There was no evidence the files were transmitted over the internet. The volume and speed of the downloaded files point to a USB- as if a staffer downloaded the emails from a computer onto a USB memory device and later sent them to Wiki . BTW, who was Seth Rich?
Effectively the media wanted us to believe our bank was hacked when actually it was armed robbers going in through the front door and taking everything out of the vault.
If memory serves, Craig Murray is on record saying he made a special trip to DC from Scotland for a physical hand off of the DNC files on behalf of Wikileaks.
This falsehood (the "physical hand-off") about what Craig Murray has said originates in the Daily Mail's misreporting. Although that claim about what Craig Murray has claimed was repeated about seven times within the article and its captions, no words of his that are in quotation marks within the article say any such thing. And ALL of Murray's available statements actually on the record conflict with the claim, and in fact Murray has explicitly denied it. What really happened was that Murray attended an event in Washington in late September 2016, and afterwards had a clandestine meeting with the source of the Podesta emails, for some "administrative" purpose. But this meeting took place after those files were already in WikiLeaks' possession, according to Murray. Separately, Murray claims to know that the DNC files came from a _different_ American leaker. Although I've lost track of all the sources I once compiled on this subject, Murray's basic account is in his Dec 2016 interview with Scott Horton. Note: The DNC emails must not be confused with the Podesta emails or with the Guccifer 2 alleged "hack," three different things.
No, this is a common example of conflating different things. The internet transfer speed argument applies to Guccifer 2's self-alleged hack that took place on (if memory serves, July 5, 2016). It should not be conflated with the DNC files which were obtained and published by WikiLeaks, and the latter must not be conflated with the Podesta e-mails which also were obtained and published by WikiLeaks. This is why I can't stand the singular pronoun "It" in the saying "It was a leak not a hack." Very possibly all three of these events were leaks and not hacks, but they must not be conflated.
I recall that Consortium News published solid pieces ages ago debunking Guccifer 2 "hack" as a clumsy red herring, likely by CIA. Was author Wm Binney or Ray McGovern?
Aha! Was in July 2017 memo that Veteran Intel Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent then-Prez Trump. Memo is linked to in this 2020 CN followup by McGovern, which cites computer scientist Tim Leonard's initial Guccifer 2 debunk research.
Right, Consortium News did publish those. Important stuff, so long as one doesn't confuse G-2 with either batch of materials published by WikiLeaks. Incidentally, the late Robert Parry, who listened to Scott Horton's interview with Craig Murray right when it came out, was almost alone in written journalism in getting Murray's account right at the time.
I guess you did not watch the Sean Hannity interview with Julian. Sean did. Julian said I don't divulge any sources cause if I did, I would never get material. And yes, Julian did say it was not a state actor.
I miss took your 'nobody' for nobody. It was a public Q&A. Who brought up admissible evidence? Who knows or cares if the Feds questioned him because the Feds were colluding with Julian being guilty.
But the problem is the DCleaks website and the info posted there. But I just rechecked the timeline - Breedlove emails shared by DCleaks in March 16 -Dcleaks registered 4/19 with Bitcoin through a Romanian company allegedly run by Florica Catalan (doubtful-it was a front company) now owned by Davis Defense, a shady Pentagon contractor. They were sharing Breedlove's emails about Ukraine. That was not Seth Rich. I'm not saying he wasn't part of this. I think he was. But not as a whistleblower. He was used.
DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 are allegedly Russian disinformation operations, but I think it is more likely they were domestic disinformation operations. Obviously, I don't know the full truth about Seth Rich, but I don't see how DCLeaks has any bearing on the question of who supplied the DNC files to WikiLeaks (since I certainly do not believe Muller report account which has them being transferred to WikiLeaks just a few days before they were published, whereas Assange indicated in mid-June that the files it planned to publish were already in its possession).
Dcleaks and G2 were connected via info re correspondence with JA on Twitter and other things. Breedlove emails are important. See this blog, which is on point -
The information was disseminated by the website The Intercept, which is funded by the US ultraliberal magnate Pierre Omidyar, who is close to George Soros. Together with the Soros Foundation, Omidyar has funded a number of liberal media projects in the US and abroad. Like Soros, Omidyar was involved in the financing of the coup in 2014 in Ukraine. The site http://dcleaks.com/ where the correspondence of Breedlove was posted also presents documents related to the activities of other persons. In particular, those of Hillary Clinton and George Soros. However, nothing seriously incriminating against them is to be found there. Basically, what is offered is a collection of materials based on the fact that they have already been made public. Clinton, Soros and other politicians and public figures are added just for the sake of appearances. The site was specifically created in order to provide a "stuffing" for Breedlove.
In order to understand the meaning of this action, let's see what conclusions the American public can draw from these materials:
1. Barack Obama was opposed to US involvement in a war with Russia.
2. The fears of those harshly opposing Russia have been confirmed.
3. The pressure on Russia is to be strengthened.
The warmongers are portrayed as really believing in aggressive Russian plans and not having any hidden agenda. Thus, the conservative audience will find more evidence to support their belief that Russia must be deterred.
It is no accident that the publication appeared on the eve of the NATO summit, where decisions on an unprecedented strengthening of the Alliance in opposition to Russia are expected to be adopted.
It may very well be that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 were connected with each other. Official sources, such as the Mueller report, which claim that both were Russian operations, also attribute the materials published by WikiLeaks (both the DNC and Podesta files) to them. However, there are strong indications that their account is false in crucial respects, such as their absurd claim about the timing of the transfer of the eventually published materials to WikiLeaks (supposedly just a few days before the DNC emails were published). On the other hand, Craig Murray claims on the basis of information from sources he trusts, that both batches of materials published by WikiLeaks came from American leakers. And he has strongly hinted that the DNC materials came from a DNC insider and the Podesta materials from someone who had access to the NSA database. I see no valid reason to connect DCLeaks/Guccifer, on the one hand, with the DNC or Podesta WikiLeaks publications, on the other.
I believe Murray's an honest person and the sources are American, not Russian. I don't buy into the idea they're leakers in the usual sense of the word. Wikileaks dms published in the Mueller report show Assange trying to access their info; you have also Wikileaks tweeting out links to the September Guccifer 2.0 releases, along with the password. A month later, the Podesta emails came out via Wikileaks. Murray went to DC in the third week of September to accept the Sam Adams award. I think it's possible he got some type of Podesta data then from a "leaker." Most of the Guccifer 2.0 documents are Podesta attachments.
As for G2, one thing that interests me is how quickly Deep-State guys like Thomas Rid and Matt Tait found and disseminated info about the so-called Russian metadata. Along with the other nonsense going on, it has all the markings of a coordinated disinfo. campaign. Kaspersky has a great paper about how hackers commonly insert nonsense phrases like "God Save the Queen" into metadata to throw off attempts at ID. And you have the CIA programs published in Vault 7 - we know the CIA (and others) had the capability of obscuring origin. Rid and Tait cannot be that stupid.
As for Seth, I would be shocked if he leaked to Assange on his own. His brother worked for a major defense contractor and had security clearance. Then there's the Omaha upbringing--and the Project Vigilant Omaha/Lamo/Manning connection. I believe he probably contacted Wikileaks because of Sey Hersh's affidavit, in which he mentions he heard this from a long-time, high-level source. Not to mention the FBI efforts not to release files on him. But I can't believe he was a leaker in any traditional sense. Everytime I think about him I get LHO vibes.
I appreciate your interesting observations. I should be clear that at one time I carefully collected all the Craig Murray stuff, but on much of the rest my memories are less certain. And I didn't know at all about some of the other items you mention. I have been using the term "leaker" in the way Murray described the two sources in his interview with Horton - Americans who had access to the data as part of their jobs. Whether their motives for wanting the files in WikiLeaks' hands were "pure" - probably not. One even has to entertain the possibility that they were presented to WikiLeaks for some manipulative purpose by the Deep State. (Did I once read somewhere that McCabe was Hersh's source??) But the latter I doubt, mainly on grounds of all the efforts (Guccifer 2, etc.) to make it look as if someone else was the real source.
DC Leaks first private post containing General Breedlove's emails (head of US and NATO forces). He would resign May 2016. The post was timestamped prior to his public resignation and promotion of the website. Email showed Breedlove pushing Obama into tougher stance against Russia re: Ukraine.
DCleaks was formed from an Anonymous faction that basically split between Assange supporters and disruptors undermining WikiLeaks w Michael/Emma Best/ Barrett Brown/ AnonCentral etc
Guccifer 2.0 is most likely an American psyop and Adam Carter/Forensicator has the ultimate documentation & analysis for all of that planned confusion.
DNC refused to turn over its server to FBI. Only Crowdstrike, their cybersecurity firm owned by a Ukranian CEO (??), had access -- and FBI never subpoenaed it. Seems odd, what with the big heavy "Russian interference/hack" claims from DNC/Crowdstrike.
I disagree. I spoke to field agents during the Great Financial Crime Spree. The only thing they were there to do was support the corruption of the Obama admin and ignore the massive crimes of the banks.
I've met honest agents who would never go for that. They must have some way of screening them for "loyalty" and keeping the good cops away from "sensitive" investigations.
Good point. Hmm, if I were the DNC leaker, I'd download everything on my thumbdrive and not reupload on my PC. But, I'd want a copy just in case, so maybe I would? Upload thumbdrive to PC, download to another drive and clear PC? ???
The FBI's interest is in protecting its hit guy. I have know idea what forensics on a pc would turn up, but as long as the FBI has the pc (I think there was more than one of them) all is well in USG/DNC world.
I was a member of the DNC rules committee for Sanders, and our business was happening on the days leading up to the convention. On the day of the leak, Clintonites and DNC staff were already mentioning the Russians internally. This has always bothered me -- this was their belief before a single investigation was launched. Another interesting memory is of Donna Brazile coming into our meeting room and apologizing to Jeff Weaver for “what [he] read”.
The only conclusion I can draw from that Brazile/Weaver exchange is that Donna wrote nasty things about Jeff in emails known to have been leaked. Did you have a different take on that?
Nope, that’s the right read on it, or perhaps she was apologizing for the explicit coordinated bias against the campaign -- I just remembered the moment while commenting. Hadn’t thought about that week in a while.
Everything in the DNC leaks, Podesta leaks, the leaks from Colin Powell's hacked email, and Russia's social media efforts were all completely trivial and irrelevant except for their positioning for propaganda uses.
Not entirely. The Podesta leaks are where we learned how Obama selected his cabinet, for example. (He was given a list by CitiGroup.)
The DNC emails corroborated claims that the DNC promoted Trump's candidacy because they thought he'd be easier to beat. There were useful little nuggets here and there.
I agree with the Russian social media efforts part, though. Totally trivial.
Franklin Foer was just on Bari Weiss podcast. I like her generally but its a little too obviously trying to split the divide but the divide is unbridgeable. If they're willing to do this sorta shit to undermine a presidency then they're beyond the pale.
"If" ? Bari is an entitled Versailles liberal utterly opposed to class equality and egalitarianism. Foer as Matt aptly notes is simply a dunce. Neither is willing to stand up and acknowledge the media's and state security insiders' efforts to thwart the will of the people from 2016 to the present.
Thanks, I’d forgotten that Rogan interview. It was embarrassing for her. She was similarly clueless in her interview with RFK jr. who was his typical erudite, courteous self. She’s moderately sympathetic on the surface, but not at all impressive intellectually. Still, I’m inclined to support any journalist who leaves the NYT.
Sera, Bari Weiss is a fraud--she may have left the Times but she did not leave the liberal media establishment. She's just the flipside of the same counterfeit coin. An intellectual mediocrity who thinks she's somebody because she has an Ivy League degree.
I was a paid subscriber for a year and there was mostly good content but it was easy to see the bias seeping through TFP. It must be incredibly difficult to leave a cult.
RACKET always provides depth reports. I know I'm going to have to pay attention when I receive one. TFP keeps a human face on the news with reports on people and consequence but, requires no where near the concentration of RACKET. Of course Glenn Greenwald's SYSTEM UPDATE and THE GRAY ZONE deserve all the support we can give them.
I'm for subscription journalism but I'm beginning to realize it would be impossible for me to keep up with and absorb the amount of news I subscribe to and pay for. Importantly, truth/fact based subscription journalism is having a visible effect on the perps assaulting the Republic. My lament is the generally unrecognized power and possibility of the subscription support format as a unifying
force. In actual elected politics the force of a political candidate capable of an evolving truth/fact based dialogue with his constituents would redefine the nature, narrative and approach to political power.
Whatever we want to believe--the "net" is being converted to a self-interested worldwide apparatus of control. It has been captured by a cabal of lawless criminal politicians and financiers. They operate independently of peoples and nations. The inhuman lie they represent is subsuming and negating all ideological "ism's". Their assault on the right to individual liberty is in our faces. On their side and ours, the narrative doesn't fit the reality we're experiencing and witnessing. It is pathology not politics. Looking at the ongoing violation of human dignity and human rights across the Western World, the only true political is the American Republic, the citizen and the Constitution.
The cabal is entirely totalitarian in nature and entirely criminally selective in its prosecutions. It can/is/will manufacture charges. Arrest you. Hold you without bail. Withhold exculpatory evidence. Freeze your bank account. Seize legitimately earned dollars. Demand your silencing, mount propagandist trial by press campaigns to de-platform you, and destroy your life and career. It will send militarized police units to your home and terrorize your wife and children. It will impose travel restrictions, ban freedom of speech and expression of thought. It is openly flooding the free world with undocumented "refugee's". This tactic, combined with the subversion of education, encouragement of the criminal assault on civilians, and the looting of business, through a policy of non prosecution of the criminals involved, ensures the destruction of major cities and (as in California) a diaspora that spreads the chaos across the nation. As intended--civilized life and culture become untenable. Completely, intentionally and profitably overlooked is their alliance with the international drug cartels who control major pieces of large American cities. If none of this works to destroy you, as alluded to in comments above, the unexplained accident or the bullet in the head.-------Got Constitution? (For how long?)
Mike, I'm not sure Bari wants to leave the cult. Whatever problems she had with the NYT, she still is basically a Leftist, with just a few outlier opinions.
The real tell was the FP's perverse refusal to cover the Biden Crime Family Bribery Scandal, only the biggest political scandal of our time, and maybe ever. But the memo went out from The Big Boys to bury it, and Bari dutifully obeyed. Pathetic.
Yeah I'll still read her substack and listen to podcasts some but it's with a heavy grain of salt. She's had guys like David French and Jonah Goldberg write for her, but not too many dissident types that I'm aware of. Which is a shame. I think she did go on Russell Brands show after Greenwald did a segment showing her attack on Tulsi.
American royalty lives in palaces, not homes or houses, or apartments, or trailers, or tents, or on the street or under an overpass, like the rest of us. Versailles liberals live in "nice neighborhoods' on the peripheries of power, tutor the children of the rich, produce hagiographies of modern royalty, venerate material excess, and write sermons on the virtues of "diversity."
The rest of us inhabit a different world. The Versailles liberal lives for pats on the head from the wealthy and powerful. They treat themselves to 300 dollar baby carriages and 30-dollar salads - pretending they're like Nancy and Michelle sipping expensive wines in their palaces while treating their kids to 50 dollar a pint ice cream.
The Versailles liberal in academia and media lives to keep the rest of us down, so each can maintain the fiction they too are actually part of American royalty. The reality is that the Versailles liberals and the rest of us function as peasants and servants in a corrupt system. The Versailles liberal understands this central truth - a truth which terrifies them. To protect the illusion, the Versailles liberal embraces every aspect of inequality while declaring themselves the most wonderful and compassionate of us all - dreaming of the day when they too will own palaces in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, co-mingling with America's royalty.
Whose analysis did the government base their......oh pulease, they based the hacking story on the wild fabrications of “ She Who Must Be Queen” Hillary Clinton. Ive always suspected that there is some wicked tantric blackmail behind a lot of this chicanery.
Of course, there is a mantra among hackers, "physical access is total access," so whether it was a hack or not may depend on whether you used the word as hackers do (it was, even if via a thumbdrive) or as the press does (it probably wasn't since a loading onto a thumbdrive doesn't count).
If the computer has any kind of network connection, my answer is yes.
I keep my laptop WiFi off unless I’m intentionally online. Despite that, Microsoft managed to push update files to my computer and started warning me to reboot to update.
Now it’s true that those downloads can occur in the background when I am intentionally online. Thing is, the files’ dates indicate that the files completed downloading while the laptop was not connected to the internet. It can be months between internet sessions on that computer.
My conclusion is that short of removing the network card from the computer, they can push files whenever they like. And if they can push files, they can pull files. And if Microsoft can push/pull at will anyone can.
If a network pro knows otherwise I’d love to hear what that person has to say!
I'm not a pro, but I suspect that the MS update files' dates may be Microsoft's stamped dates. Regardless, they all begin download the moment you turn on your machine, not while it's turned off or offline.
I’m not qualified to say if this is accurate, but I have read that data can be scraped via a power cable plugged into the wall. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Not if you use your own adapter and plug into an ordinary wall socket. However, you should beware of USB ports provided in airports, hotels, and especially your car.
Imho if you have wifi, any device having online capability and within range of your router could theoretically be detected, secretly powered up, and hacked. What's scary is that it may also be possible to hack it from your neighbor's wifi.
Well, it depends on how you define hack. Podesta's email was compromised and that information later appeared on Wikileaks. As Assange said, it was not a complicated "hack" - just spearphishing. But it's doubtful that was a leak. The Wikileaks docs show the email correspondence. In addition, most of the G2 docs were from the Podesta hack, not the DNC hack. You have dms between JA and G2 in which he is seeking their data.
In addition, I believe all of the DCleaks docs involved Spearphishing, not X-agent. All those people had previously been targeted by Apt28. Was that intentional misdirection or a clear link between Dcleaks and Fancy Bear?
The FBI didn't notify any of the 312 compromised people. Why not? Another interesting thing - before they registered Dcleaks with the Romanian chicken front guy, they tried electionleaks.com. That was used before, way back. I need to find what I have on that.
Brad in his newsletter Euphoric Recall (highly recommend you subscribe) wrote about a great quote by Elon Musk:
History is written by the victors. "Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia.”
This seems the source of the problem. These leading political actors are the same disgusting lying and immoral DC filth that has always infested the swamp. However, we used to have some normality in media journalism to help regulate their behavior. But we have frog marched so many kids through higher learning to catch the same managerial class virus of status and money looter winning at any cost to everyone else... and with the media being infiltrated by the same clones... that they have new allegiance with the disgusting lying and immoral DC filth infesting the swamp.
How do we get a normalized journalistic media back in the house? Matt cannot do it all alone.
How do we get a normalized journalistic media back in the house?
You have to knock down the house. That's what Matt, Lee, Bari, Megyn et al are doing. It takes time, and we vote with our 5-8 bucks every month. This is going the right direction
Sussman was only charged with one criminal count, making a false statement to the FBI. The alleged false statement was that, on September 19, 2016, he told the FBI that he was not representing someone else when presenting allegations about the Alpha Bank server and Trump when he in fact was acting on behalf of clients. The jury found him not guilty of lying to the FBI about acting on behalf of clients.
Sussman certainly lied about not acting on behalf of clients, and I am not sure how the jury weighed the evidence presented in making their verdict. However, I am aware of three technical difficulties with the case that might have led a jury to conclude that there was reasonable doubt about Sussman's guilt:
1. A text message to Sussman's FBI contact, James Baker, in which Sussman said he was not acting on behalf of a client could not be considered a false statement to the FBI in the trial because it was obtained by the prosecutors (Durham) after a statute of limitations expired.
2. So, the case hinged on recollections of Baker versus assertions of Sussman about what Sussman orally told Baker. In other words, one person's words against another's. At various times, Baker was unclear exactly what Sussman said about representing clients or not when handing over the Alpha Bank allegations, so he wasn't the best of witnesses.
3. There was also the question about whether if Sussman lied, it was even material. Sussman was well-known to work for top-level Democrats, so it is reasonable to conclude that the FBI would assume he was representing Democrat clients, regardless of what he actually said.
Nothing in the Sussman verdict bears on the veracity of the Alpha Bank-Trump allegations, which are clearly false.
Also, the technical peculiarities of the trial notwithstanding, as I noted above, we outside observers have ample evidence to conclude that Sussman did indeed tell the FBI he was not representing clients when he brought them these allegations, and that this was a lie. However, this lie is minutia compared to the false allegations spread about Trump and Alpha Bank having connections.
The "jury of peers" concept is broken as we have geographically filtered into red and blue tribes. And you cannot get a judge that will admit it and change the venue because the judge is as politically biased as are the peers.
All of those assertions from entities linked to the Democrat National Committee were equivalent to the statements from the Criminal Insurrection Agency (CIA) that said on the eve of the 2020 election that 51 current and former intelligence analysts claiming the stories exposing Hunter Biden's activities from his laptop were consistent with Russian disinformation.
Once a liar, always a liar. And they always seem to end up in the so-called intelligence apparatus.
A lot of the last 10 years have reminded me of various Philip K Dick stories. I was stoked when you talked about minority report and pkd more generally.
When this topic comes up I am transported to the last season of David Simon's "the wire" in which the media, the government, and the larger culture of Baltimore makes all of it's decisions based on lies.
Maybe you and Walter could spend a minute or two talking about ethics in journalism, or just tell me Cutty was your favorite character....
I think Walter, at least, could speak in an inspiring way about the myriad reasons we need media that is adversarial, devoted to reality, and untethered from political actors.
But I don't think ethics are gone completely outside the corporate media. I think Matt and Walter have the urge to "rake muck". I would add a lot of names to a growing list of non-pundit reporters that I trust to get the facts of a story...
Russia gate was a great litmus test for who to take seriously...
There was no evidence the files were transmitted over the internet. The volume and speed of the downloaded files point to a USB- as if a staffer downloaded the emails from a computer onto a USB memory device and later sent them to Wiki . BTW, who was Seth Rich?
Right it was not a hack but a physical theft.
Effectively the media wanted us to believe our bank was hacked when actually it was armed robbers going in through the front door and taking everything out of the vault.
Please add to Medina’s timeline that Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016.
Also add that Wikileaks published the first of the "hacked" emails on July 23, 2016.
Nope it was insiders emptying the vault because the bank was corrupt and fraudulent
Or a Bernie supporter wishing to expose cheating by the Clinton campaign.
💥!
If memory serves, Craig Murray is on record saying he made a special trip to DC from Scotland for a physical hand off of the DNC files on behalf of Wikileaks.
This falsehood (the "physical hand-off") about what Craig Murray has said originates in the Daily Mail's misreporting. Although that claim about what Craig Murray has claimed was repeated about seven times within the article and its captions, no words of his that are in quotation marks within the article say any such thing. And ALL of Murray's available statements actually on the record conflict with the claim, and in fact Murray has explicitly denied it. What really happened was that Murray attended an event in Washington in late September 2016, and afterwards had a clandestine meeting with the source of the Podesta emails, for some "administrative" purpose. But this meeting took place after those files were already in WikiLeaks' possession, according to Murray. Separately, Murray claims to know that the DNC files came from a _different_ American leaker. Although I've lost track of all the sources I once compiled on this subject, Murray's basic account is in his Dec 2016 interview with Scott Horton. Note: The DNC emails must not be confused with the Podesta emails or with the Guccifer 2 alleged "hack," three different things.
Yes, that’s true
No, this is a common example of conflating different things. The internet transfer speed argument applies to Guccifer 2's self-alleged hack that took place on (if memory serves, July 5, 2016). It should not be conflated with the DNC files which were obtained and published by WikiLeaks, and the latter must not be conflated with the Podesta e-mails which also were obtained and published by WikiLeaks. This is why I can't stand the singular pronoun "It" in the saying "It was a leak not a hack." Very possibly all three of these events were leaks and not hacks, but they must not be conflated.
I recall that Consortium News published solid pieces ages ago debunking Guccifer 2 "hack" as a clumsy red herring, likely by CIA. Was author Wm Binney or Ray McGovern?
Aha! Was in July 2017 memo that Veteran Intel Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent then-Prez Trump. Memo is linked to in this 2020 CN followup by McGovern, which cites computer scientist Tim Leonard's initial Guccifer 2 debunk research.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/15/ray-mcgovern-how-an-internet-persona-helped-birth-russiagate/
Right, Consortium News did publish those. Important stuff, so long as one doesn't confuse G-2 with either batch of materials published by WikiLeaks. Incidentally, the late Robert Parry, who listened to Scott Horton's interview with Craig Murray right when it came out, was almost alone in written journalism in getting Murray's account right at the time.
Robert Parry was an incredible journalist.
Also https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Exactly. And peculiar how his family “closed” the case....
And how quickly that private eye they hired to investigate it was chased off.
Cover up for Seth Rich murder
Seth Rich was a Bernie supporter with motive, means, and opportunity. Unfortunately, he's not around to ask about it any more.
Ain't it funny how nobody bothered to ask Julian Assange where these emails came from?
I guess you did not watch the Sean Hannity interview with Julian. Sean did. Julian said I don't divulge any sources cause if I did, I would never get material. And yes, Julian did say it was not a state actor.
I didn't, but a Hannity interview is not admissible evidence. Did the FBI or Mueller team interview Assange?
I miss took your 'nobody' for nobody. It was a public Q&A. Who brought up admissible evidence? Who knows or cares if the Feds questioned him because the Feds were colluding with Julian being guilty.
If they did, they're not talking about it. FOIA anyone?
There is a FOIA carveout for national security matters.
How is the DNC's server related to national security?
He would not have revealed a source. He did say it was not a state actor.
Regardless, Nobody bothered to ask.
What does “state actor” mean? Thanks!
Russia.
Thank you.
Assange even offered to be interviewed by US ppl at some point in all of it., IIRC. They didn't take him up on it.
The timeline doesn’t mention July 10th... yet
Seth Rich was the guy Vince Foster killed.
But the problem is the DCleaks website and the info posted there. But I just rechecked the timeline - Breedlove emails shared by DCleaks in March 16 -Dcleaks registered 4/19 with Bitcoin through a Romanian company allegedly run by Florica Catalan (doubtful-it was a front company) now owned by Davis Defense, a shady Pentagon contractor. They were sharing Breedlove's emails about Ukraine. That was not Seth Rich. I'm not saying he wasn't part of this. I think he was. But not as a whistleblower. He was used.
DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 are allegedly Russian disinformation operations, but I think it is more likely they were domestic disinformation operations. Obviously, I don't know the full truth about Seth Rich, but I don't see how DCLeaks has any bearing on the question of who supplied the DNC files to WikiLeaks (since I certainly do not believe Muller report account which has them being transferred to WikiLeaks just a few days before they were published, whereas Assange indicated in mid-June that the files it planned to publish were already in its possession).
Dcleaks and G2 were connected via info re correspondence with JA on Twitter and other things. Breedlove emails are important. See this blog, which is on point -
The information was disseminated by the website The Intercept, which is funded by the US ultraliberal magnate Pierre Omidyar, who is close to George Soros. Together with the Soros Foundation, Omidyar has funded a number of liberal media projects in the US and abroad. Like Soros, Omidyar was involved in the financing of the coup in 2014 in Ukraine. The site http://dcleaks.com/ where the correspondence of Breedlove was posted also presents documents related to the activities of other persons. In particular, those of Hillary Clinton and George Soros. However, nothing seriously incriminating against them is to be found there. Basically, what is offered is a collection of materials based on the fact that they have already been made public. Clinton, Soros and other politicians and public figures are added just for the sake of appearances. The site was specifically created in order to provide a "stuffing" for Breedlove.
In order to understand the meaning of this action, let's see what conclusions the American public can draw from these materials:
1. Barack Obama was opposed to US involvement in a war with Russia.
2. The fears of those harshly opposing Russia have been confirmed.
3. The pressure on Russia is to be strengthened.
The warmongers are portrayed as really believing in aggressive Russian plans and not having any hidden agenda. Thus, the conservative audience will find more evidence to support their belief that Russia must be deterred.
It is no accident that the publication appeared on the eve of the NATO summit, where decisions on an unprecedented strengthening of the Alliance in opposition to Russia are expected to be adopted.
It may very well be that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 were connected with each other. Official sources, such as the Mueller report, which claim that both were Russian operations, also attribute the materials published by WikiLeaks (both the DNC and Podesta files) to them. However, there are strong indications that their account is false in crucial respects, such as their absurd claim about the timing of the transfer of the eventually published materials to WikiLeaks (supposedly just a few days before the DNC emails were published). On the other hand, Craig Murray claims on the basis of information from sources he trusts, that both batches of materials published by WikiLeaks came from American leakers. And he has strongly hinted that the DNC materials came from a DNC insider and the Podesta materials from someone who had access to the NSA database. I see no valid reason to connect DCLeaks/Guccifer, on the one hand, with the DNC or Podesta WikiLeaks publications, on the other.
I believe Murray's an honest person and the sources are American, not Russian. I don't buy into the idea they're leakers in the usual sense of the word. Wikileaks dms published in the Mueller report show Assange trying to access their info; you have also Wikileaks tweeting out links to the September Guccifer 2.0 releases, along with the password. A month later, the Podesta emails came out via Wikileaks. Murray went to DC in the third week of September to accept the Sam Adams award. I think it's possible he got some type of Podesta data then from a "leaker." Most of the Guccifer 2.0 documents are Podesta attachments.
As for G2, one thing that interests me is how quickly Deep-State guys like Thomas Rid and Matt Tait found and disseminated info about the so-called Russian metadata. Along with the other nonsense going on, it has all the markings of a coordinated disinfo. campaign. Kaspersky has a great paper about how hackers commonly insert nonsense phrases like "God Save the Queen" into metadata to throw off attempts at ID. And you have the CIA programs published in Vault 7 - we know the CIA (and others) had the capability of obscuring origin. Rid and Tait cannot be that stupid.
As for Seth, I would be shocked if he leaked to Assange on his own. His brother worked for a major defense contractor and had security clearance. Then there's the Omaha upbringing--and the Project Vigilant Omaha/Lamo/Manning connection. I believe he probably contacted Wikileaks because of Sey Hersh's affidavit, in which he mentions he heard this from a long-time, high-level source. Not to mention the FBI efforts not to release files on him. But I can't believe he was a leaker in any traditional sense. Everytime I think about him I get LHO vibes.
I appreciate your interesting observations. I should be clear that at one time I carefully collected all the Craig Murray stuff, but on much of the rest my memories are less certain. And I didn't know at all about some of the other items you mention. I have been using the term "leaker" in the way Murray described the two sources in his interview with Horton - Americans who had access to the data as part of their jobs. Whether their motives for wanting the files in WikiLeaks' hands were "pure" - probably not. One even has to entertain the possibility that they were presented to WikiLeaks for some manipulative purpose by the Deep State. (Did I once read somewhere that McCabe was Hersh's source??) But the latter I doubt, mainly on grounds of all the efforts (Guccifer 2, etc.) to make it look as if someone else was the real source.
Okay it does go back to March -
3/10/16-
DC Leaks first private post containing General Breedlove's emails (head of US and NATO forces). He would resign May 2016. The post was timestamped prior to his public resignation and promotion of the website. Email showed Breedlove pushing Obama into tougher stance against Russia re: Ukraine.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/05/breedlove-stoltenberg-plan-nato-russia-campaign.html
DCleaks was formed from an Anonymous faction that basically split between Assange supporters and disruptors undermining WikiLeaks w Michael/Emma Best/ Barrett Brown/ AnonCentral etc
Guccifer 2.0 is most likely an American psyop and Adam Carter/Forensicator has the ultimate documentation & analysis for all of that planned confusion.
https://g-2.space/
DNC refused to turn over its server to FBI. Only Crowdstrike, their cybersecurity firm owned by a Ukranian CEO (??), had access -- and FBI never subpoenaed it. Seems odd, what with the big heavy "Russian interference/hack" claims from DNC/Crowdstrike.
Pretty sure the FBI knows how to issue a subpoena.
do you think the FBI wants the public to learn the truth about all this?
The FBI should not be a party apparatchik.
Should be and is are two very different things, I'm afraid.
Their top brass in DC? - no. The majority of their field agents? - yes.
I disagree. I spoke to field agents during the Great Financial Crime Spree. The only thing they were there to do was support the corruption of the Obama admin and ignore the massive crimes of the banks.
My assumption is that they are still doing that.
I've met honest agents who would never go for that. They must have some way of screening them for "loyalty" and keeping the good cops away from "sensitive" investigations.
Possibly. But what I witnessed was a bunch of shit. "Don't turn over that rock, it will expose us!!!!!"
Pretty sure Comey knew what might happen to him if they did.
But the FBI did have Seth's pc, Had it all along.
Good point. Hmm, if I were the DNC leaker, I'd download everything on my thumbdrive and not reupload on my PC. But, I'd want a copy just in case, so maybe I would? Upload thumbdrive to PC, download to another drive and clear PC? ???
The FBI's interest is in protecting its hit guy. I have know idea what forensics on a pc would turn up, but as long as the FBI has the pc (I think there was more than one of them) all is well in USG/DNC world.
How cld that much data fit on a thumbdrive? This is why I am not a cyber spy.
There would be space for all the emails and more.
I was a member of the DNC rules committee for Sanders, and our business was happening on the days leading up to the convention. On the day of the leak, Clintonites and DNC staff were already mentioning the Russians internally. This has always bothered me -- this was their belief before a single investigation was launched. Another interesting memory is of Donna Brazile coming into our meeting room and apologizing to Jeff Weaver for “what [he] read”.
The only conclusion I can draw from that Brazile/Weaver exchange is that Donna wrote nasty things about Jeff in emails known to have been leaked. Did you have a different take on that?
Nope, that’s the right read on it, or perhaps she was apologizing for the explicit coordinated bias against the campaign -- I just remembered the moment while commenting. Hadn’t thought about that week in a while.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-interim-chairwoman-passed-debate-questions-along-to-clinton-campaign/
oh, yeah. there was that. seems pretty trivial compared to everything else the DNC was up to back then.
Everything in the DNC leaks, Podesta leaks, the leaks from Colin Powell's hacked email, and Russia's social media efforts were all completely trivial and irrelevant except for their positioning for propaganda uses.
Not entirely. The Podesta leaks are where we learned how Obama selected his cabinet, for example. (He was given a list by CitiGroup.)
The DNC emails corroborated claims that the DNC promoted Trump's candidacy because they thought he'd be easier to beat. There were useful little nuggets here and there.
I agree with the Russian social media efforts part, though. Totally trivial.
Franklin Foer was just on Bari Weiss podcast. I like her generally but its a little too obviously trying to split the divide but the divide is unbridgeable. If they're willing to do this sorta shit to undermine a presidency then they're beyond the pale.
"If" ? Bari is an entitled Versailles liberal utterly opposed to class equality and egalitarianism. Foer as Matt aptly notes is simply a dunce. Neither is willing to stand up and acknowledge the media's and state security insiders' efforts to thwart the will of the people from 2016 to the present.
That's fair. The attack she made on Tulsi when she went on Rogan was disgusting.
Thanks, I’d forgotten that Rogan interview. It was embarrassing for her. She was similarly clueless in her interview with RFK jr. who was his typical erudite, courteous self. She’s moderately sympathetic on the surface, but not at all impressive intellectually. Still, I’m inclined to support any journalist who leaves the NYT.
Sera, Bari Weiss is a fraud--she may have left the Times but she did not leave the liberal media establishment. She's just the flipside of the same counterfeit coin. An intellectual mediocrity who thinks she's somebody because she has an Ivy League degree.
I agree with this. Remember the moment.
I was a paid subscriber for a year and there was mostly good content but it was easy to see the bias seeping through TFP. It must be incredibly difficult to leave a cult.
RACKET always provides depth reports. I know I'm going to have to pay attention when I receive one. TFP keeps a human face on the news with reports on people and consequence but, requires no where near the concentration of RACKET. Of course Glenn Greenwald's SYSTEM UPDATE and THE GRAY ZONE deserve all the support we can give them.
I'm for subscription journalism but I'm beginning to realize it would be impossible for me to keep up with and absorb the amount of news I subscribe to and pay for. Importantly, truth/fact based subscription journalism is having a visible effect on the perps assaulting the Republic. My lament is the generally unrecognized power and possibility of the subscription support format as a unifying
force. In actual elected politics the force of a political candidate capable of an evolving truth/fact based dialogue with his constituents would redefine the nature, narrative and approach to political power.
Whatever we want to believe--the "net" is being converted to a self-interested worldwide apparatus of control. It has been captured by a cabal of lawless criminal politicians and financiers. They operate independently of peoples and nations. The inhuman lie they represent is subsuming and negating all ideological "ism's". Their assault on the right to individual liberty is in our faces. On their side and ours, the narrative doesn't fit the reality we're experiencing and witnessing. It is pathology not politics. Looking at the ongoing violation of human dignity and human rights across the Western World, the only true political is the American Republic, the citizen and the Constitution.
The cabal is entirely totalitarian in nature and entirely criminally selective in its prosecutions. It can/is/will manufacture charges. Arrest you. Hold you without bail. Withhold exculpatory evidence. Freeze your bank account. Seize legitimately earned dollars. Demand your silencing, mount propagandist trial by press campaigns to de-platform you, and destroy your life and career. It will send militarized police units to your home and terrorize your wife and children. It will impose travel restrictions, ban freedom of speech and expression of thought. It is openly flooding the free world with undocumented "refugee's". This tactic, combined with the subversion of education, encouragement of the criminal assault on civilians, and the looting of business, through a policy of non prosecution of the criminals involved, ensures the destruction of major cities and (as in California) a diaspora that spreads the chaos across the nation. As intended--civilized life and culture become untenable. Completely, intentionally and profitably overlooked is their alliance with the international drug cartels who control major pieces of large American cities. If none of this works to destroy you, as alluded to in comments above, the unexplained accident or the bullet in the head.-------Got Constitution? (For how long?)
Mike, I'm not sure Bari wants to leave the cult. Whatever problems she had with the NYT, she still is basically a Leftist, with just a few outlier opinions.
The real tell was the FP's perverse refusal to cover the Biden Crime Family Bribery Scandal, only the biggest political scandal of our time, and maybe ever. But the memo went out from The Big Boys to bury it, and Bari dutifully obeyed. Pathetic.
Yeah I'll still read her substack and listen to podcasts some but it's with a heavy grain of salt. She's had guys like David French and Jonah Goldberg write for her, but not too many dissident types that I'm aware of. Which is a shame. I think she did go on Russell Brands show after Greenwald did a segment showing her attack on Tulsi.
A Gabbard/Weiss bout would be summarized as "Dunce-on-Dunce."
"Versailles liberal"--I like that. And so true when it comes to Bari Weiss.
American royalty lives in palaces, not homes or houses, or apartments, or trailers, or tents, or on the street or under an overpass, like the rest of us. Versailles liberals live in "nice neighborhoods' on the peripheries of power, tutor the children of the rich, produce hagiographies of modern royalty, venerate material excess, and write sermons on the virtues of "diversity."
The rest of us inhabit a different world. The Versailles liberal lives for pats on the head from the wealthy and powerful. They treat themselves to 300 dollar baby carriages and 30-dollar salads - pretending they're like Nancy and Michelle sipping expensive wines in their palaces while treating their kids to 50 dollar a pint ice cream.
The Versailles liberal in academia and media lives to keep the rest of us down, so each can maintain the fiction they too are actually part of American royalty. The reality is that the Versailles liberals and the rest of us function as peasants and servants in a corrupt system. The Versailles liberal understands this central truth - a truth which terrifies them. To protect the illusion, the Versailles liberal embraces every aspect of inequality while declaring themselves the most wonderful and compassionate of us all - dreaming of the day when they too will own palaces in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, co-mingling with America's royalty.
Beautifully said, Paul Harper...you really put some legs under the idea of "Versailles liberals." I urge you to spread this view far and wide.
"...embraces every aspect of inequality while declaring themselves the most wonderful and compassionate of us all..."
No kidding, this is real pre-French Revolution- style elite decadence.
Bari is a phony--she is a mainstream journo pretending to be independent. "Split the divide"-more like co-opt the opposition.
Think of Bari Weiss as a once-bullied Kappa Alpha Theta legacy who took names and kept copious notes throughout her sorority years.
LOL!
Sadly I agree with that. The fact she hasn't had Taibbi or Greenwald on but has had so many legacy types says a lot. Still less crazy than others.
This is in the territory of disinformation archeology. It is foundational work. Fancy Bear/APT28 Attribution analysis could be the Rosetta Stone.
first attack of a color revolution
that color being Blue, I presume ;)
Whose analysis did the government base their......oh pulease, they based the hacking story on the wild fabrications of “ She Who Must Be Queen” Hillary Clinton. Ive always suspected that there is some wicked tantric blackmail behind a lot of this chicanery.
The flaw in this article is Taibbi's use of the word "hack" in a way which suggests that a hack actually happened.
There is good reason to believe there was no hack.
copy. thumbdrive.
Could you clarify? I don't understand what you are saying.
He's saying that the emails were copied to a thumbdrive by an insider, not over the Internet by a hacker.
That was what Ray McGovern and other experts said was the most likely scenario if memory serves.
The Seth Rich scenario.
Lady McBeth and her acolytes doing what morally void people do. It’s reprehensible. And yet, she’s still in our face with her didactic lecturing.
Of course, there is a mantra among hackers, "physical access is total access," so whether it was a hack or not may depend on whether you used the word as hackers do (it was, even if via a thumbdrive) or as the press does (it probably wasn't since a loading onto a thumbdrive doesn't count).
Thanks. Maybe you can answer a somewhat related question: is it possible to access files on another person's computer if the computer is offline?
If the computer has any kind of network connection, my answer is yes.
I keep my laptop WiFi off unless I’m intentionally online. Despite that, Microsoft managed to push update files to my computer and started warning me to reboot to update.
Now it’s true that those downloads can occur in the background when I am intentionally online. Thing is, the files’ dates indicate that the files completed downloading while the laptop was not connected to the internet. It can be months between internet sessions on that computer.
My conclusion is that short of removing the network card from the computer, they can push files whenever they like. And if they can push files, they can pull files. And if Microsoft can push/pull at will anyone can.
If a network pro knows otherwise I’d love to hear what that person has to say!
I'm not a pro, but I suspect that the MS update files' dates may be Microsoft's stamped dates. Regardless, they all begin download the moment you turn on your machine, not while it's turned off or offline.
Thank you. So how can I prevent being hacked?
Never use a device with online capability.
I’m not qualified to say if this is accurate, but I have read that data can be scraped via a power cable plugged into the wall. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Not if you use your own adapter and plug into an ordinary wall socket. However, you should beware of USB ports provided in airports, hotels, and especially your car.
I can't.
Re: the question of whether an offline computer can be hacked -- I have yet to get a clear answer.
Which leads me to suspect that that is possible.
Reminds me of a scene from "The Blacklist." Red and his associates are at his secret bunker somewhere in the woods.
One of the people in the group asks why fax machines are being used. Red says: "I don't trust digital." That may be a wise approach.
Imho if you have wifi, any device having online capability and within range of your router could theoretically be detected, secretly powered up, and hacked. What's scary is that it may also be possible to hack it from your neighbor's wifi.
Thanks. What's the solution?
Well, it depends on how you define hack. Podesta's email was compromised and that information later appeared on Wikileaks. As Assange said, it was not a complicated "hack" - just spearphishing. But it's doubtful that was a leak. The Wikileaks docs show the email correspondence. In addition, most of the G2 docs were from the Podesta hack, not the DNC hack. You have dms between JA and G2 in which he is seeking their data.
In addition, I believe all of the DCleaks docs involved Spearphishing, not X-agent. All those people had previously been targeted by Apt28. Was that intentional misdirection or a clear link between Dcleaks and Fancy Bear?
The FBI didn't notify any of the 312 compromised people. Why not? Another interesting thing - before they registered Dcleaks with the Romanian chicken front guy, they tried electionleaks.com. That was used before, way back. I need to find what I have on that.
Be sure to let bill Maher know. This was his last thread to cling to in an effort to rationalize his derangement
I’m afraid his TDS and Putinophobia are too entrenched unfortunately. It’s his Achilles heel.
Brad in his newsletter Euphoric Recall (highly recommend you subscribe) wrote about a great quote by Elon Musk:
History is written by the victors. "Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia.”
This seems the source of the problem. These leading political actors are the same disgusting lying and immoral DC filth that has always infested the swamp. However, we used to have some normality in media journalism to help regulate their behavior. But we have frog marched so many kids through higher learning to catch the same managerial class virus of status and money looter winning at any cost to everyone else... and with the media being infiltrated by the same clones... that they have new allegiance with the disgusting lying and immoral DC filth infesting the swamp.
How do we get a normalized journalistic media back in the house? Matt cannot do it all alone.
How do we get a normalized journalistic media back in the house?
You have to knock down the house. That's what Matt, Lee, Bari, Megyn et al are doing. It takes time, and we vote with our 5-8 bucks every month. This is going the right direction
Glen Greenwald
Agreed! He was part of the et al bunch
And check out Julie Kelly. She's putting in the work too
Julie Kelly--now there's a real house knocker downer.
Bari is not "knocking down the house." She only pretends to do so from time to time.
And turn off the TV.
Brilliant timeline, Daniel. Don’t let up fellas!
But they should be careful....the truth is pretty startling.
~neuroticism~
Well done Matt!
So after all of this Sussman is found innocent by a jury of his peers.
Can we just admit that there are bunch of peers that should be thrown off a pier?
Sussman was only charged with one criminal count, making a false statement to the FBI. The alleged false statement was that, on September 19, 2016, he told the FBI that he was not representing someone else when presenting allegations about the Alpha Bank server and Trump when he in fact was acting on behalf of clients. The jury found him not guilty of lying to the FBI about acting on behalf of clients.
Sussman certainly lied about not acting on behalf of clients, and I am not sure how the jury weighed the evidence presented in making their verdict. However, I am aware of three technical difficulties with the case that might have led a jury to conclude that there was reasonable doubt about Sussman's guilt:
1. A text message to Sussman's FBI contact, James Baker, in which Sussman said he was not acting on behalf of a client could not be considered a false statement to the FBI in the trial because it was obtained by the prosecutors (Durham) after a statute of limitations expired.
2. So, the case hinged on recollections of Baker versus assertions of Sussman about what Sussman orally told Baker. In other words, one person's words against another's. At various times, Baker was unclear exactly what Sussman said about representing clients or not when handing over the Alpha Bank allegations, so he wasn't the best of witnesses.
3. There was also the question about whether if Sussman lied, it was even material. Sussman was well-known to work for top-level Democrats, so it is reasonable to conclude that the FBI would assume he was representing Democrat clients, regardless of what he actually said.
Nothing in the Sussman verdict bears on the veracity of the Alpha Bank-Trump allegations, which are clearly false.
Also, the technical peculiarities of the trial notwithstanding, as I noted above, we outside observers have ample evidence to conclude that Sussman did indeed tell the FBI he was not representing clients when he brought them these allegations, and that this was a lie. However, this lie is minutia compared to the false allegations spread about Trump and Alpha Bank having connections.
Great post. Learned some stuff I did not know.
The "jury of peers" concept is broken as we have geographically filtered into red and blue tribes. And you cannot get a judge that will admit it and change the venue because the judge is as politically biased as are the peers.
No GOP President should plan to work from an office in DC, that's for sure. No fair prosecutors or jury to be found in that jurisdiction.
Perhaps the answer is for the GOP to stop running serial criminals for office.
Au contraire. Anyone hated by the legacy media will be branded a criminal, and anyone anointed by them is a REAL criminal.
Never mind the answer, I don't think you have correctly identified the probobmenendezlem.
All of those assertions from entities linked to the Democrat National Committee were equivalent to the statements from the Criminal Insurrection Agency (CIA) that said on the eve of the 2020 election that 51 current and former intelligence analysts claiming the stories exposing Hunter Biden's activities from his laptop were consistent with Russian disinformation.
Once a liar, always a liar. And they always seem to end up in the so-called intelligence apparatus.
In her recent interview Hillary still refers to “Russian interference” during that election.
The whole myth was probably her creation in the first place, so no surprise she would keep flogging it.
Great breakdown and addition to the previous article!
Russia never had to do anything. Our government destroyed us on its own.
Simple minded, greedy, self righteous Americans ruined the country. Blaming the government sounds so pathetic.
Matt,
A lot of the last 10 years have reminded me of various Philip K Dick stories. I was stoked when you talked about minority report and pkd more generally.
When this topic comes up I am transported to the last season of David Simon's "the wire" in which the media, the government, and the larger culture of Baltimore makes all of it's decisions based on lies.
Maybe you and Walter could spend a minute or two talking about ethics in journalism, or just tell me Cutty was your favorite character....
Much love,
Kurl
{ a minute or two talking about ethics in journalism, }
It wouldn't take but a fraction of a minute to say, "it's totally gone."
I think Walter, at least, could speak in an inspiring way about the myriad reasons we need media that is adversarial, devoted to reality, and untethered from political actors.
But I don't think ethics are gone completely outside the corporate media. I think Matt and Walter have the urge to "rake muck". I would add a lot of names to a growing list of non-pundit reporters that I trust to get the facts of a story...
Russia gate was a great litmus test for who to take seriously...
For sure; I was referring to the run of the mill mainstream.
"Reporting" comes to mind.
It's almost like we need a different name for what Taibbi, Greenwald, and others are doing.
Or we could just call corporate media what it is : propaganda 🤔