[Peace-discuss] Looking for an explanation of how WikiLeaks did not get the DNC emails?

[J.B. Nicholson]

I wrote:
> Bill Binney just (rightly) called this collection "fundamentally illegal" and 
> unconstitutional on Jimmy Dore's show.

Here's the Jimmy Dore interview where Binney said this: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfW9FsAtn4

And since they didn't get much into the research and reasoning that proved (1) 
Russians didn't copy emails from DNC's email server, and (2) the copier was not 
working over the Internet, see Abby Martin's interview with Bill Binney in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjHs-E2e2V4 which includes the following from around 
20m34s:
> Abby Martin: Let's move on to the allegations of Russian hacking into Podesta's
> email account in the DNC. Can you first go over the evidence that Muller claims to
> have that proves that it's Russia?
> 
> Bill Binney: Well you see, I really don't know of any evidence that Mueller has
> because he's never made it public. So, the only evidence I have is what's made
> public. And from that it went into the Rosenstein indictment, you know the
> Guccifer 2 and the DC Leaks data. And they talked about that as the evidence for
> the indictments and so on. You know they claimed that Guccifer 2 is a Russian, but
> the timestamps that we have on the programming inside the data that was published
> by Guccifer 2 shows timestamps that are consistently inside the United States. But
> that's not the real issue, the real issue was with the data itself and how quickly
> it was downloaded, it was incompatible with a transfer across the net to anywhere
> or any distance. If it went beyond the high-speed line that you had dedicated to
> you, then it slowed down.
> 
> Abby Martin: Explain that in laymen's terms -- why you think this was an inside
> leak as opposed to a hack?
> 
> Bill Binney: Okay, well, the fastest download speed we had was a 49.1 megabyte
> rate. Which meant that the hacker was taking the data out at that rate across the
> network, where ever they were. You know they could be local, they could be
> anywhere. Well, we said okay, what is the capacity of the lines going across to
> Europe? And at that point everything failed -- you couldn't get it across that
> fast. But you could to a thumb drive or something local. Some of our people
> disagreed with that, they said they thought it could. So we said, okay we'll try
> it. So we've got hacker friends in Europe trying to -- and a friend in the US to
> put up a gigabyte of data and say 'Here, try to pull it across, see how fast you
> can get it.'. And the fastest they could get was from a data center in New Jersey
> to the UK in London. And that was 12.0 megabytes per second -- less than
> one-fourth the necessary capacity to transmit the data alone.
> 
> Abby Martin: Well, what about the timestamps: do you think that Russia could have
> been throwing off analysts by planting false timestamps?
> 
> Bill Binney: First off, to understand the massive surveillance that is involved:
> everything is captured by NSA. So, NSA should have some of that evidence
> somewhere. And they have failed to come forward, even the ICA -- the Intelligence
> Community Assessment -- that Russia "hacked it", you know? NSA had "moderate
> confidence".
> 
> Abby Martin: Right, what does that mean?
> 
> Bill Binney: That means we have no evidence.
> 
> Abby Martin: Because the other intelligence agencies said they had confidence but
> the NSA said they had "moderate confidence".
> 
> Bill Binney: You see, they aren't relevant. When it comes to communication, NSA is
> the only one that matters. The rest of them don't.
> 
> Abby Martin: And did they explain what the "moderate confidence" that they had
> meant?
> 
> Bill Binney: No. I mean, to me, that's language for 'I have no evidence.'.
> 
> Abby Martin: I wanted to get this out of the way because it's always interested me
> because you claim that British diplomat Craig Murray corroborates this--
> 
> Bill Binney: Yep.
> 
> Abby Martin: --he claims that he handed over a drive to someone.
> 
> Bill Binney: Well, he talked to somebody who was involved in transferring the
> data, yeah.
> 
> Abby Martin: So he, himself, talked to someone.
> 
> Bill Binney: But even from the forensic evidence based on the WikiLeaks exposure
> of data that they published there were multiple ways that they got it.
> 
> Abby Martin: Then who else has corroborated your findings?
> 
> Bill Binney: A number of technical people, people in the Veteran Intelligence
> Professionals for Sanity and others around the world, by the way.

Also, consider the underreported evidence that came from Congressional testimony on 
December 5, 2017 from Crowdstrike president Shawn Henry: Henry said Crowdstrike "did 
not have concrete evidence" that alleged Russian hackers actually took the emails 
from DNC servers. "There’s circumstantial evidence, but no evidence that they were 
actually exfiltrated," Henry said. Crowdstrike was in possession of those servers and 
the FBI refused to collect the servers, instead taking an alleged copy of what was on 
the servers from Crowdstrike (what's known as an "image"). This meant the FBI treated 
Crowdstrike as a trusted partner in an investigation in which Crowdstrike should have 
been viewed as a suspect.

See https://www.youtube.com/embed/t5Sw7TbmfN8 for Aaron Maté's examination of Henry's 
admission which is at the heart of Russiagate which Congress knew since December 5, 2017.

This is clear evidence that the House Intelligence Committee (but more likely all of 
Congress) has been lying about Russiagate's central allegation since December 5, 2017 
when Crowdstrike president Shawn Henry gave this testimony.



As far as we can tell, the chain of custody of the DNC emails looks like this: Seth 
Rich (former DNC employee, now murder victim) used his physical access to the DNC 
servers to copy the DNC emails to a USB thumb drive. Rich gave that USB thumb drive 
to friend-of-WikiLeaks Craig Murray (former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and host of blog 
at https://craigmurray.org.uk/) on the night of a Sam Adams award ceremony (according 
to John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and case officer).

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrVWeA2QmWk starting at 3m55s for Kiriakou's 
statement on how this happened:
> Lee Camp: And this is one of the many holes in the Muller report, which still
> found no collusion, but they [the FBI] didn't even talk to Julian Assange.
> 
> John Kiriakou: They never even /asked/ to talk to Julian Assange.
> 
> Lee Camp: It's amazing.
> 
> John Kiriakou: And I'll tell you who else they didn't talk to was Ambassador Craig
> Murray. Craig's the former ambassador to Uzbekistan. He came here [to the US]
> right around that time in 2016 to participate in a Sam Adams award ceremony. Sam
> Adams is a group of retired CIA, NSA, other intelligence officers and we were
> giving an award. Well, Craig loves to go out drinking after these award
> ceremonies. That night he didn't. That night he said he had an important meeting.
> As it turned out his important meeting was to meet someone who he's never named
> who gave him a thumb drive with all of the information on it -- all of the DNC
> emails--
> 
> Lee Camp: Wow.
> 
> John Kiriakou: --which he then took to WikiLeaks.
> 
> Lee Camp: Wow.
> 
> John Kiriakou: So if he has come out to confess that it was not a hack, not a
> Russian hack, 'I physically carried the documents to WikiLeaks', why did the FBI
> never want to interview him?
> 
> Lee Camp: That's incredible, I didn't even know that detail. But there's been a
> lot of other evidence brought forward that this was not a hack, it was a leak. It
> was from the inside.
> 
> John Kiriakou: It was; Bill Binney, the former Technical Director at the NSA has
> said repeatedly -- including in the Oval Office -- that the rate of speed with the
> information was uploaded shows -- proves -- that it could not possibly have been
> done remotely. It had to have been done on-site on a thumb drive.
> 
> Lee Camp: Yeah, but that upends the whole 'Russia did it' idea so we can't have
> that.


Also interesting is the Muller investigation team never interviewed Craig Murray nor 
Julian Assange, two people who would have something to say about this, probably 
things that contradict the Russiagate narrative the US Government was eager to get 
people to believe, things that would raise uncomfortable questions and lead people to 
disbelieve what the US Government was telling them.

-J