Film Director Oliver Stone on Monday night started a fight about Israel with host Stephen Colbert, on the CBS “Late Show” that never made it to air, the NY Post Page Six reported. A source in the audience said the political brawl was “painful to watch.”
The Oscar-winning Stone appeared on the show to promote his latest documentary, “The Putin Interviews.” Stone was granted unprecedented access to both Putin’s professional and personal worlds, and interviewed the Russian leader more than a dozen times over the course of two years, most recently in February following the U.S. presidential elections.
After showing a clip in which Stone clearly accepted without a hint of criticism Putin’s statement that Russia, unlike the US, never interferes in other countries’ elections, Colbert harangued Stone on his pussyfooting around the tyrant from Moscow.
NSA contractor Reality Winner allegedly leaked documents showing that Russia probed U.S. election systems days before the 2016 presidential election.
How big a crisis is this?
Washington’s Blog asked Bill Binney, the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”).
Binney told us:
If you think about this article [the story by the Intercept], and assume it’s true, then hacking a few days before the election is a little late if they really wanted to influence the voting.
To me, this sounds more like fishing for information to find out as much as they could about the democratic party much like the Chinese did hacking the OPM [U.S. Office of Personnel Management] files. I’m sure the Chinese found more use for the data they got then the Russians did on the Democratic party because Hillary did not win.
The Intercept article cites an unnamed intelligence official who “cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.” To that I would add, “even if it is all true as described.”
And I would also make some additional observations about what the report and Intercept article are suggesting. First and foremost would be the questions of scale and timing.
There is no evidence that the Russians, or whoever carried out the probes, were able to tamper with either the actual voting process or the tabulation of votes. Indeed, the NSA report dismisses any such possibility. Second, corrupting an election in a country as large as the United States with an electoral system that is largely decentralized would require much more than a probe of 122 local officials starting a week before the balloting. So there was clearly no intention to disrupt the election or to tilt it in a certain direction based on the evidence provided by the NSA report.
I would also note that there is no proof provided in the report to support the assertion that the GRU, Russian military-intelligence service, carried out the probes. Would a highly-sophisticated intelligence service behave so transparently in an operation that would certainly be regarded as highly sensitive? I think not. Cut-outs would have been used to misdirect anyone looking to determine the hand behind the hacks.
All of which is not to say the Russian government didn’t do it or order it done, but it seems to me that the revelations provided in the NSA report do not go very far beyond the kind of random probings that are part and parcel of foreign-intelligence operations as carried out by any sophisticated service. Did someone in Moscow think it might be useful to have some kind of idea of how to meddle with U.S. election technology if that type of info might prove useful down the road? Quite possibly. It should be noted that the U.S. National Security Agency illegally collects vast quantities of information on ordinary Americans but that does not necessarily imply intent to use it in a malicious way. It is a desirable capability and intelligence agencies are always working to expand their reach.
So was Russian intelligence probing U.S. electoral systems? Quite plausibly yes, and it should be a matter of concern for every American as it suggests a vulnerability in the electronics behind how we vote. But did Russia actually interfere with the election or seek to use the probing to elect a particular candidate? The answer is clearly no. The article and the document it is based on should serve as a wake-up call to those who are complacent about the security of our technologies. But on a political level, we are back to square one, with often hysterical allegations surfaced as part of the media and political storm we now refer to as Russiagate.
One of the most under-reported aspects of fired FBI Director James Comey’s much-ballyhooed testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was the bombshell that much of the reporting on Team Trump and the White House by the disgusting “mainstream” media has been absolutely false.
As in, not even close to the truth.
One such report by The New York Times on February 14 claimed in the headline, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” It was nothing but fake news.
OK. You had mentioned before about some news stories and news accounts. Without having to go into all of the names and specific times and be able to dip into all of that. Have there been news accounts about the Russian investigation or collusion about the whole event or as you read the story you were wrong about how wrong they got the facts?
Comey replied: Yes, there have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff but about Russia that are dead wrong.”
He added, after further questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho):
The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, ‘Hey you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there.
Here is the relevant exchange:
So in other words, Comey said directly what so many of us in the alternative media have suspected for quite some time: Much of what’s being reported by the shrillest of anti-Trump media — the Times, the Washington Post, CNN — is completely bogus, planted by Deep State types to impugn, malign and undermine President Donald J. Trump and ruin his presidency. And this is why we have regularly urged our readers to take that other stuff with a grain of salt.
So much “anonymous” reporting has also been a problem, and while reporters are trained to jealously guard their sources, sensational items being reported about the Trump White House were coming far too often to be legitimate. Plus, there was definitely a political nature to the leaks — everything was negative about Trump and his administration, which was a huge tip-off.
“The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year is the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians…to affect the election in some way. And yet what came apart this morning was that theory,” Matthews said on his network after Comey’s testimony aired.
There’s more. CNNhad to retract a story it published the day beforeComey’s testimony, in which the network claimed “sources” said the former FBI director would refute Trump’s claim he was told multiple times by Comey that he was not the subject of any FBI investigation.
“Comey is going to dispute the president if he’s asked about it by the senators,” said Gloria Borger, one of four reporters who claimed Comey would refute it. “He will say that he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.”
Turns out that Comey did say during testimony he informed Trump on multiple actions that he was not the subject of any investigation.
He also informed Congress of same. Funny though how that tidbit of information was never leaked.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Unproven allegations by U.S. security agencies that the Russian government ‘hacked the U.S. presidential election’ are a classic case of the criminal hiding behind the cloak of the accuser.
Documents from the U.S. NSA (National Security Agency) unveiled by Edward Snowden show that whole countries, not just a number of sensitive computers, have been hacked by the NSA.
In the case of China, for example, it is hardly an exaggeration that a whole nation and its people have been hacked. Here’s a partial list of the illegal intrusions by the Washington-based spooks:
1. The undersea cable through winch internet data enters and leaves Hong Kong was physically cut into by the NSA, giving it access to all foreign communication of the city.
2. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people’s SMS text messages were stolen by the NSA from the system of China Mobile, the world’s largest mobile phone system
3. The phone of China’s then-president Hu Jing Tao was tapped and his conversations monitored.
4. China’s Tsiinghua university’s ”backbone system’ through which communication of important research labs throughout China passes was hacked. Some of those labs also perform sensitive military-related research.
5. The server computers manufactured by the leading Chinese company Huaweii – which are used in China and all over the world – were hacked by the NSA, allowing it to capture the large amounts of data passing through the servers wherever they are used.
Finally, the U.S. government, and the NSA, have never apologized nor stated that they will stop hacking China and its people.. It’s hard to take allegations of hacking against Russia, China, or others seriously when they emanate from such sources.
I was one of those that perhaps looked to the Intercept as possibly one of the beacons of truth in the new media, than this comes out. Human behavior is human behavior. We should never ever trust anyone when it comes down to the truth. We have to figure it out ourselves. I wonder what Snowden thinks about these people. Mind you, this has nothing to do with him. But these fools are hurting the whatever passes for the left media these days.
There’s a twin problem with the pseudo-patriots in America today, i.e. pseudo-alternative media. Tracing its roots from The Guardian, Gleen Glenwald gained popularity when the NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden gave him and other mainstream journalists the Scoop of the Century, i.e. NSA massive surveillance.
Profiting heavily from the Edward Snowden NSA leak, the overlords at the pseudo alternative media The Intercept, which have made it a big business luring would be whistleblowers to leak everything they know through its own platform and enjoy subsequent stardom, has done it again. It burns its own leaker just so it could prove Russia is really hacking the US agencies with another worldwide exclusive release.
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.
The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, analyzes intelligence very recently acquired by the agency about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure. The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light.
While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.
There are only two key phrases which any investigator would like to focus on from the above Intercept article:
“A U.S. intelligence officer…”, and;
“… a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.”
.. and the specific intelligence officer, which is sometimes called an intelligence analyst, is identified because there is only one specific person assigned to a specific task, which in turn is a security measure by itself.
But despite the “not necessarily definitive” clause which the NSA intelligence analyst has arrived at, the Intercept went on and published the leaked NSA document because it mentioned about Russian hacking, to the detriment of its source.
The Intercept article continues:
The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.
This NSA summary judgment is sharply at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denial last week that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: “We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so.” Putin, who had previously issued blanket denials that any such Russian meddling occurred, for the first time floated the possibility that freelance Russian hackers with “patriotic leanings” may have been responsible. The NSA report, on the contrary, displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.
We are not saying here that there are no Russian hackers, government employed or civilians, who are doing these activities because all governments that are currently engaged in a hybrid war against each other actually do. But it is only the NATO member states, and other Khazarian alliances, which are proven to be spying on each other.
There is also a big difference between snooping and hacking. Monitoring and tampering of data like what the Deep State operatives did to a Qatari website is more aggressive. The Russians did not manipulate the results of last year’s presidential election, like Google did with its Clinton-biased search results.
In fact, some of these “patriot” hackers have leaked about the preparatory manipulations done by Soros affiliated electoral systems prior to the said election, and it did not take a Russian hacker to inform the world what had actually occurred within the DNC camp to the detriment of the Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
The Intercept is working closely with its twin platform, Democracy Now, and with its sister site Rappler in the Philippines is spreading dangerous leaks,
… just so it could live up to its name, The Intercept.
But not for long…
Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source
Moon of Alabama | June 06, 2017
Yesterday The Interceptpublished a leaked five page NSA analysis about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Its reporting outed the leaker of the NSA documents. That person, R.L. Winner, has now been arrested and is likely to be jailed for years if not for the rest of her life.
FBI search (pdf) and arrest warrant (pdf) applications unveil irresponsible behavior by the Intercept‘s reporters and editors which neglected all operational security trade-craft that might have prevented the revealing of the source. It leaves one scratching one’s head if this was intentional or just sheer incompetence. Either way – the incident confirms what skeptics had long determined: The Intercept is not a trustworthy outlet for leaking state secrets of public interests.
The Intercept was created to privatize the National Security Agency documents leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents proved that the NSA is hacking and copying nearly all electronic communication on this planet, that it was breaking laws that prohibited spying on U.S. citizen and that it sabotages on a large scale various kinds of commercial electronic equipment. Snowden gave copies of the NSA documents to a small number of journalists. One of them was Glenn Greenwald who now works at The Intercept. Only some 5% of the pages Snowden allegedly acquired and gave to reporters have been published. We have no idea what the unpublished pages would provide.
The Intercept, a subdivision of First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a major owner of the auctioning site eBay and its PayPal banking division. Omidyar is a billionaire and “philanthropist” who’s (tax avoiding) Omidyar Network foundation is “investing” for “returns”. Its microcredit project for farmers in India, in cooperation with people from the fascists RSS party, ended in an epidemic of suicides when the farmers were unable to pay back. The Omidyar Network also funded (fascist) regime change groups in Ukraine in cooperation with USAID. Omidyar had cozy relations with the Obama White House. Some of the held back NSA documents likely implicate Omidyar’s PayPal.
The Intercept was funded with some $50 million from Omidyar. Its first hires were Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras – all involved in publishing the Snowden papers and other leaks. Its first piece was based on documents from the leaked NSA stack. It has since published on this or that but not in a regular media way. The Intercept pieces are usually heavily editorialized and tend to have a mainstream “liberal” to libertarian slant. Some were highly partisan anti-Syrian/pro-regime change propaganda. The website seems to have no regular publishing schedule at all. Between one and five piece per day get pushed out, only a few of them make public waves. Some of its later prominent hires (Ken Silverstein, Matt Taibbi) soon left and alleged that the place was run in a chaotic atmosphere and with improper and highly politicized editing. Despite its rich backing and allegedly high pay for its main journalists (Greenwald is said to receive between 250k and 1 million per year) the Intercept is begging for reader donations.
Yesterday’s published story (with bylines of four(!) reporters) begins:
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.
The NSA “intelligence report” the Intercept publishes alongside the piece does NOT show that “Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack“. The document speaks of “cyber espionage operations” – i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a “cyberattack” like Stuxnet which are intended to create large damage,
The “attack” by someone was standard spearfishing and some visual basic scripts to gain access to accounts of local election officials. Thee is no proof that any account was compromised. Any minor criminal hacker uses similar means. No damage is mentioned in the NSA analysis. The elections were not compromised by this operation. The document notes explicitly (p.5) that the operation used some techniques that distinguish it from other known Russian military intelligence operations. It was probably -if at all- done by someone else.
The reporters note that the document does not provide any raw intelligence. It is an analysis based on totally unknown material. It does not include any evidence for the claims it makes. The Intercept piece describes how the document was received and “verified”:
The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, … … The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were both contacted for this article. Officials requested that we not publish or report on the top secret document and declined to comment on it. When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions. The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests.
The piece quotes at length the well known cyber security expert Bruce Schneier. It neglects to reveal that Schneier is a major partisan for Clinton who very early on, in July 2016, jumped on her “Russia hacked the Democratic National Council” claim for which there is still no evidence whatsoever.
The Intercept story was published on June 5. On June 3 the FBI already received a search warrant (pdf) by the U.S. District court of southern Georgia for the home, car and computers of one Reality Leigh Winner, a 25 year old former military language specialist (Pashto, Dari, Farsi) who worked for a government contractor. In its application for the warrant the FBI asserted:
On or about May 24, 2017, a reporter for the News Outlet (the “Reporter”) contacted another U.S. Government Agency affiliate with whom he has a prior relationship. This individual works for a contractor for the U.S. Government (the “Contractor”). The Reporter contacted the Contractor via text message and asked him to review certain documents. The Reporter told the Contractor that the Reporter had received the documents through the mail, and they were postmarked “Augusta. Georgia.” WINNER resides in Augusta, Georgia. The Reporter believed that the documents were sent to him from someone working at the location where WINNER works. The Reporter took pictures of the documents and sent them to the Contractor. The Reporter asked the Contractor to determine the veracity of the documents. The Contractor informed the Reporter that he thought that the documents were fake. Nonetheless, the Contractor contacted the U.S. Government Agency on or about June 1, 2017, to inform the U.S. Government Agency of his interaction with the Reporter. Also on June I. 2017, the Reporter texted the Contractor and said that a U.S Government Agency official had verified that the document was real. …
To verify the leaked document the reporter contacted a person working for the government. He used insecure communication channels (SMS) that are known to be tapped. He provided additional meta-information about the leaker that was not necessary at all for the person asked to verify the documents.
It got worse:
On June I, 2017, the FBI was notified by the U.S. Government Agency that the U.S. Government Agency had been contacted by the News Outlet on May 30, 2017, regarding an upcoming story. The News Outlet informed the U.S Government Agency that it was in possession of what it believed to be a classified document authored by the U.S Government Agency. The News Outlet provided the U.S. Government Agency with a copy of this document. Subsequent analysis by the U.S. Government Agency confirmed that the document in the News Outlet’s possession is intelligence reporting dated on or about May 5. 2017 (the “intelligence reporting”). This intelligence reporting is classified at the Top Secret level, … … 14. The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased,suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.
The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals’ desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.
The source that provided the document had no operational security at all. She printed the document on a government printer. All (color) printers and photo copiers print nearly invisible (yellow) patters on each page that allow to identify the printer used by its serial number. The source used email from her workplace to communicate. Ms. Winner is young, inexperienced and probably not very bright. (She is also said to be Clinton partisan.) She may not have known better.
But a reporter at The Intercept should know a bit or two about operational security. Sending (and publishing) the leaked documents as finely scanned PDF’s (which include (de) the printer code) to the NSA to let the NSA verify them was incredibly stupid. Typically one only summarize these or at least converts them into a neutral, none traceable form. Instead the reporters provided at several points and without any need the evidence that led to the unmasking of their source. Wikileaks is offering $10,000 for the exposure and firing of the person responsible for this.
It is also highly questionable why the Intercept contacted the NSA seven days(!) before publishing its piece. Giving the government such a long reaction time may lead to preemptive selective leaks by the government to other news outlets to defuse the not yet published damaging one. It may give the government time to delete evidence or to unveil leakers. The Intercept certainly knows this. It had been burned by such behavior when the National Counterterrorism Center spoiled an Intercept scoop by giving a polished version to the Associate Press. Back then the Intercept editor John Cook promised to give government agencies no longer than 30 minutes for future replies. In this case it gave the NSA seven days!
Besides the failure(?) of The Intercept there are other concerns to note.
Why has a 25 year old language specialist for Afghanistan access to Top Secret NSA analysis of espionage in the U.S. election? Where was the “need to know”?
Could this espionage -if it happened- have been part of a different plan by whomever? Consider:
@mattblaze Simple way to hack elections: Compromise some county offices & systems. Do nothing. If election doesn’t go your way, reveal that you hacked. 10:52 PM – 5 Jun 2017
In Megyn Kelly’s much anticipated interview with Vladimir Putin for her debut episode of NBC’s “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly”, the Russian President said he never met Donald Trump during his business trips to Russia (including Trump’s 2013 visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant), stated that he was unaware of any proposal from Jared Kushner to set up an alleged “secret line” of communications between the Trump administration and the Russian government, and that it’s “nonsense” to say Russia has collected compromising material about Trump among many other topics covered in the 7 minute interview (see below).
“I am not aware of such a proposal,” Putin said referring to Kushner’s alleged proposal. “No such proposal ever reached me.” Putin said many CEOs of major U.S. companies visit Russia and then asked rhetorically, “do you think we’re gathering dirt on all of them right now or something?” Putin asked, before saying: “Have you all lost your mind?”
While previously the NYT and WaPo reported that Kushner discussed the idea of creating a secret channel to discuss the crisis in Syria, with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in December, the line was never established, according to a source cited by Bloomberg. A secret line with Russia – which H.R. McMaster said is a normal thing in diplomatic relations with international counterparties – could have allowed the Trump transition team and Russian officials to communicate outside of the scrutiny of the departing Obama administration. It’s become a centerpiece of the questions swirling around Trump and his campaign and possible ties to Russia.
Putin also said that his nation had no channels of communication with the campaigns of either Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but that there may have been official contacts, which he called a “standard diplomatic practice.”
* * *
Putin also said he’d never met Trump, including during a visit by Trump to Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, and called the existence of a secret Russian dossier on Trump “just another piece of nonsense.”
“There was no relationship whatsoever. Yes, he visited Moscow in his day. But, you know, I never met him,” Putin says, according to transcript.
Putin also said that he’s not aware of any meetings between Kislyak and officials from the Trump campaign, and that he doesn’t talk to Russian ambassadors every day. He called the allegations “domestic political squabbles” and a line of attack against Trump.
“Well, this is just another load of nonsense,” Putin said in response to a question about Kislyak meeting Trump campaign officials. “Because if there had been something meaningful, he would have made a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There weren’t even any reports” the Russian president said cited by Bloomberg. And despite saying there had been no reports, Putin volunteered that “there was not even a specific discussion of sanctions or something else.” In a discussion moderated by Kelly on Friday, Putin said it was “nuts” to suggest the Trump administration had moved to ease economic sanctions on Russia.
* * *
Additionally, as previewed earlier in the day by Reuters, Putin also said that he barely interacted with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, during a dinner in Moscow in 2015 when the pair were seated together. Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was paid $45,000 to speak at the anniversary gala for the Russia Today television network.
“You and I personally have a much closer relationship than I had with Mr Flynn…. When I came to the event for our for our company, Russia Today, and sat down at the table, next to me there was a gentleman sitting on one side. I made my speech. Then we talked about some other stuff. And I got up and left… afterwards I was told, ‘You know there was an American gentleman, he was involved in some things. He used to be in the security services.’ ….That’s the extent of my acquaintance with Mr Flynn.” As a reminder, the payments Flynn received from RT, and his appearance next to Putin at the dinner, have been raised frequently amid speculation about his relationship with the Kremlin.
Asked whether all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded Russia interfered with the election are lying, Putin said “they have been misled” and said he has not seen “any direct proof of Russia’s interference.”
“What fingerprints or hoot-prints or horn-prints, what are you talking about,” he said. Putin even suggested that former President Barack Obama “started having doubts” when they spoke about it. The pair met on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Peru in November, weeks after Trump’s upset election win.
The Russian president accused the U.S. of “actively interfering in electoral campaigns of other countries” while denying that Russia has any motive to do so. “Even if we wanted to, it wouldn’t make any sense for us to interfere,” Putin said.
Meanwhile, Putin accused the US of doing precisely what Russia has been charged with doing in the US: “Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes,” he said, adding that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But, I repeat, we don’t even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change.”
Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the “political direction” that the United States seems to be heading in. “It wouldn’t make sense for us to interfere,” he said.
* * *
But the most notable highlight of the interview was Putin’s tongue in cheek hint that the Deep State – the same entity that may have been behind the Kennedy assassination according to the Russian president – is now behind the attempt to topple Trump and the ongoing push to sour ties with Russia:
“There is a theory that Kennedy’s assassination was arranged by the United States intelligence services. So if this theory is correct, and that can’t be ruled out, then what could be easier in this day and age than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means to organize some attacks, and then pointing the finger at Russia.”
The original video that was in this post has been taken out, so here’s an overview of it from Dahboo777, a critical Christian thinker:
It goes much deeper into the ideological values behind Pirate Bay, whose activities its creators view as civil disobedience aimed against Swedish (and American) copyright laws.
The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders and their supporters (including members of the Swedish Pirate Party and the late Aaron Swartz – see The Mystery of Aaron Swartz’s Alleged Suicide) argue that the Motion Picture Association (MPAA), the powerful US lobby that forced Sweden to prosecute Pirate Bay, experienced minimal economic damage from Pirate Bay users sharing free copies of their films. In the their view, the main financial damage to the film industry, music industry and print and electronic stems from the Internet allowing millions of ordinary people to become creators of video, music and the written word. They feel that file sharing is one the best ways to fight archaic copyright laws, which limit creativity and control of information to a handful of elites for their own profit and political control.
They argue it’s virtually impossible to end file sharing owing to its extremely decentralized nature. Every time a big file sharing site like Knapster, Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom’s Megaupload (see Kim Dotcom and America’s Diabolic Intellectual Property Laws) is shut down, thousands of new ones spring up to take their place.
The documentary also explores historical precedents going back thousands of years where ruling elites have sought to suppress information exchange and creativity. Following the invention of the printing press, France enacted strict censorship laws on printers, publishers and booksellers. This would lead to a dedicated publishing industry in bordering countries that made a fortune by smuggling banned titles to eager French readers.
They point out the MPAA also filed numerous court actions against the first video recorder and MP3 player manufacturers.
Although the Swedish government was extremely reluctant to take action against TPB (and violate Sweden’s guaranteed right to public access), the powerful MPAA put pressure on the US State Department. They, in turn, threatened Sweden with WTO sanctions for failing to uphold “intellectual property” rights. After the MPAA hired their own private investigator to locate TPB’s server and its four founders.
The film TPB-AFK (see link above) covers the trial, in which all four men were found guilty of “accessory to crime against copyright law.” They each served eight to nine months in jail – the last, Fredrik Neij, was released in 2015
Membership in Sweden’s Pirate Party swelled on the back of the TPB case. Countries all over the world have formed Pirate Party – in 2015 Iceland’s Pirate Party would win 16 seats in parliament. The first US Pirate Party was formed in Atlanta in 2006.