Impresiona un poco la escasa, tirando a nula, credibilidad del gobierno estadounidense y varias de sus instituciones emblemáticas en los tiempos que corren. No es para menos: desde sus propias entrañas salen personalidades diversas a decir, por ejemplo, que la palabra oficial no vale nada, o que las acusaciones a Rusia sobre supuestas "ayudas electrónicas" (hackeos) a la candidatura del presidente electo, Donald Trump, "son un montón de basura".
Algo de esto deben haber estado pensando los directivos de Forbes que, esta semana, colocaron al actual presidente Barack Obama en el puesto 48 (cuarenta y ocho) entre las personalidades más influyentes del planeta. La lista la encabeza, por supuesto, el presidente de la Federación Rusa y líder del Mundo Libre, Vladimir Vladimírovich Putin, quien, sobre los supuestos hackeos rusos a las elecciones estadounidenses, le dijo hoy al gobierno de ese país más o menos lo siguiente: "Presenten alguna prueba o cierren el pico".
Las tres notas que siguen son del sitio web Zero Hedge de hoy:
Título: NSA Whistleblower Destroys Obama's Russia Narrative - "Hard Evidence Points To An Inside Leak, Not Hacking"
Texto: A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative. Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers.
We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:
Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.
In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.
Binney further notes that the manner in which the media's "sources" are equivocating by using phrases like "our best guess" implies that the NSA has not been able to trace the Hillary or DNC "hacks" across fiber networks. And, since the NSA tracks basically every packet that travels across U.S. networks, Binney concludes that it's effectively impossible that the WikiLeaks data came from a "hack."
The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.
Asked why intelligence sources would be leaking such dangerous allegations without proof, Binney echoed our thoughts that they're simply "concocting these things to support the existing administration and to also support the move toward a new Cold War.” Per RT:
“Certainly, that’s behind some of it. Hillary Clinton and a number of people were going that way, and certainly the military intelligence complex fosters that because that means for a “new Cold War” trillions of dollars going into the coffers of those people, they would certainly be advocates for this thing. There is a lot of vested interest to keep this kind of thing going,” Binney added.
“If the CIA is alleging a different story, they need to produce the evidence like they did on the Chinese hack,” Binney said. “There is no reason to withhold this kind of information, especially if they can prove it and so far as I can see they won’t even brief the House Intelligence Committee on the evidence they are using to make this statement. That tells me that what they are saying is a pack of crap.”
“That are just concocting these things to support the existing administration and to also support the move toward a new Cold War.”
Título: Julian Assange Crushes Obama Narrative: "Our Source Is Not The Russian Government"
Texto: As Obama gets set to announce retaliation efforts against the Russian government for "hacking" the 2016 election, Julian Assange has come forward, once again, to confirm that his source is not the Russians. Appearing on the Sean Hannity radio show, Assange had the following to say:
Assange: "Our source is not the Russian government."
Hannity: "Let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
Assange: "That's correct."
Meanwhile, even James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 intelligence agencies that Hillary loved to quote during the campaign, confirmed, after the election, that he had no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks received they're information.
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (11/17/16): "As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that."
So, just to summarize where we are. WikiLeaks, the organization behind both the DNC and Podesta leaks, has confirmed repeatedly that its source was not the Russian government. James Clapper, the head of Hillary's 17 intelligence agencies, has confirmed that he has no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks got their information. But the Obama administration, utilizing the full might of the corrupt mainstream media, is about to "retaliate" against the Russian government, without a shred of credible evidence, as the mainstream media continues to spin a dangerous narrative based on "anonymous" sources at the CIA. Does that about sum it up?
Here is the full interview with Assange:
Título: Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up"
Texto: Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."
The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.
“You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent”, Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.
Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.
Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was "laughable nonsense", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."
Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.
The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. "I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.
As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.
US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.
That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.
According to an NBC report, a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January.
"It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort," Eurasia Group analysts added.
At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that "Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.
We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.