Obama administration orchestrated false information

A.     History documents  that  several false assumptions/accusations  led the US into major wars.

1.  The USSMaine was  sent to protect U.S. interests during the Cuban revolt against Spain, she exploded suddenly, without warning, and sank quickly, killing nearly three quarters of her crew.  Popular opinion in the U.S., fanned by inflammatory articles printed in the “yellow press” by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, blamed Spain. The phrase, “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!”, became a rallying cry for action, which came with the Spanish–American War later that year.

George W. Melville, a chief engineer in the Navy, proposed that a  likely cause for the sinking was from a magazine explosion within the vessel. The Navy’s leading ordnance expert, Philip R. Alger, took this theory further by suggesting that the magazines were ignited by a spontaneous fire in a coal bunker.The coal used in Maine was bituminous coal, which is known for releasing firedamp, a gas that is prone to spontaneous explosions. There is stronger evidence that the explosion of Maine was caused by an internal coal fire which ignited the magazines. This was a likely cause of the explosion, rather than the initial accusation of a Spanish mine.

2. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (August 7, 1964) gave broad congressional approval for expansion of the Vietnam War.On August 2, shortly after a clandestine raid on the North Vietnamese coast by South Vietnamese gunboats, the U.S. destroyer Maddox (conducting electronic espionage nearby) was fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Two days later, in the same area, the Maddox and another destroyer reported that they were again under attack. Although these reports now appear to have been mistaken, Johnson proceeded quickly to authorize retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam. The next day he gathered congressional leaders and accused the North Vietnamese of “open aggression on the high seas.” He then submitted to the Senate a resolution that authorized him to take “all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” The resolution was quickly approved by Congress;  Later, when more information about the Tonkin incident became available, many concluded that Johnson and his advisers had misled Congress into supporting the expansion of the war.

3.The false certainty of the US intelligence community that  Saddam Hussein  actually possessed nuclear weapons 

B.      Public  records document  that the Obama administration  orchestrated false information to create  public acceptance for several major administration programs.

  1. Obamacare. To pass Obamacare, the political consultant/architect was Jonathan Gruber,the Obamacare Architect: “Yeah, We Lied to The “Stupid” American People to Get It Passed”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI&ab_channel=AmericanCommitment

 2.  Iran deal.  Ben Rhodes’ Iran Deal ( “wag the dog”) echo chamber operation) which was  explicitly intended to mislead the US public in order to sell this administration’s desired  Iran agreement [ The aspiring novelist who became Obama’s foreign-policy guru  by David Samuels  New York Times May 5, 2016]

Below, is an excerpt from the New York Times which reproduces in Ben Rhodes’ own words Rhodes’s  campaign to sell the Iran

“We created an echo chamber,’ he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. ‘They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

3.Susan Rice and  the CIA-State Department-White House scenario that it was a anti-Muslim video that triggered the assault on our diplomatic station in Benghazi.

4. Intelligence analysts   complained that their  output is being distorted by the political echelon [50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked

C.   President Obama and  VP Biden threatened Russia with cyber warfare [at a place and it is time of our choosing] thus giving Putin an excellent opportunity to blame the United States for any systems failure [there are many that occur] in Russia. Further, this subject to the United States to the possibility of a cyber war which we can not win.

Obama , announcing the U.S. response:

“We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized,” he said in a statement released by the White House.

( Note that VP Biden threatened Russia with cyber warfare -at a place and it is time of our choosing- thus giving Putin an excellent opportunity to blame the United States for any systems failure [there are many that occur] in Russia. Further, this subjects the United States to the possibility of a cyber war which we can not win.)

He was referring, in part, to a cyber operation that was designed to be detected by Moscow but not cause significant damage, officials said. The operation, which entailed implanting computer code in sensitive computer systems that Russia was bound to find, served only as a reminder to Moscow of the United States’ cyber reach.

OBAMA ALSO SIGNED THE SECRET FINDING, OFFICIALS SAID, AUTHORIZING A NEW COVERT PROGRAM INVOLVING THE NSA, CIA AND U.S. CYBER COMMAND.

The cyber operation is still in its early stages and involves deploying “implants” in Russian networks deemed “important to the adversary and that would cause them pain and discomfort if they were disrupted,” a former U.S. official said.

The implants were developed by the NSA and designed so that they could be triggered remotely as part of retaliatory cyber-strike in the face of Russian aggression, whether an attack on a power grid or interference in a future presidential race.

Officials familiar with the measures said that there was concern among some in the administration that the damage caused by the implants could be difficult to contain.

As a result, the administration requested a legal review, which concluded that the devices could be controlled well enough that their deployment would be considered “proportional” in varying scenarios of Russian provocation, a requirement under international law.

The operation was described as long-term, taking months to position the implants and requiring maintenance thereafter.

UNDER THE RULES OF COVERT ACTION, OBAMA’S SIGNATURE WAS ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY TO SET THE OPERATION IN MOTION.

U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES DO NOT NEED FURTHER APPROVAL FROM TRUMP, AND OFFICIALS SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE A COUNTERMANDING ORDER TO STOP IT.

Thus, it is essential for   US  national security and  for American national unity that Robert Mueller [or someone of higher authority]  begin their investigation with a thorough examination of square one 

2.     How to begin at square one in the investigation

The story  that is being sold  to the American public  is  that there is  100% agreement by all the   US  Intelligence agencies that the Russians penetrated the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. [For example see:OBAMA’S SECRET STRUGGLE TO PUNISH RUSSIA FOR PUTIN’S ELECTION ASSAULT Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashimaand ,Adam Entous

The “intelligence assumptions” cascade with the further  assumption being  announced that the Russians would not conduct such an operation without the explicit knowledge and the explicit direct approval of Vladimir Putin. Or that we have definitive evidence either from a  3rd country source or from our own penetration into Putin’s inner circle that he personally ordered the operation.

If Russia, China, Iran, North Korea an Islamic power, or a criminal element  really wanted to disrupt the election in the United States they have the capability to easily do so. This would be by means of a coordinated,  attack on a series of computers, not an isolated intrusion into a single computer system.

This story is politically convenient but it does not comply with the capabilities of the Russians and with the political and technical savvy of the dark web  Internet community operations.

First, they would infiltrate the hundreds of computers operated by the local Democratic and/or Republican organizations. Quantitatively this is a relatively small number compared to past viral and other attacks. This is relatively simple technically given the low level of security protection, the large number of people with access, and the large number of incoming and outgoing emails and other transactions

Then they would incapacitate the donor lists which would prevent refurbishing the financial coffers during the last phases of the campaign. They would incapacitate the precinct walking lists which would forestall the ground games which are essential to most campaigns. They would incapacitate the directories which would prevent communication with the volunteers, with the potential voters , with  potential donors and with all of the other local and national organizations of their party which would prevent coordination, etc.. This “ hacking “ operation could be accomplished by destroying the files or by  encoding them for ransom. Recent attacks that have been reported in the media have been of much greater magnitude and sophistication.

What is agreed upon is that these  intrusions were  very sloppy and that the tools used (which had been developed by Russian hackers ) were from a generation or two earlier than those currently used by Russian organizations affiliated with Russian intelligence and that these older tools  are widely distributed and  have been widely used in the hacking community. [ Thus, the observation that this hacking could have been conducted by a reasonably competent 14-year-old sitting in the basement of his parents house is certainly a worthy contender as to whom exactly was the culprit.]

Many technical experts  do not agree with the CrowdStrike  [ Democratic Party contractor ] assessment or with the Obama administration’s claims that the DNC/DCCC hacks were  clearly committed by Russian state actors. A great  deal of  the  criticism  is aimed at the FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” that was released at the end of December.

The JAR cited as  “specific indicators of compromise” IP addresses and a PHP malware sample. But what does this really prove?

Wordfence, a WordPress security company specializing in analyzing PHP malware, examined these indicators and didn’t find any hard evidence of Russian involvement. Instead, Wordfence found the attack software was  an out-of-date, web-shell hacking tool. The newest version is more sophisticated. Its website claims it was written in the Ukraine.

Mark Maunder, Wordfence’s CEO, concluded that since the attacks were made “several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S , one might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources.”

Errata Security CEO Rob Graham pointed out in a blog post that while P.A.S is popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. it is “used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world.” In short, just because the attackers used P.A.S., that’s not enough evidence to blame it on the Russian government.

Independent cyber security experts, such as Jeffrey Carr, have cited numerous errors that the media and CrowdStrike have made in discussing the hacking in what Carr refers to as a “runaway train” of misinformation.

Those aspects of the Democratic Party and John Podesta information systems that were relevant to this intrusion should have been secured by the US government. It is inexplicable why James Comey failed to  subpoena and safeguard these materials.  it is reported that the Democratic Party refused  to allow  the US government  to have independent access to these materials.

Robert Muller should immediately subpoena and safeguard all the  computer files and systems of the Democratic National Committee and of John Podesta that are relevant to this hacking operation.

Robert Muller  should offer Julian Assange whatever immunity and /or other protections that would obtain his full and complete testimony as to his sources of information. [If he is unwilling to name specific individuals, he should be willing, under oath, to clear other individuals and/or other organizations.]