countries in the Republic of Azerbaijan, ministries, agencies, as well as local and international non-governmental organizations in the region.

The 5 main areas of activity are:

• Media & Civil Society Development;
• Community Development;
• Refugees/IDPs Issues;
• Peacemaking & Conflict Resolution
• Education.

IEPF, who is a special consultative member of the NGO division of the UN Economic Social Council (ECOSOC), is also a member of the Council of Europe for Refugees and asylum seekers (ECRE), the US Department of State Bureau of Military-Political Affairs, The Public-Private Partnership Program of the arms elimination and Prohibition Department, the International Press Institute (BMI) and the International Peace IEPF is one of the founders of the Press Council of Azerbaijan and The Forum of National Non-Governmental Organizations of Azerbaijan.

Membership in international organizations not only expands the scope of activity of IEPF, but also gives the fund relevant powers. Having gained special consultative status at ECOSOC, IEPF becomes a participant in international conferences convened by the UN General Assembly and other special meetings, issue oral and short written statements based on the guarantee issued by the committee, appoint representatives for participation in the meetings of ECOSOC and its other bodies, it is authorized to consult with officials in the Secretariat on issues of interest to NGOs.

As a member of the International Press Institute, the organization participates in World Congresses and general assemblies held annually by this influential organization, makes proposals and raises issues related to the development of independent media in Azerbaijan.

A private partnership with the Office for the abolition and Prohibition of arms of the U.S. Department of Military-Political Affairs opened a new stage in the activities of the IEPF in the field of conflict resolution, peacekeeping actions and conflictology. Within the framework of this partnership, the organization may underline its partnership with the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of military and Political Affairs arms elimination and Prohibition, and prepare articles and publications on the basis of joint authorship with the U.S. Department of State in its publications, cooperation with media organizations and public events. IEPF also has the right to access the database for free use of literature, documents, CDs and DVDs of the administration, sending of all postal requisites, press releases, announcements and general information on general interests.

Membership in ECRE has enabled the IEPF to benefit from the European experience in solving the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons, to be a participant in the meetings of this international organization and to use other advantages.

IEPF has done a lot of successful work in the field of development of media and civil society, which is one of the areas of activity. The Fund, which appreciates the role of the press in the formation of civil society and building a legal state, always keeps this area in the center of attention. One of the main tasks of the organization is to save Azerbaijani journalism from politics, to achieve fair and impartial attitude of mass media to the events surrounding it, to bring together members of the media in the solution of Karabakh problem and to provide support of international journalism. To this end, numerous conferences, round tables and meetings were held in the central office of the IEPF.

IEPF has published a lot of books, brochures and booklets reflecting the Karabakh problem, the horrors of the occupation war waged by Armenia against Azerbaijan, the hardships faced by refugees and internally displaced persons, and took an active part in the preparation of documentary films and video materials. In order to collect objective information about Azerbaijan and bring it to the attention of the world community, IEPF organized a series of visits of journalists, intellectuals, people's diplomats from different countries of the world to the conflict regions for more than ten years.

The book "Practical Guide for Journalists" published by the organization of Journalists Without Borders, the book "journalists in dangerous tasks" published by the International Press Institute was translated and published, as well as the book "information book for journalists of Central and Eastern European countries" translated from Russian into Azerbaijani, based on the materials of this book was translated into Azerbaijani based on the materials of this book, a methodical manual "if you want to become a journalist..." was published in Azerbaijani. All these publications are distributed among the media and mass media in Azerbaijan, at the journalism faculties of higher education institutions.

In addition, IEPF published a book "NATO and regional security in the Caucasus" in English and Russian on the basis of the materials of the conference on "Caucasus and regional security" held jointly with NATO in Baku in December 2002. The collection of the main materials of the encyclopedic information book" Alley of Martyrs " was completed. Since 2005, IEPF joined the project of transferring Azerbaijani literature from kryl to Latin script in accordance with the decree of the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan "on implementation of mass publications in the Azerbaijani language in Latin script" and has been publishing a lot of books in its "Eurasia Press" publishing house so far.

IEPF is also engaged in effective conflict resolution, peacekeeping campaigns, conflict and protection of human rights. One of the main tasks of the fund was to study and solve national and military conflicts in the region from the very beginning.

IEPF has implemented a number of projects related to this direction of its activity so far. "Peace at home, peace in the country, peace in the world "(1992)," first level mine clearing survey "(2000-2001)," Mine Action survey "(2002-2003)," NATO and regional security "(2002)," community Mine Action "(continued since 2002)," mine victims ' needs study "(2004)," establishment of mine victims association in Tartar region of Azerbaijan and its activities " (2006-2007) carried out projects and some other projects, conducted dozens of international conferences, seminars. the organization was also a participant and organizer of round tables. Association of mine victims (AMZA) was established in Azerbaijan with the foundation of IEPF in March of 2007 and registered in the Ministry of Justice in July. From July 2007 to July 2008, projects on "establishment of Fuzuli regional branch of AMZA and directing the activity of tartar section" and "establishment of Akstafa regional branch of AMZA and direction of its activity" were implemented with the financial support of the Bureau of Military-Political Affairs of the US Department of State.

The International Eurasia Press Fund carries out successful works and projects in the field of solution of problems of refugees and IDPs, study of migration issues in Azerbaijan. In December 1997, IEPF, which considers the solution of the problems of refugees and IDPs as one of the priority tasks, held an International Conference "national issue and the problem of refugees" in Saint-Petersburg with the Russian Geographic Society, Saint-Petersburg Department of the Writers ' Union of Russia, Saint-Petersburg State Academy of Culture, Azerbaijan-Saint-Petersburg cultural center. More than 30 representatives from more than 100 countries occupied the conference. The resolution adopted by the conference addressed to the UN and the world community, and the main attention was paid to the problems of Azerbaijan. During the conference, the damage caused by the war to Azerbaijan was demonstrated at the exhibitions. In 2001-2003 IEPF with the financial support of the Danish Refugee Council implemented "multifunctional infoterminal” on non - governmental organizations of the Caucasus region" project. In 2002, IEPF together with the Association of Independent Journalists of Georgia participated in the implementation of the project "lobbying the interests of refugees and IDPs".

Approximately 40 percent of the community Mine Action Team under IEPF is made up of refugees and IDPs. The project “development and stimulation of mutual social relations between local/IDP students in Common Schools”, launched in 2009 with the financial support of the World Bank and the Social Development Fund of Japan, will be completed in 2011. The IEPF, which was included in the State Register for exemption from some social deductions and additional taxes, was involved in the process of distribution of humanitarian aid to refugees and IDPs by the State Commission on International Humanitarian Aid.

During the period of transition from humanitarian aid to development in Azerbaijan, IEPF has put to the fore the solution of community problems, implementation of projects for the development of entrepreneurial skills among compatriots displaced from their homes. For this purpose, the non-Bank credit Organization "Avrasiya-Kredit" limited liability company established by the organization in 2007 and registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan started its activity in the same year and so far, provided loans to less than 1,200 low-income families engaged in small business.

The project “establishment of vocational training centre for mine victims and war victims in Tartar region of Azerbaijan”, implemented in July 2009 with the financial support of the US Department of State, is of paramount importance in mobilizing community initiatives. Vocational training for mine victims, their family members, retired mine seekers, refugees, internally displaced persons and low-income families will help reduce unemployment among people of this category in the region. The project will continue until December 2010.

In July 2007, IEPF participated in the annual innovative exhibition "strengthening efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger through Global Partnership for development" at the UN Geneva office within the framework of the Millennium Development Program. UN secretary-general, president of ECOSOC, secretary-general of UNESCO, head of NGO division of ECOSOC and other high-ranking officials attended the exhibition. About 30 NGOs from different countries of the world participated in the event. IEPF participated in the exhibition with "successful story" reflecting the achievements gained in the framework of the project "establishment and activity of mine victims association in Tartar region of Azerbaijan", which was implemented with financial support of the US State Department Military-Industrial Affairs Bureau and arms elimination and Prohibition Department.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon highly appreciated the participation of IEPF in the innovative exhibition and expressed his views in the opinion book of the organization: "I support your free service to humanity".

IEPF, headquartered in Baku, has become one of the well-known non-governmental organizations in the region due to its international experience, serious and influential partners, competent personnel potential, material and technical base, and has branches in Russia, the Baltic republics, representatives in a number of countries of the world. IEPF has regional offices in Tartar, Fizuli and Agstafa districts. Through these offices, the organization coordinates its goals and objectives in the region.

https://iepf-ngo.org/en/about-us/22

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

RAY McGOVERN: Decay, Decrepitude, Deceit in Journalism

 

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

 

Russiagate continues to survive like a science fiction monster resilient to bullets.   

The latest effort at rehabilitating it is an interview by Adam Rawnsley in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine of one Michael van Landingham, an intelligence analyst who is proud of having written the first draft of the cornerstone “analysis” of Russiagate, the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment.

The ICA blamed the Russians for helping Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.  It was released two weeks before Trump assumed office. The thoroughly politicized assessment was an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence. 

Worse, it was consequential in emasculating Trump to prevent him from working for a more decent relationship with Russia. 

In July 2018, Ambassador Jack Matlock (the last U.S. envoy to the Soviet Union), was moved to write his own stinging assessment of the “Assessment” under the title: “Former US Envoy to Moscow Calls Intelligence Report on Alleged Russian Interference ‘Politically Motivated.’”  

In January 2019, I wrote the following about the ICA: 

“A glance at the title of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) (which was not endorsed by the whole community) — ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’ — would suffice to show that the widely respected and independently-minded State Department intelligence bureau should have been included. State intelligence had demurred on several points made in the Oct. 2002 Estimate on Iraq, and even insisted on including a footnote of dissent.

James Clapper, then director of national intelligence who put together the ICA, knew that all too well. So he evidently thought it would be better not to involve troublesome dissenters, or even inform them what was afoot.

Similarly, the Defense Intelligence Agency should have been included, particularly since it has considerable expertise on the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence agency, which has been blamed for Russian hacking of the DNC emails. 

But DIA, too, has an independent streak and, in fact, is capable of reaching judgments Clapper would reject as anathema. …

With help from the Times and other mainstream media, Clapper, mostly by his silence, was able to foster the charade that the ICA was actually a bonafide product of the entire intelligence community for as long as he could get away with it. After four months it came time to fess up that the ICA had not been prepared, as Secretary Clinton and the media kept claiming, by ‘all 17 intelligence agencies.’

In fact, Clapper went one better, proudly asserting — with striking naiveté — that the ICA writers were ‘handpicked analysts’ from only the F.B.I., C.I.A., and NSA. He may have thought that this would enhance the ICA’s credibility. It is a no-brainer, however, that when you want handpicked answers, you better handpick the analysts. And so he did.”

[See: The January 2017 ‘Assessment’ on Russiagate] 

Buried in Annex B of the ICA is this curious disclaimer:

“Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents. … High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”

Small wonder, then, that a New York Times report on the day the ICA was released noted: 

“What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission…”

Burying Obama’s Role

Mainstream journalism has successfully buried parts of the Russiagate story, including the role played by former President Barack Obama. 

Was Obama aware of the “Russian hack” chicanery? There’s ample evidence he was “all in.” More than a month before the 2016 election, while the F.B.I. was still waiting for the findings of cyber-firm CrowdStrike, which the Democratic Party had hired in place of the F.B.I. to find out who had breached their servers, Obama told Clapper and Dept. of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson not to wait.

So with the election looming, the two dutifully published a Joint Statement on Oct. 7, 2016:

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. … “

Obama’s role was revealed in 2022 when the F.B.I. was forced to make public F.B.I. emails in connection with the trial of fellow Russiagate plotter, Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann

Clapper and the C.I.A., F.B.I., and NSA directors briefed Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017. That was the day before they gave it personally to President-elect Donald Trump, telling him it showed the Russians helped him win, and that it had just been made public.

On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama used lawyerly language in an awkward attempt to cover his derriere: 

“The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.”

So we ended up with “inconclusive conclusions” on that admittedly crucial point … and, for good measure, use of both words — “hacking” and “leaked.” 

The tale that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 was then disproved on Dec. 5, 2017 by the head of CrowdStrike’s sworn testimony to Congress. Shawn Henry told the House Intelligence committee behind closed doors that CrowdStrike found no evidence that anyone had successfully hacked the DNC servers. 

But it is still widely believed because The New York Times and other Democrat-allied corporate media never reported on that testimony when it was finally made public on May 7, 2020.

Enter Michael van Landingham

Rolling Stone’s article on July 28 about van Landingham says he is still proud of his role as one of the “hand-picked analysts” in drafting the discredited ICA. 

The piece is entitled: “He Confirmed Russia Meddled in 2016 to Help Trump. Now, He’s Speaking Out.”It says: “Trump viewed the 2017 intel report as his ‘Achilles heel.’ The analyst who wrote it opens up about Trump, Russia and what really happened in 2016.”  

Without ever mentioning that the conclusions of the ICA were proven false, by Henry’s testimony and the conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that found no evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion,” Rolling Stone says: 

“The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), dubbed ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,’ was one of the most consequential documents in modern American history. It helped trigger investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees and a special counsel investigation, and it fueled an eight-year-long grudge that Trump has nursed against the intelligence community.” 

Rawnsley writes in Rolling Stone the following as gospel truth, without providing any evidence to back it up. 

“When WikiLeaks published a tranche of [John] Podesta’s emails in late October, the link between the Russian hackers and the releases became undeniable. The dump contained the original spear phishing message that Russian hackers had used to trick Podesta into coughing up his password. News outlets quickly seized on the email, crediting it for what it was: proof that the Russians were behind the campaign.”

Because Rawnsley didn’t tell us, it’s not clear how this “spear phishing message” provides “undeniable” proof that Russia was behind it. Consortium News has contacted Rawnsley to provide more detail to back up his assertion. 

Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and close friend of Julian Assange,  suggested to Scott Horton on Horton’s radio show in 2016 that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

“The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,” Murray said. “In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information.”

Reading between the lines of the interview, one could interpret Murray’s comments as suggesting that the DNC leak came from a Democratic source and that the Podesta leak came from someone inside the U.S. intelligence community, which may have been monitoring John Podesta’s emails because the Podesta Group, which he founded with his brother Tony, served as a registered “foreign agent” for Saudi Arabia.

“John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government,” Murray noted. “If the American security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government’s paid lobbyist in Washington, then the American security services would not be doing their job. … His communications are going to be of interest to a great number of other security services as well.”

Leak by Americans

Horton then asked, “Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?”

“I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,” Murray responded. “In both cases they are leaks by Americans.” 

William Binney, a former U.S. National Security Agency technical director, told Consortium News this regarding Rolling Stone‘s assertion about the Podesta emails:

“Saying something does not make it so. There is no evidence the phishers or hackers were Russian. In today’s networks, you really have to have the underlying internet protocol (IP nr) or device medium access control (MAC nr) to show the routing to/from [sending and receiving] devices to show exfiltration plus trace route evidence to show if that data went any further. 

[In other words, you would need the unique computer addresses of the hacked and the hacker and anyone they may have relayed it to, if it were a hack.]

[Rawnsley] gives none of this type of data.  So, until he provides this type of data, I view his statements as an opinion and not worth much at all.  

The whole world-wide network has to have these numbers to get data from point A to point B in the world. No one (NSA included) has shown this data going to Wikileaks for publication. The 5EYES have Wikileaks under cast iron cover/analysis and would know this and report it.”

“There is one more aspect that’s important to take into account,” Binney added. “It’s the network log. This contains a record of every instruction sent on the network along with addresses for the sender and receiver. It’s held for a period of time according to storage allocated to it.”

Binney said:

“So, if there’s a hack, then the instruction to achieve the hack is in the log. Remember, Crowd Strike did the analysis of the DNC server all through this time and never talked about the network log. Now, Podesta’s computer does not have a network log, but the DNC and worldwide network providers do.”

Binney told CN that he proposed automated analysis of the worldwide log for the NSA in 1992, “but they refused it as it would expose all the money and program corruption in NSA contracts.”

Binney said he was putting that function into the ThinThread program in 1999/2000 that he was developing for the NSA, but the agency “removed it in 2001 after 9/11.” 

A report by the private cybersecurity firm SecureWorks in June 2016 assessed with “moderate confidence” that a group identified as APT28, nicknamed “Fancy Bear” among other names “operating from the Russian Federation … gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government” was behind the Podesta phishing, though as Binney points out, the NSA found no such evidence, when it would have had to, had Russia done it.   

The name “Fancy Bear” of the alleged hackers from GRU, the Russian defense intelligence agency, incidentally, was coined by Dmitri Alperovich, the anti-Putin Russian co-founder of CrowdStrike. 

“This whole Russiagate affair was a concoction of the DNC, the Clintons, the F.B.I. etc. and none of them have produced any specific basic evidence to support their assertions,” Binney said. “The idea that the word ‘Bear’ implies Russia is about the level of technical intellect we are dealing with here.”  

Binney said these are the key technical questions that still need to be answered: 

1. What are the IP and/or MAC numbers involved? And, what are the allocations of these numbers by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (network number allocation authority)?

2. What are the trace routes of the hacked packets going across the worldwide network?

3. What instructions are in the network log indicating data exfiltration of data?

4. Are there any other specific technical aspects that are relevant to a potential hack? No opinions or guesses, that’s not factual evidence of anything beyond the writers biases.”

Binney said in email:

“Even if you assume the Russians did the hack and have the DNC/Podesta emails, you still have to show the transfer of these emails to Wikileaks to know who really did the deed. So far, no one has evidence the emails were sent to Wikileaks. 

Most importantly, Julian Assange publicly said it was not the Russians. Kimdotcom said he helped others (not the Russians) to get data to Wikileaks. Craig Murray talked about physical transfer of data. These statements by people involved in WikiLeaks is clearly consistent with the technical evidence I and others have assembled.”

Binny said that “until such time as those others produce specific technical evidence for peer review and validation (like we have), they are just pushing sludge up an inclined plane with a narrow squeegee hoping they can get it over the top and accepted by all.”

Binney noted that the ancient Greek school of sophism called this the fallacy of repetition. “That’s where they keep repeating a falsehood over and over again till it is believed (it helps when they say the same thing from many different directions especially by people in positions of authority),” Binney said.

So the head of CrowdStrike testifies that there’s no evidence anyone hacked the DNC and according to Binney and Murray, there is no definitive proof that Russia was behind the Podesta phishing expedition either.  WikiLeaks maintains that a state actor was not the source of either.  

And yet the Russiagate myth persists. It is useful in so many ways for those in the U.S. who still want to ratchet up even more tension with Russia (as though Ukraine isn’t enough) and for a political party to perhaps again explain away an election loss if it happens in November.  

Thanks to Bill Binney and two other VIPS very senior NSA “alumni”, and the detailed charts and other data revealed by Edward Snowden, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) was able to publish a memorandum on Dec. 12, 2016 that, based on technical evidence, labeled the Russian hacking allegations “baseless.” The following July we issued a similar VIPS  memo, with the title asking the neuralgic question, “Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?” The question lingers.

I have now posted an item on X to call attention to this latest Russiagate indignity.

I cannot escape the conclusion that journalism is not like war: In war the victors get to write the history; in today’s journalism, the losers — who get it wrong — get to write it. 

O Tempora, O Mores!

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year C.I.A. career he supervised intelligence analysis as chief of Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, as editor/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief, as a member of the Production Review Staff and as chair of National Intelligence Estimates. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/08/ray-mcgovern-decay-decrepitude-deceit-in-journalism/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.