The Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018, Story 1: President Trump New Brand — Sypgate Shorthand for Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspiracy — What Did Clinton and Obama Know and when Did Clinton and Obama Know It? Clinton and Obama Activated “Spygate” or Secret Surveillance Spying Security State on Republican Party Trump Campaign for President — Read Ed Klein’s All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, Guilty As Sin, and Blood Feud — Videos — Story 2: To Be or Not To Be — June 12, 2018 U.S./North Korea Summit Canceled For Now — To Be Continued — Maybe — Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off — Videos

Posted on May 25, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, Blogroll, Bribery, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Constitutional Law, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Government, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Human, Human Behavior, James Comey, Killing, Language, Life, Lying, Mike Pompeo, National Security Agency, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Corruption, Robert S. Mueller III, Spying on American People, Surveillance/Spying, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1068, April 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1067, April 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

Story 1: President Trump New Brand — Sypgate Shorthand for Clinton Obama Democratic Criminal Conspiracy — What Did Clinton and Obama Know and when Did Clinton and Obama Know It? Clinton and Obama Activated “Spygate” or Secret Surveillance Spying Security State on Republican Party Trump Campaign for President — Read Ed Klein’s All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, Guilty As Sin, and Blood Feud — Videos —

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

‘Spygate’: Trump unveils new nickname for Russia probe

The Ingraham Angle – Wednesday May 23 2018

Tucker: Obama administration hacks were all lying

Did the Obama administration spy on the Trump campaign?

What we know about Trump’s ‘Spygate’ claims

Sean Hannity Blasts James Comey: ‘Did You Have a Spy in the Clinton Campaign?’

President Donald Trump Seizes On ‘Spygate’ To Discredit Russia Investigation | The 11th Hour | MSNBC

Ed Klein details the rift between Bill and Hillary Clinton

All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump | Ed Klein And Alex Jones

All Out War – The Plot To Destroy Donald Trump by Ed Klein Ch 1-6

Ed Klein Discusses His New Book “All Out War”, Antifa, and More

Malzberg | Edward “Ed” Klein: Obama was “aware of HRC’s private server” and “warned her” about it

Ed Klein: Why Comey jumped at chance to reopen Clinton case

Ed Klein discusses the Hillary Clinton email story

Hillary Clinton surrounded by scandals and investigations

Ed Klein on Hillary Emails controversy – Stuart Varney March 9, 2015

The Joe Pags Show | Ed Klein discusses Hillary’s reaction after losing

Ed Klein – What Happened To Hillary’s “What Happened”?

Hillary ‘won’t drink water’? ‘Red Eye’ investigates

Ed Klein: Not the first time Clinton has collapsed

Ex-Secret Service agent: Hillary must be kept out of the WH

Former Secret Service agent: Why video of Clinton scares me

Author says Hillary Clinton is ‘two different people’

Ed Klein: It seems Obama is having a tough time letting go

Ed Klein: Clintons and Obamas Are Like Two ‘Mafia Families’

Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Trust Ed Klein

Ed Klein talks ‘Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary’

Hillary Clinton Is ‘Fat And Old’ According To Author Ed Klein

Jeremiah Wright offered bribe of $150,000.00 by Obama campaign to keep silent

Sorry, But Obama White House, Not Dossier, Was Behind Trump Investigation

pyGate: Did the Obama administration spy on the Donald Trump campaign because it feared Russian hacking of the 2016 election? Or was it merely a smokescreen to cover up the real reason: to keep Trump from winning the presidency or take him down if he did?

As the saying goes, timing is everything. Recent revelations keep pushing back the beginning of the CIA and FBI investigation into “Russian hacking” or “meddling” in the 2016 election further and further in time.

This is significant, since the farther back in time the actual origin of the spying on Trump, the less likely it is that it had anything to do with Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, but everything to do with stopping the surprising surge of Trump during the GOP primaries and beyond.

Increasingly, a political motive seems not only likely, but almost certain.

In a recent piece that warrants a thorough reading, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney who now writes for the National Review, painstakingly dismantles the multiple lies told about how and when the spying on Trump began.

There is what he calls “The Original Origination Story” that involves little-known Trump adviser Carter Page. He visited Moscow in July 2016, three months after hooking on to the Trump campaign.

According to former MI6 British spy Christopher Steele’s now infamous dossier on Trump, Page’s trip was when the alleged Trump-Russia plan to hack the Democratic National Committee was born.

The only problem is, the Steele dossier has been exposed as a fanciful product of the Clinton campaign and the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which hired Steele. And the main assertions were based on hearsay from Russian officials, and never validated.

Even so, the FBI and Justice Department used the dossier to apply to the FISA court to tap Page’s communications and, as a result, much of the rest of the Trump campaign.

In doing so, the FBI broke its own rules and, worse, the Obama Justice Department withheld the fact from the FISA court that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee were responsible for the dossier.

Then there was what McCarthy calls “Origination Story 2.0.”

This involves George Papadopoulos, a young, also little-known Trump aide. At a May 2016 meeting in a London pub, he told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about an academic named Josef Mifsud with Kremlin ties who told Papadopoulos that the Kremlin had a huge number of emails that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Democrats point to this as proof that Trump had colluded to hack the DNC. But as McCarthy notes, there’s a major flaw in that logic: “If Russia already had the emails and was alerting the Trump campaign to that fact, the campaign could not have been involved in the hacking.”

Moreover, Democrats insist Mifsud’s comments about emails referred to the DNC emails that were, in fact, hacked by Russians.

But that’s not the case. Papadopoulos has said he thought Mifsud was talking about the more than 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton “accidentally” had deleted from her illegal unsecured home email server.

So if those didn’t set up the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, what did?

In fact, says McCarthy, the real origin of the investigation appears to have been in Spring of 2016, before Papadopoulos’ conversation with the Australian ambassador in May and also before Page’s visit to Moscow in July.

It started with James Comey briefing President Obama’s National Security Council about Carter Page, likely sometime in mid-Spring.

Why? Well, both Page and Paul Manafort, another Trump adviser, had business ties to Russia, which, perhaps justifiably, concerned the FBI.

But rather than telling the Trump campaign about their concerns, or even moving against the Russians, the Justice Department and the FBI starting treating Trump’s campaign like a criminal enterprise.

Instead of continuing to interview Page, or Manafort, or Papadopoulos, they inserted a spy, Stefan Halper, in the campaign, and tapped its phones. It had the earmarks of a political hit, not an actual investigation.

As for the CIA, another line of inquiry finds they also were busy early on pursuing Trump.

George Neumayr, writing in The American Spectator, notes that CIA Director John Brennan used the flimsy excuse of a tip from the Estonian intelligence agency that Putin was giving money to the Trump campaign to form an “inter-agency taskforce” on supposed Trump-Russia collusion in 2016. It met at CIA headquarters, spy central.

The Estonian tip didn’t pan out, but the task force remained.

“Both before and after the FBI’s official probe began in late July 2016,” wrote Neumayr, “Brennan was bringing together into the same room at CIA headquarters a cast of Trump haters across the Obama administration whose activities he could direct — from Peter Strzok, the FBI liaison to Brennan, to the doltish (Director of National Intelligence) Jim Clapper, Brennan’s errand boy, to an assortment of Brennan’s buddies at the Treasury Department, Justice Department, and White House.”

It eventually led, on July 31, 2016, to the creation FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” program to spy against the Trump campaign.

What we’re discovering is that the investigations and spying on the Trump campaign for evidence of possible collusion with Russia appear to have begun well before the CIA and FBI said they did.

And it all arose from progressive, pro-Hillary embeds deep within the Deep State and at the top of key Obama agencies, people who could use their positions of supposed Olympian objectivity to mask their political bias — and to ignore years of evidence that Hillary Clinton had colluded with the Russians for her own financial benefit.

As McCarthy concluded: “The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Page or Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-behind-trump-investigation/

Byron York: When did Trump-Russia probe begin? Investigators focus on mystery months

Revelations that an FBI informant insinuated himself into the Trump campaign have led some congressional investigators to rethink their theories on how and why former President Barack Obama’s Justice Department began investigating the 2016 Trump presidential effort.

Most reporting has focused on the July 31, 2016, creation of a document formally marking the beginning of the FBI counterintelligence probe targeting the Trump campaign. The document, known as the electronic communication, or EC, is said to have focused on the case of George Papadopoulos, the peripheral Trump adviser who has pleaded guilty to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller about his contacts with people connected to Russia.

Most of the key events of the Trump-Russia investigation — the Carter Page wiretap, the wiretap of Michael Flynn’s conversations, the presentation of Trump dossier allegations to the president-elect — took place after the formal start of the FBI counterintelligence investigation.

But now comes word of the FBI informant, described in various accounts as a retired American professor living in England. The Washington Post reported that, “The professor’s interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium.”

A few weeks before the opening of the investigation — those are the words that have raised eyebrows among Hill investigators. If it was before the investigation, then what was an FBI informant doing gathering undercover information when there was not yet an investigation?

And that has taken them back to March 21, 2016, when candidate Donald Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post.

At the time of that meeting, Trump had been under criticism for not having the sort of lists of distinguished advisers that most top-level campaigns routinely assemble. That was particularly true in the area of foreign policy. A frustrated Trump ordered his team to compile a list of foreign-affairs advisers.

Trump was preparing to announce his advisory board when he met with the Post. The paper’s publisher asked Trump if he would reveal the names of his new team.

“Well, I hadn’t thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names,” Trump said. He then read a brief list, among them Page and Papadopoulos.

Trump’s announcement did not go unnoticed at the FBI and Justice Department. The bureau knew Page from a previous episode in which Russian agents had tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit him. It’s not clear what the FBI knew about the others. But then-Director James Comey and number-two Andrew McCabe personally briefed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the list of newly-named Trump foreign policy advisers, including Page, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a “defensive briefing” to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official “to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign,” Lynch said.

It didn’t happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the “late spring” of 2016, according to Lynch’s testimony. (The principals committee includes some of the highest-ranking officials in the government, including the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security, the attorney general, the head of the CIA, the White House chief of staff, U.N. ambassador, and more.)

So the nation’s top political appointees, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies were watching Trump campaign figures in the spring and early summer of 2016.

In early July, Trump dossier author Christopher Steele, the former British spy, approached the FBI with the first installment of the dossier. (It was the part that alleged Trump took part in a kinky sex scene with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013.) Also in early July — just a few days later — Page made a much-watched trip to deliver a speech in Moscow. Also in July, FBI officials say they learned about Papadopoulos’ meeting a few months earlier with a Russian-connected professor. And still in July, hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee were released.

Somewhere around the time all that was happening, according to the latest reporting, the FBI informant began his work.

And that was all before what is called the formal beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation. It is in those mystery months — late March, April, May, June, and early July of 2016 — with the presidential campaign going at full force, that the Obama administration’s surveillance of the Republican candidate geared up.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/when-did-trump-russia-probe-begin-investigators-focus-on-mystery-months

The Real Origination Story of the Trump-Russia Investigation

Former President Barack Obama extends his hand to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 28, 2015. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Carter Page or George Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.Exactly when is the “late Spring”?

Of all the questions that have been asked about what we’ve called the “Origination Story” of the Trump-Russia investigation, that may be the most important one. It may be the one that tells us when the Obama administration first formed the Trump-Russia “collusion” narrative.

Obama’s spying on Trump campaign included the use of secret “national security letters” reserved for the most serious threats

See, it has always been suspicious that the anonymous current and former government officials who leak classified information to their media friends have been unable to coordinate their spin on the start of “Crossfire Hurricane” — the name the FBI eventually gave its Trump-Russia investigation.

The Original Origination Story: Carter Page

First, they told us it was an early July 2016 trip to Moscow by Carter Page, an obscure Trump-campaign adviser.

As we’ve observed, that story became untenable once a connection emerged between the Bureau’s concerns about Page and the Steele dossier. The dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, portrayed Page’s Moscow trip as seminal to a Trump-Russia conspiracy to hack Democratic email accounts and steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

It turned out, however, that the dossier was a Clinton-campaign opposition-research project, the main allegations of which were based on third-hand hearsay from anonymous Russian sources. Worse, though the allegations could not be verified, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI used them to obtain surveillance warrants against Page, in violation of their own guidelines against presenting unverified information to the FISA court. Worse still, the Obama Justice Department withheld from the FISA court the facts that the Clinton campaign was behind the dossier and that Steele had been booted from the investigation for lying to the FBI.

Origination Story 2.0: George Papadopoulos

With the Page origination story cratering, Team Obama tried to save the day with Origination Story 2.0: Papadopoulos did it. In this account, George Papadopoulos, an even more obscure Trump-campaign aide than Page, triggered the investigation by telling Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, in May 2016, that he’d heard from a Kremlin-connected academic, Josef Mifsud, that Russia had thousands of emails potentially damaging to Clinton.

But this rickety tale had the signs of an after-the-fact rationalization, an effort to downplay the dossier and the role of Obama officials in the genesis of the probe. There were curious questions about how the twentysomething Papadopoulos came to be meeting with Australia’s highest-ranking diplomat in the United Kingdom, and about how and when, exactly, this Australian information came to be transmitted to the FBI.

Moreover, there are two basic flaws in version 2.0. First, Papadopoulos’s story is actually exculpatory of the Trump campaign: If Russia already had the emails and was alerting the Trump campaign to that fact, the campaign could not have been involved in the hacking. Second, there is confusion about exactly what Mifsud was referring to when he told Papadopoulos that the Russians had emails that could damage Clinton. Democrats suggest that Mifsud was referring to the Democratic National Committee emails. They need this to be true because (a) these are the emails that were hacked by Russian operatives, and (b) it was WikiLeaks’ publication of these hacked DNC emails in July 2016 that spurred the Aussies to report to their American counterparts about the encounter, two months earlier, between Papadopoulos and Downer — to whom Papadopoulos reported Mifsud’s emails story. But if the Australians really did infer that Mifsud and Papadopoulos must have been talking about the hacked DNC emails, the inference is unlikely. As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross has reported, Papadopoulos maintains that he understood Mifsud to be talking about the 30,000-plus emails that Hillary Clinton had deleted from her homebrew server. That makes more sense — it was those emails that Donald Trump harped on throughout the campaign and that were in the news when Mifsud spoke with Papadopoulos in April 2016. While there are grounds for concern that Clinton’s emails were hacked, there is no proof that it happened; Clinton’s 30,000 emails are not the hacked DNC emails on which the “collusion” narrative is based.

There was also the curiosity of why, if Papadopoulos was so central, the FBI had not bothered to interview him until late January 2017 — after Trump had already taken office.

The Real Origination

With the revelation last week that the Obama administration had insinuated a spy into the Trump campaign, it appeared that we were back to the original, Page-centric origination story. But now there was a twist: The informant, longtime CIA source Stefan Halper, was run at Page by the FBI, in Britain. Because this happened just days after Page’s Moscow trip, the implication was that it was the Moscow trip itself, not the dossier claims about it, that provided momentum toward opening the investigation. Then, just a couple of weeks later, WikiLeaks began publicizing the DNC emails; this, we’re to understand, shook loose the Australian information about Papadopoulos. When that information made its way to the FBI — how, we’re not told — the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation was formally opened on July 31. Within days, Agent Peter Strzok was in London interviewing Downer, and soon the FBI tasked Halper to take a run at Papadopoulos.

 

The real origination story begins in the early spring of 2016 — long before Page went to Russia and long before the U.S. government was notified about Papadopoulos’s boozy conversation with Downer.

Last week, as controversy stirred over the possibility that the Obama administration had used a spy against the Trump campaign, the eagle eye of the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel caught a couple of key passages from the House Intelligence Committee’s recent report on Russian interference in the election — largely overlooked passages on page 54.

It turns out that, in “late spring” 2016, the FBI’s then-director James Comey briefed the principals of the National Security Council on “the Page information.” As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York observes in a perceptive column today, NSC principals are an administration’s highest-ranking national-security officials. In Obama’s National Security Council, the president was the chairman, and among the regular attendees were the vice-president (Joe Biden), the national-security adviser (Susan Rice), and the director of national intelligence (James Clapper). The heads of such departments and agencies as the Justice Department (Attorney General Loretta Lynch) and the CIA (Director John Brennan) could also be invited to attend NSC meetings if matters of concern to them were to be discussed.

We do not know which NSC principals attended the Comey briefing about Carter Page. But how curious that the House Intelligence Committee interviewed so many Obama-administration officials who were on, or who were knowledgeable about, the NSC, and yet none of them provided a date for this meeting more precise than “late spring” 2016.

The other meeting outlined on page 54 of the House report is one that Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, had with Attorney General Lynch. It probably occurred before the “late spring” Obama NSC meeting, and it was also “about Page.”

So . . . what exactly was “the Page information”? Well, we know that Page, an Annapolis alumnus and former naval intelligence officer, is . . . well, he’s a knucklehead. He is a Russia apologist whose “discursive online blog postings about foreign policy,” Politico noted, “invoke the likes of Kanye West, Oprah Winfrey, and Rhonda Byrne’s self-help bestseller, ‘The Secret.’” More to the point, Page blames American provocations for bad relations with the Kremlin and advocates, instead, a policy of appeasing the Putin regime. Page, who has also been an investment banker, has also had business ties to Gazprom, the Kremlin-controlled energy behemoth.

Most importantly, we know that Page was one of several American businessmen whom Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit in 2013. Yet, the main reason we know that is that Page cooperated with the FBI and the Justice Department in the prosecution of the Russian operatives. See Sealed ComplaintUnited States v. Evgeny Buryakov, pp. 12-13 (Page is identified as “Male-1” — whom one of the Russian spies refers to as “an idiot”).

What would have been the reason for Lynch, Comey, and McCabe to discuss Carter Page? Well, on March 21, 2016 — i.e., early spring — the Trump campaign announced the candidate’s foreign-policy advisory team. Trump had been spurned by the Republican foreign-policy clerisy and was under pressure to show that he had some advisers. So the campaign hastily put out a list of five little-known figures, including Page. Young George Papadopoulos (whose idea of résumé inflation was to claim, apparently falsely, that he’d been a participant in the Geneva International Model United Nations) was also among the five; but he was a virtual unknown at the time — he did not cause the FBI the consternation that the appearance of Page’s name did.

Another source of consternation: On March 29, just a few days after Page was announced as a foreign-policy adviser, Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign. Manafort and his partner, Richard Gates (who also joined the Trump campaign), had been on the FBI’s radar over political-consultant work they’d done for many years for a Kremlin-backed political party in Ukraine — the party deeply enmeshed in Russian aggression against that former Soviet satellite state.

In discussing Page, one of the things Lynch, Comey, and McCabe discussed was the possibility of providing the Trump campaign with a “defensive briefing.” This would be a meeting with a senior campaign official to put the campaign on notice of potential Russian efforts to compromise someone — Page — within the campaign.

In retrospect, that is an interesting piece of information. Back in February, after House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) put out the Republican majority’s memo on FISA abuse, Committee Democrats responded. As I pointed out at the time, the memo by ranking member Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) let slip that the FBI had interviewed Carter Page in March 2016. (See Schiff Memo, p. 4 — the relevant footnote 10 is redacted.)

Was the interview of Page a reaction to his joining the Trump campaign? Was it an effort to gauge whether Page was still a recruitment target? Was it a substitute for giving the campaign a defensive briefing, or a preparatory step in anticipation of possibly giving such a briefing? We don’t know.

But here is what we can surmise.

There are many different ways the Obama administration could have reacted to the news that Page and Manafort had joined the Trump campaign.

Carter Page and Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign in early spring, and the FBI was concerned about their possible ties to Russia. These were not trifling concerns, but they did not come close to suggesting a Trump-Russia espionage conspiracy against the 2016 election.

These FBI concerns resulted in a briefing of the Obama NSC by the FBI sometime in “late spring.” I suspect the “late spring” may turn out to be an earlier part of spring than most people might suppose — like maybe shortly after Page joined the Trump campaign.

There are many different ways the Obama administration could have reacted to the news that Page and Manafort had joined the Trump campaign. It could have given the campaign a defensive briefing. It could have continued interviewing Page, with whom the FBI had longstanding lines of communication. It could have interviewed Manafort. It could have conducted a formal interview with George Papadopoulos rather than approaching him with a spy who asked him loaded questions about Russia’s possession of Democratic-party emails.

Instead of doing some or all of those things, the Obama administration chose to look at the Trump campaign as a likely co-conspirator of Russia — either because Obama officials inflated the flimsy evidence, or because they thought it could be an effective political attack on the opposition party’s likely candidate.

From the “late spring” on, every report of Trump-Russia ties, no matter how unlikely and uncorroborated, was presumed to be proof of a traitorous arrangement. And every detail that could be spun into Trump-campaign awareness of Russian hacking, no matter how tenuous, was viewed in the worst possible light.

The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Page or Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-obama-administration-origins/

 

How the Clinton-Emails Investigation Intertwined with the Russia Probe

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump listens as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton answers a question from the audience during their presidential town hall debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., October 9, 2016. (Rick Wilking/Reuters)

Obama administration officials in the DOJ and FBI saw the cases as inseparably linked.‘Cruz just dropped out of the race. It’s going to be a Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable.”

It was a little after midnight on May 4, 2016. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was texting her paramour, FBI counterespionage agent Peter Strzok, about the most stunning development to date in the 2016 campaign: Donald Trump was now the inevitable Republican nominee. He would square off against Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ certain standard-bearer.

The race was set . . . between two major-party candidates who were both under investigation by the FBI.

In stunned response, Strzok wrote what may be the only words we need to know, the words that reflected the mindset of his agency’s leadership and of the Obama administration: “Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.”

MYE. That’s Mid-Year Exam, the code-word the FBI had given to the Hillary Clinton emails probe.

“It sure does,” responded Page. Mind you, she was not just any FBI lawyer; she was counsel and confidant to the bureau’s No. 2 official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

If the thousands of text messages between Ms. Page and Agent Strzok are clear on anything, they are clear on the thinking of the bureau’s top brass.

In its Trump antipathy, the media-Democrat complex has admonished us to ignore the Strzok-Page texts. FBI officials are as entitled as anyone else to their political opinions, we’re told; and if they found Trump loathsome, they were no different from half the country.

That’s the wrong way to look at it. Regardless of their politics (which, the texts show, are not as left-wing as some conservative-media hyperbole claims), these FBI officials are a window into how the Obama administration regarded the two investigations in which Strzok and Page were central players: Mid Year Exam and Trump-Russia — the latter eventually code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.”

The two investigations must not be compartmentalized. Manifestly, the FBI saw them as inseparably linked: Trump’s victory in the primaries, the opening of his path to the Oval Office, meant — first and foremost — that the Hillary investigation had to be brought to a close.

And that is because bringing it to a close was already known, by May 4, to mean closing it without charges — opening her path to the Oval Office. It was the calculation of the FBI, the Obama Justice Department, the Obama-led intelligence agencies, and the Obama White House that wrapping up MYE was essential to stopping Donald Trump.

Trump had won the nomination, so now the pressure was on to remove the cloud of felony suspicion hanging over Mrs. Clinton.

The mistake is often made — I’ve made it myself — of analyzing the tanking of the Clinton emails case in a vacuum. There are, after all, reasons unrelated to Donald Trump that explain the outcome: Obama was implicated in Clinton’s use of a non-secure email system; Obama had endorsed Clinton; many high-ranking Obama Justice Department officials stood to keep their coveted positions, and even advance, in a Hillary Clinton administration; the Obama Justice Department was hyper-political and Clinton was the Democratic nominee.

But the Clinton investigation did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of Donald Trump’s gallop through the Republican primaries and, just as important, of the Obama administration’s determination to regard the Trump campaign as a Kremlin satellite.

Conveniently, the Strzok-Page text occurred in what we might call the “late spring.” As I outlined in yesterday’s column, the “late spring” is the vague timeframe former Obama-administration officials gave to the House Intelligence Committee when asked when the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, briefed the president’s National Security Council about Carter Page. An obscure Trump campaign adviser, Page was regarded as a likely clandestine Russian agent by the Obama administration, on what appears to be flimsy evidence.

So . . . let’s think this through.

By May 4, the Obama administration has already concluded that the Trump campaign is part of a Russian covert op that must be stopped — or at least has rationalized that the Trump-Russia storyline can work politically to damage the Republican candidate.

At the same time, even though MYE is not yet formally “finished,” even though key witnesses (including Clinton herself) have not been interviewed, even though essential evidence (including the laptops used to store and vet Clinton’s emails) are not yet in the FBI’s possession, Director Comey and his top aides are already drafting the exoneration speech he will give two months later, recommending against prosecution.

And everybody knows the fix is in. The Strzok-Page texts show that the pressure to schedule the Clinton interview is based on the imperative to shut down the case, not to weigh what she had to say for investigative purposes. Clinton is permitted to have her co-conspirators represent her as lawyers at her interview — in violation of federal law, professional-ethics canons, and rudimentary investigative practice — precisely because no one regards the interview as a serious law-enforcement exercise.

When Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s shameful Arizona tarmac meeting with former President Clinton becomes a scandal in late June, she tries to mitigate the damage by announcing an intention to accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes. Lisa Page spitefully texts Peter Strzok. “And yeah, it’s a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will be brought.”

To accomplish this, he effectively rewrites the classified-information statute Clinton violated; barely mentions the tens of thousands of official government business emails that she destroyed; claims without any elaboration that the FBI can see no evidence of obstruction; and omits mention of her just-concluded interview in which — among other things — she pretended not to know what the markings on classified documents meant.

On the very same day, the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome travels to London to interview Christopher Steele, who has already started to pass his sensational dossier allegations to the bureau. And with the help of CIA director John Brennan and British intelligence, the FBI is ready to run a spy — a longtime CIA source — at Carter Page in London on July 11, just as he arrives there from Moscow.

With the pressure to finish MYE in the rearview mirror, Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in to beat Donald Trump. By mid September, Lisa Page was saying as much at a meeting in Deputy Director McCabe’s office. But Strzok was hedging his bets: Maybe “there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Soon, as the campaign wound down, the FBI and the Obama Justice Department were on the doormat of the FISA court, obtaining a surveillance warrant on Carter Page, substantially based on allegations in the Steele dossier — an uncorroborated Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA spy was being run at George Papadopoulos, and even seeking a role in the Trump campaign from its co-chairman, Sam Clovis.

Or maybe you think these things are unrelated . . .

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-clinton-email-fbi-linked-cases/

How the FBI informant’s outreach to Trump staffers fits into overall investigation

May 22

Stefan A. Halper, the informant who assisted the FBI’s Russia investigation during 2016, is drawing the ire of President Trump and House Republicans.

On Monday evening, The Washington Post revealed the identity of the FBI informant at the center of President Trump’s recent frustrations. Over the course of 2016, emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge Stefan A. Halper contacted three people affiliated with Trump’s foreign-policy advisory team, two of whom were subjects of known FBI investigations beginning that summer.

Trump and his allies have criticized Halper’s contribution to the FBI’s investigation as an unwarranted intrusion into Trump’s campaign itself. Trump has repeatedly insisted that reports about Halper’s work showed bias on the part of the FBI that was a scandal “bigger than Watergate.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true – all time biggest political scandal!

What’s known about Halper’s outreach, though, suggests a modest effort to get information from particular people who were already the subject of FBI scrutiny. Two people he contacted, foreign policy advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, initially met Halper in London — not, as some have implied, after Halper took some sort of position with the Trump campaign. (He did not do so.)

In light of the attention drawn to Halper by the president’s criticisms, we’ve put together a timeline showing how his known outreach overlapped with other investigatory efforts on the part of the FBI. Both Papadopoulos and Page were already being investigated by the FBI or had already been interviewed by the agency before Halper contacted them.

Items in bold involve Halper directly.

Pre-campaign

2012. Halper begins a relationship with the Defense Department, working with a Pentagon group called the Office of Net Assessment.

January 2013. Page meets a Russian foreign intelligence officer named Victor Podobnyy at a conference in New York.

March 2013. The FBI interviews Page after surveillance picks up Podobnyy mentioning Page as a potential target for recruitment.

Aug. 25, 2013. In a letter to a publisher, Page claims that for six months he has “had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month.”

Feb. 28, 2014. Michael Flynn participates in a national security seminar at Cambridge University organized by Halper and Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s intelligence service.

The Trump campaign begins

June 16, 2015. Trump announces his candidacy.

Summer 2015. Hackers believed to be linked to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) gain access to the network of the Democratic National Committee, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

Aug. 25, 2015. Sam Clovis joins Trump’s campaign after working with the failed presidential bid of Rick Perry. He serves as a policy adviser and works with Trump’s foreign policy team.

Dec. 10, 2015. Flynn travels to Moscow to participate in an event celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Kremlin-funded news network Russia Today (now RT).

March 2016. The FBI again interviews Page.

March 6, 2016. Papadopoulos is asked to join the Trump campaign as an adviser on foreign policy issues. He had previously been advising Ben Carson’s unsuccessful presidential campaign. His initial conversation about joining the campaign was with Clovis, who, Papadopoulos told prosecutors, suggested that improving relations with Russia was a key campaign goal. (Clovis has denied that.)

March 14, 2016. Papadopoulos meets in Italy with a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud, director of the London Academy of Diplomacy. Until he learns that Papadopoulos is tied to the Trump campaign, Mifsud is uninterested in talking.

March 21, 2016. Trump publicly identifies Papadopoulos and Page as part of his foreign policy advisory team.

March 31, 2016. The foreign policy advisory team meets. Trump tweets about it.

April 18, 2016. Papadopoulos is introduced via email to someone who has contacts at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Papadopoulos and the contact begin communicating regularly to try to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin.

April 26, 2016. Papadopoulos is told by Mifsud that the Russians have “dirt” on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “They have thousands of emails,” he is told. The next day, he emails senior campaign adviser Stephen Miller to say he had “some interesting messages coming in from Moscow about a trip when the time is right.”

May 2016. During a night of drinking in London, Papadopoulos tells Australian High Commissioner to Great Britain Alexander Downer that he is aware that Russia has dirt on Clinton.

July 7, 2016. Page travels to Moscow to give a speech. The next day, he sends a memo to campaign staff with an overview of his travel. It reads, in part, “Russian Deputy Prime Minister and [New Economic School] Board Member Arkadiy Dvorkovich also spoke before the event. In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump and a desire to work together toward devising better solutions in response to the vast range of current international problems.”

July 11 and 12, 2016. Page meets Halper at a Cambridge conference called Race to Change the World. It is focused on “the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the implications that this will have for future U.S. foreign policy.” The two continue to communicate over email.

July 11 or 12, 2016. Trump campaign staffers apparently intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party’s national security platform to remove language calling for arming Ukraine against Russian aggression.

July 22, 2016. WikiLeaks begins releasing emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee.

The investigation begins

July 31, 2016. The FBI opens its counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The investigation is triggered when Australian authorities contact the agency — realizing that Papadopoulos’s May mention of Russian dirt to Downer, the diplomat, was validated by the release of stolen data.

August 2016. Papadopoulos seeks permission to travel to Russia to facilitate a meeting between Trump and Putin. After being discouraged from doing so earlier in the year, Clovis tells Papadopoulos to do so “if feasible” — but not as a representative of the campaign.

Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, 2016. Halper has coffee with Clovis. Clovis says that the subject of conversation was China, not Russia. Halper requests a second meeting, but it doesn’t happen.

Sept. 2, 2016. Halper contacts Papadopoulos offering to pay him to write a paper about oil fields in the Mediterranean and inviting him to London. Papadopoulos does so later that month, receiving $3,000 in payment.

Sept. 15, 2016. While in London, Papadopoulos has drinks with a woman who identifies herself as Halper’s assistant. He meets Halper at the Traveler’s Club. According to the New York Times, Halper asked if Papadopoulos knew about any interference efforts, which Papadopoulos denied — to Halper’s annoyance.

Sept. 23, 2016. Yahoo News reports on possible contacts between Page and Russian authorities, based on information collected by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele as part of his work for the firm Fusion GPS.

Sept. 26, 2016. Page announces his departure from the Trump campaign.

Oct. 21, 2016. The FBI is granted a warrant to surveil Page.

Nov. 8, 2016. Trump is elected president.

Sept. 2017. Page and Halper are in contact for the last time, according to an interview Page gave the Daily Caller.

Late September 2017. The warrant to surveil Page, extended three times, expires.

 

 

Edward Klein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward J. Klein (born 1937) is an American author, tabloid writer and gossip columnist who is a former foreign editor of Newsweek, and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine (1977–1987). He has written about the KennedysBill ClintonHillary ClintonBarack ObamaMichelle Obama, and Donald Trump.

Early life

Born in Yonkers, New York, Klein attended Colgate University, graduated from Columbia University School of General Studies,[1] and received an MS degree from the Columbia University School of Journalism.[2]

Professional life

Klein is the former foreign editor of Newsweek and served as the editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987. He frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade and writes a weekly celebrity gossip column in Parade called “Personality Parade” under the pseudonym “Walter Scott.” (The Walter Scott pseudonym had originally been used by Lloyd Shearer, who wrote the column from 1958 to 1991.[3]) He also writes books, many of which have been on the New York Times Bestseller list. Additionally, he was the principal for the Business Communications School at The Euclid High School Complex. He was photographed by popular Humans of New York photographer Brandon Stanton, on June 12, 2014, which led to his personal website crashing due to a high volume of visitors.[4] Klein is also a contributor for the New York Post.[5]

Personal life

Klein is the father of two grown children, Karen (former manager of The Four Seasons restaurant in New York City), and Alec (a professor at Northwestern University).[6] He has been divorced twice. He was married to Dolores J. Barrett, senior vice president for Worldwide Public Relations at Polo Ralph Lauren, who died on 24 December 2013 in Manhattan.[7][8] Klein is the stepfather-in-law of Ruth Shalit.

Criticism

Klein received extensive criticism for his 2005 biography of Hillary Clinton, The Truth About HillaryPolitico criticized the book for “serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don’t gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton’s life.”[9]The conservative columnist John Podhoretz criticized the book in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.”[10] In the National Review, conservative columnist James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[11]

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review asked Klein in a June 20, 2005 interview, “Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book … that looks to be flimsily sourced at that?,” regarding his suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in an act of marital rape.[12] Facing criticism from both the left and right for making the claim, Klein eventually backed away from the insinuation in an interview with radio host Jim Bohannon on June 23, 2005.[13]

The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein’s 2014 book Blood Feud.[14]

Questions of credibility of sources in work

Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason,[15] Salon’s Simon Maloy [16] and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh[17] and Peggy Noonan.[18] “Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don’t know people who speak this way,” Limbaugh said of Klein’s work, describing the sources as “grade school chatter.”

Books

References

  1. Jump up^ Traister, Rebecca. “The man behind the book”.
  2. Jump up^ “About”.
  3. Jump up^ Woo, Elaine (2001-05-26). “Lloyd Shearer; Leader of the ‘Personality Parade'”Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 February 2014. Also printed in: “Lloyd Shearer, Wrote `Personality Parade’” In: Sun Sentinel. May 28, 2001.
  4. Jump up^ “Humans of New York – Timeline – Facebook”.
  5. Jump up^ Klein, Edward (March 15, 2015). “Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal”New York Post.
  6. Jump up^ Alec Klein, Professor and Director of The Medill Justice ProjectMedill School of Journalism
  7. Jump up^ Cotto, William (30 December 2013). “Obituary: Dolores J. Barrett, Ralph Lauren Exec”. WWD. Retrieved 30 December2013.
  8. Jump up^ “Dolores Barrett Wed to Edward Klein”New York Times. October 25, 1987. Retrieved December 6, 2007.
  9. Jump up^ “Ed Klein’s Obama book debuts at No. 1 on Times list”Politico. Retrieved May 29, 2012.
  10. Jump up^ New York Post: Which is more a criticism of the subject matter than the author or the content.“Smear for Profit”. Archived from the original on April 18, 2006. Retrieved February 12, 2013. . June 22, 2005.
  11. Jump up^ “Now That is a Tough Review”National Review.
  12. Jump up^ “The Truth About Hillary”National Review.
  13. Jump up^ “Klein vs. his own book: Author backed off claim about Hillary pregnancy, contradicted his only source for rape claim”. Media Matters. October 10, 2007.
  14. Jump up^ Swaine, Jon (July 14, 2014). “Edward Klein: the difference between the truth and a lie”The Guardian.
  15. Jump up^ “News Hounds: Joe Conason Verbally Clobbers Ed Klein”NewsHounds. 2005-06-30. Retrieved 2017-11-12.
  16. Jump up^ Maloy, Simon. “Ed Klein’s new hack job: A credibility-vacant opportunist strikes again”.
  17. Jump up^ “Limbaugh Claims “Nobody Ever Denies” Ed Klein’s Credibility, Despite Previously Calling It Into Question”. March 16, 2015.
  18. Jump up^ Noonan, Peggy (June 24, 2005). “Eine Kleine Biographie” – via Wall Street Journal.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Klein

Story 2: To Be or Not To Be — June 12, 2018 U.S./North Korea Summit Canceled For Now — To Be Continued — Maybe — Videos

Trump speaks after canceling North Korea summit

North Korea is willing to resolve issues with US following cancelled summit: report

North Korea responds to Trump’s cancellation of meeting

North Korea: We are willing to sit down with US anytime

North Korea expresses willingness to resolve issues with US

Trump welcomes North Korea’s ‘warm’ response to canceled summit

Pelosi: Kim Jong Un ‘Must Be Having A Giggle Fit’

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers – Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off HQ

Trump dictated ‘every word’ of letter canceling North Korea summit

The White House offered new details Thursday on President Trump‘s decision to cancel a planned June 12 summit with North Korea, saying he did so after a U.S. team was stood up by the North Koreans and that the letter announcing the decision to leader Kim Jong Un was 100 percent Trump.
“The president dictated every word of the letter himself,” a senior White House official said.
The letter cited Kim’s “tremendous anger and open hostility” toward the United States in explaining why the meeting was being scrapped.

“I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote in the letter released by the White House.

The U.S. and North Korea had agreed to hold a meeting to set up the summit in Singapore last week, the White House official said.

But when the U.S. sent a deputy chief of staff and other advance team personnel to Singapore for that meeting, the North Koreas never showed up.

“They simply stood us up,” the official said.

The senior White House official also cast doubt on whether North Korea truly destroyed its nuclear test site, saying international inspectors were not allowed to attend
“We certainly hope that’s the case, but we really don’t know.”
“Secretary Pompeo and the South Korean government were promised by the North Koreans that international experts and officials would be invited to witness and verify today’s demolition,” the official said, but that promise was “broken.”
North Korea’s statement calling Vice President Pence a “political dummy” and threatening the U.S. appeared to be a breaking point for Trump. The president first saw the comments last night and “he took it in stride, he slept on it,” according to the official.
In the morning, Trump met with his national security team, including Pence, chief of staff John Kelly and Pompeo, and made his decision to call off the talks.

The official said it was “hard to miss” the implicit threat of nuclear war in North Korea’s statement, which threatened to “make the U.S. taste an appalling tragedy.”

“The president sought to remind North Korea of the real balance of power here,” the official added.
In the letter, Trump said North Korea was taking a step backward with actions that forced his hand.
“I believe this is a tremendous setback for North Korea and, indeed, a setback for the world,” Trump wrote in the letter.
But he also offered a warning to Pyongyang in his note, which was alternately bellicose and complimentary.
Trump said the United States nuclear weapons are “so massive and so powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.”
He then thanked Kim for the release of three prisoners earlier this month that had appeared to signal the talks were on course.
“Some day, I look very much forward to meeting you,” Trump wrote. “If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.”

The rising tensions between China, US

AFP
Recent events point to growing stresses between Washington and Beijing
Recent events point to growing stresses between Washington and Beijing (AFP Photo/FABRICE COFFRINI, MANDEL NGAN)
More

Washington (AFP) – President Donald Trump has often bragged of his friendship with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, but recent events point to growing stresses between Washington and Beijing.

This week, the Pentagon pulled its invitation for China to participate in maritime exercises in the Pacific, then Trump on Thursday scrapped a summit with North Korea after suggesting Xi may have exacerbated a breakdown in communications.

And all this against a backdrop of simmering trade tensions — and a bizarre case involving a US official and a possible “sonic attack.”

– Summit sunk –

Trump on Thursday scrapped the historic summit with Kim Jong Un — set to take place June 12 in Singapore — to discuss the “denuclearization” of North Korea.

Before he pulled the plug, Trump had suggested Xi might have played a role in a recent toughening of North Korean rhetoric.

“There was a difference when Kim Jong Un left China the second time,” Trump said.

“There was a different attitude after that meeting and I was a little surprised. … And I think things changed after that meeting so I can’t say that I am happy about it.”

On Monday, Trump suggested China might have prematurely eased up on enforcing economic sanctions against Pyongyang, a move that runs counter to the US leader’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

China insists it is strictly enforcing sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council.

– Pacific exercise –

The Pentagon on Wednesday withdrew its invitation for China to join maritime exercises in the Pacific because of Beijing’s “continued militarization” of the South China Sea.

China hit back at the decision to disinvite it from the Rim of the Pacific exercises, calling it “very non-constructive” and saying it was taken without due reflection.

“It’s also a decision taken lightly and is unhelpful to mutual understanding between China and the US,” China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi said.

– Trade war –

China and the US have stepped back from a potential trade war after Beijing officials were reported to have offered to slash the country’s huge surplus by $200 billion.

But no formal deals have been struck, and China has denied that any figure was set during negotiations in Washington.

Trump — who once accused China of “raping” the US — said he was “not satisfied” with the agreement and the issue is sure to keep grating on relations with Beijing.

– Sonic strains –

On Wednesday, the US embassy in Beijing issued a warning after reporting that an employee in the southern city of Guangzhou was diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) apparently linked to “abnormal sounds.”

“The medical indications are very similar and entirely consistent with the medical indications that have taken place to Americans working in Cuba,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said.

In Cuba last year, 24 diplomats and their family members were left with mysterious injuries resembling brain trauma, which were suspected of being caused by a “sonic attack.”

China said it had investigated the issue but hadn’t found that any organization or individual had “carried out such a sonic influence.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rising-tensions-between-china-us-014346160.html

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1083

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 816, January 12, 2017, Story 1: National Security State Interventionist Elites Oppose Trump Foreign Policy of Non-Intervention — CIA Covert Operations and Special Forces — American Empire of The Warfare and Welfare State or American Republic of The Peace and Prosperity Economy — Videos — Story 2: Warmongering Neocons Banging The War Drums — Videos

Posted on January 13, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Fiscal Policy, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Impeachment, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Life, Media, Middle East, Monetary Policy, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Russia, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Spying, Success, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

 

Story 1: National Security State Interventionist Progressive Elites Oppose Trump’s Foreign Policy of Non-Intervention — CIA Covert Operations and Special Forces — American Empire of The Warfare and Welfare State or American Republic of The Peace and Prosperity Economy — Videos

Image result for cia covert operationsImage result for cartoons cia Image result for branco cartoons nsa

Image result for branco cartoons nsa

Image result for cia covert operations

Image result for cia covert operationsImage result for branco cartoons nsa Image result for branco cartoons nsa Image result for branco cartoons nsa

Image result for branco cartoons neocons

 

Tucker Carlson & Glenn Greenwald: Gov’t Agencies vs Donald Trump 1/12/17

Donald Trump “trash-talking” intelligence community, says former NSA and CIA chief

President-elect Trump’s Emerging Foreign Policy

What do first impressions say about Trump’s foreign policy?

The Trump Revolution Breeds Panic Among Hillary Zombies, Fake News Media Cons and Ossified Pols

How Donald Trump thinks about foreign policy

What Trump Needs to Hear About Foreign Policy

US will stop racing to topple foreign regimes, says Donald Trump

Is Trump’s Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist? Not So Fast

Trump Takes Aim At CIA

Foreign policy hawks not ready to give up turf for Trump’s non-interventionist agenda

Former CIA Director Is Through With Trump Transition Team

The CIA Threatens Trump!

Can Trump Rein In The CIA?

Trump Eyes Bush-Era Torture Architect For CIA Head

Trump Wants Bush Era War Criminal To Run The CIA

Baier on BuzzFeed publishing unverified claims about Trump

Trump To CNN at Press Conference: Drop Dead! You’re FAKE NEWS!

CNN In Desperate Damage Control Over Fake News

Trump Vs. The Intel Community’s Fake News

A Trumped Intelligence Report

Trump Does Not Trust The CIA

The CIA Threatens Trump!

Conway on Russia and intel briefs, Trump business interests

Donald Trump Doesn’t Buy Intelligence Community BS – Do You? YouTube

“Trump will be assassinated” Paul Craig Roberts & Max Keiser December 2016

CIA Covert Operations and U.S. Interventions Since World War II Full documentary

Secrets of the CIA

Inside The CIA: On Company Business (1980) Parts 1 – 3 COMPLETE

The CIA’s SECRET Plan For President Trump

Donald Trump Vs. CIA: Wow!

Trump’s foreign policy vs Bolton’s world view

Did President Trump Receive Same Warning As JFK?

LIVE STREAM: Senate Confirmation Hearing of Mike Pompeo CIA Director

Rubio questions Rep. Mike Pompeo at CIA director confirmation hearing

Rubio questions secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson on repressive regimes

The BLOWBACK SYNDROME: Oil Wars and Overreach

 

IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decade long escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

 

FOR MONTHS, the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

Whatever one’s views are on those debates, it is the democratic framework — the presidential election, the confirmation process, congressional leaders, judicial proceedings, citizen activism and protest, civil disobedience — that should determine how they are resolved. All of those policy disputes were debated out in the open; the public heard them; and Trump won. Nobody should crave the rule of Deep State overlords.

Yet craving Deep State rule is exactly what prominent Democratic operatives and media figures are doing. Any doubt about that is now dispelled. Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being “really dumb” by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them:

And last night, many Democrats openly embraced and celebrated what was, so plainly, an attempt by the Deep State to sabotage an elected official who had defied it: ironically, its own form of blackmail.

 

BACK IN OCTOBER, a political operative and former employee of the British intelligence agency MI6 was being paid by Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump (before that, he was paid by anti-Trump Republicans). He tried to convince countless media outlets to publish a long memo he had written filled with explosive accusations about Trump’s treason, business corruption and sexual escapades, with the overarching theme that Trump was in servitude to Moscow because they were blackmailing and bribing him.

Despite how many had it, no media outlets published it. That was because these were anonymous claims unaccompanied by any evidence at all, and even in this more permissive new media environment, nobody was willing to be journalistically associated with it. As the New York Times’ Executive Editor Dean Baquet put it last night, he would not publish these “totally unsubstantiated” allegations because “we, like others, investigated the allegations and haven’t corroborated them, and we felt we’re not in the business of publishing things we can’t stand by.”

The closest this operative got to success was convincing Mother Jones’s David Corn to publish an October 31 article reporting that “a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country” claims that “he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

But because this was just an anonymous claim unaccompanied by any evidence or any specifics (which Corn withheld), it made very little impact. All of that changed yesterday. Why?

What changed was the intelligence community’s resolution to cause this all to become public and to be viewed as credible. In December, John McCain provided a copy of this report to the FBI and demanded they take it seriously.

At some point last week, the chiefs of the intelligence agencies decided to declare that this ex-British intelligence operative was “credible” enough that his allegations warranted briefing both Trump and Obama about them, thus stamping some sort of vague, indirect, and deniable official approval on these accusations. Someone — by all appearances, numerous officials — then went to CNN to tell them they had done this, causing CNN to go on-air and, in the gravest of tones, announce the “Breaking News” that “the nation’s top intelligence officials” briefed Obama and Trump that Russia had compiled information that “compromised President-elect Trump.”

CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that they could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. Buzzfeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.

Its editor-in-chief Ben Smith published a memo explaining that decision, saying that—- although there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations” — Buzzfeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”

One can certainly object to Buzzfeed’s decision and, as the New York Times notes this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.

But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.

 

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after it was published, the farcical nature of the “dossier” manifested. Not only was its author anonymous, but he was paid by Democrats (and, before that, by Trump’s GOP adversaries) to dig up dirt on Trump. Worse, he himself cited no evidence of any kind, but instead relied on a string of other anonymous people in Russia he claims told him these things. Worse still, the document was filled with amateur errors.

While many of the claims are inherently unverified, some can be confirmed. One such claim — that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August to meet with Russian officials — was strongly denied by Cohen, who insisted he had never been to Prague in his life (Prague is the same place that foreign intelligence officials claimed, in 2001, was the site of a nonexistent meeting between Iraqi officials and 9/11 hijackers, which contributed to 70% of Americans believing, as late as the fall of 2003, that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attack). This morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that “the FBI has found no evidence that [Cohen] traveled to the Czech Republic.”

None of this stopped Democratic operatives and prominent media figures from treating these totally unverified and unvetted allegations as grave revelations. From Vox’s Zach Beauchamp:

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Stunning and believable narrative in leaked docs describing alleged rift in Kremlin over meddling in US elections https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html pic.twitter.com/qY2TuSM5Fc

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Meanwhile, liberal commentator Rebecca Solnit declared this to be a “smoking gun” that proves Trump’s “treason,” while Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas sounded the same theme:

While some Democrats sounded notes of caution — party loyalist Josh Marshall commendably urged: “I would say in reviewing raw, extremely raw ‘intel’, people shld retain their skepticism even if they rightly think Trump is the worst” — the overwhelming reaction was the same as all the other instances where the CIA and its allies released unverified claims about Trump and Russia: instant embrace of the evidence-free assertions as Truth, combined with proclamations that it demonstrated Trump’s status as a traitor (with anyone expressing skepticism designated a Kremlin agent or stooge).

 

THERE IS A REAL DANGER here that this maneuver can harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.

Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.

All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russia hacking — one which even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.

Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.

There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

How The CIA vs Donald Trump War Is Just Getting Started

CIA vs. Donald Trump

[Written by Rachel Blevins]

Just when you think things can’t get crazier with Donald Trump, they do! With these latest developments from the CIA and from U.S. representatives, we are seeing the early signs of an all-out war between the president-elect and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Recent comments from Sen. Chuck Schumer during a recent interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC reveal everything you need to know about what is currently happening behind the scenes in Washington D.C.   “When you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday getting back at you,” Schumer said. “Even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, it is being really dumb.”

Did anyone else catch the fact that with that Schumer is essentially saying that if Trump dares to challenge the CIA, it will retaliate against him?    Of course, if you know the true history of the CIA, you know that their reputation is incredibly low as it is, because they create clandestine operations that overthrow democratically elected leaders. They sabotage governments, they sabotage policies, they work for global elites and they torture people. They are known for doing god-awful things in secret, and getting away with it because of their power.

Following Schumer’s hints that the CIA would retaliate against Trump, former CIA Director James Woolsey announced that he is quitting Trump’s transition team. Many people questioned why he was there in the first place. He is a neo-conservative who pushed for war in Iraq, blamed Iraq for 9/11, and was a key member of the Project for the New American Century. Woolsey is also adamantly against WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, and when I confrontedhim about Operation Mockingbird in 2011, he lied through his teeth.

This all comes as a “hyped up” Senate hearing on alleged Russian hacking failed to lead to any concrete evidence. While there was no evidence presented confirming that the Russian government was involved in the U.S. election, they did provide information on some Ukrainian malware code, which could have been purchased by anyone anonymously online.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper added to the fear campaign on Thursday, when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and said that the alleged Russian interference went far beyond a cyberattack.

“While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted,” Clapper told the committee.

In addition to all of the disinformation, we’re learning that the FBI is blaming Russia when they haven’t even examined the DNC servers, and instead relied on a report produced by a DNC contractor.

What we’re seeing is very clear. We’re seeing the CIA, a clandestine group that has committed horrible atrocities all over the world in secret, versus Donald Trump, a very strong personality who has not backed down. There will be a confrontation, and we will be covering exactly what happens when these two forces collide.

What do you think about this story, and what elements do you think are being overlooked or ignored? Let us know in the comments section!

If you want stay up to date with WeAreChange, and you want to learn more about how you can truly become the change you want to see in the world, check out or website and sign up for our newsletter!

You can also access exclusive content from We Are Change by contributing monthly to our Patreon.

http://wearechange.org/cia-vs-donald-trump-war-just-getting-started/

Trump Dossier Spotlights Russian History of ‘Kompromat’

Diplomats, politicians and bureaucrats have been embarrassed by leaks of compromising material

Unverified allegations in a dossier on President-elect Donald Trump include a claim that Russian officials obtained evidence that could potentially be used for blackmail. Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting on Wednesday.
Unverified allegations in a dossier on President-elect Donald Trump include a claim that Russian officials obtained evidence that could potentially be used for blackmail. Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting on Wednesday. PHOTO: DRUZHININ ALEXEI/ZUMA PRESS

MOSCOW—The public airing of a dossier Tuesday on President-elect Donald Trump casts a spotlight on Russia’s dark art of kompromat, the practice of collecting compromising material on prominent individuals for the purposes of blackmail.

The dossier is packed with unverified allegations, including a claim that Russian officials obtained evidence of Mr. Trump with prostitutes and kept the information in reserve as potential blackmail.

Mr. Trump has dismissed the reports. “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Wednesday. “One last shot at me.”

President-elect Donald Trump says allegations made about him in an unverified dossier prepared by ex-British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, are completely fabricated. WSJ’s Jason Bellini breaks down what we know about the material and the person behind it. Photo: Getty.

The Kremlin has denied any link to the dossier, and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the reports “pulp fiction,” according to Russian news agencies.

Kompromat, a contraction of the Russian phrase “compromising materials,” has a rich history in Russia dating back to the Soviet era. Diplomats, politicians and bureaucrats have all been embarrassed by leaked videos or other material.

While blackmail is by no means unique to Russia, the deployment of kompromat is a regular feature in the country’s bare-fisted domestic politics.

Early last year, the pro-Kremlin television network NTV aired hidden-camera footage of Mikhail Kasyanov, leader of the opposition party Parnas. The footage appeared to show Mr. Kasyanov carrying on an affair with another party member and gossiping about other opposition politicians.

Mr. Kasyanov declined to comment on the video and the use of hidden cameras. The footage, aired ahead of parliamentary elections in September, made Russia’s embattled opposition appear fractured, divided and insignificant. His party didn’t win enough votes to be represented in parliament.

Footage aired last year on a pro-Kremlin network appeared to show opposition leader Mikhail Kasyanov carrying on an affair. Mr. Kasyanov, shown here in December, declined to comment.
Footage aired last year on a pro-Kremlin network appeared to show opposition leader Mikhail Kasyanov carrying on an affair. Mr. Kasyanov, shown here in December, declined to comment. PHOTO: SHCHERBAK ALEXANDER/ZUMA PRESS

Valery Solovyov, a political analyst and historian at Moscow State Institute of International Relations, said the Russian government has a long history of collecting dossiers on dissidents, potential adversaries and political opponents.

“Of course the Kremlin collects compromising material,” he said. “The tradition goes back to the Soviet KGB, and now that material is collected through special services and journalists.”

Journalists, particularly ardently pro-Kremlin TV channels, were used during protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2010-2012 to accuse opposition figures of nefarious deeds, such as collaborating with the U.S. Department of State, then headed by former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Journalists collected kompromat on the opposition as well as distributed materials given to them.

Mr. Solovyov, however, said that only a smattering of the compromising material collected is used against others. Less still comes to light publicly, he added.

“If it is quality and reliable, then it’s best for secret blackmail,” he said.

Kompromat, which might seem the stuff of B-grade spy thrillers, is also used as a tool in diplomatic squabbles with other countries. Western diplomats posted to Russia are trained to avoid sexual entrapment: A married diplomat caught in an extramarital affair, for instance, could be blackmailed into revealing secrets.

The U.S. State Department formally lodged a complaint in 2009, when the Russian-language website Komsomolskaya Pravda posted footage of a man it claimed to be an American diplomat visiting a prostitute. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said at the time the diplomat was the “subject of a smear campaign using the Russian press,” using a fabricated video.

In a country with a rich history of surveillance as a tool of political repression, where security services are feared and respected, kompromat carries a particular resonance.

The fear of surveillance is ingrained in the habits of many Russians, whether or not they are actually being monitored. Russians often have a morbid humor about hidden cameras and it isn’t unusual to hear the phrase, “This isn’t a conversation to have over the phone”

To some Russians, the attention around the Trump dossier is playing out like a Russian political drama. Yuri Skuratov, Russia’s former top prosecutor, said he doubted that the Trump dossier was real.

“This is nothing more than a political act,” he said. “It’s written ideally for the losing side of the election. This is all hype, and for the American reader it tries to explain why Trump suddenly started to have good ties with Russia.”

Mr. Skuratov himself was a victim of compromising material after he began looking into charges of corruption by then-president Boris Yeltsin and his associates. In 1999, a video was aired in which someone who resembled him was filmed in bed with two women. The next year he was dismissed from his position by the country’s upper house of parliament.

The former prosecutor maintains the man in the video wasn’t him.

“It was done in order to take me away when I started to investigate corruption of Yeltsin and his circle,” Mr. Skuratov said. “It was done to get me fired and away from the investigation.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-dossier-spotlights-russian-history-of-kompromat-1484171169

Story 2: Warmongering Neocons Banging The War Drums — Videos

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Image result for cartoons neocons neoconservatives warmongers

Who are the NeoConservatives?

What Is Neoconservatism? Writings on Politics, Economics, Culture, Literature, Education (1995)

National Review’s Neoconservative Agenda

War Party : Documentary on the Neoconservative War Party

Neoconservatives Want Hillary Over Trump

The Danger of Neoconservatism – Ron Paul

The Greatest Danger to America is The Danger From Within

Busting Myths: Trump is NOT a Non-Interventionist

Sen. Marco Rubio questions Rex Tillerson (C-SPAN)

DECLINE of EMPIRES: The Signs of Decay

Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea (Cato Institute Book Forum, 2011)

Betrayal Of The Constitution-An Expose of the Neo-Conservative Agenda

America Needs a Self-Interested Foreign Policy

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 815-816

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 812, December 12, 2016, Story 1: Russian Agents of Influence in Democratic Party Outed Hillary Clinton/DNC (Inside Job) — Putin Payback for Libyan Double Cross — Fake News? or Real News? — What Difference Does It Make? — He Came, He Saw, Clinton Lost — Trump Won — Live With It — Move On — Forward With Trump! — What Crimes Clinton Covered-up By Destroying 33,000 Emails? — Videos — Story 2: Obama Recession in 2017 — Trump Boom in 2018 — Videos

Posted on December 13, 2016. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Defense Spending, Empires, European Union, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Law, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Russia, Senate, Spying, Syria, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

Merry Christmas and A Prosperous New Year

 Broadcasts & Podcasts Will Resume January 9, 2017

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Story 1: Russian Agents of Influence in Democratic Party Outed Hillary Clinton/DNC (Inside Job) — Putin Payback for Libyan Double Cross — Fake News? or Real News? — What Difference Does It Make? — He Came, He Saw, Clinton Lost — Trump Won — Live With It — Move On — Forward With Trump! — What Crimes Clinton Covered-up By Destroying 33,000 Emails? — Videos

Image result for blaming others for your own failuresImage result for blaming others for your own failuresImage result for blaming others for your own failures

Image result for cartoons dnc leaks inside job

Image result for cartoons dnc leaks inside job

Image result for cartoons dnc leaks inside jobImage result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Image result for cartoons trump wins hillary losesImage result for cartoons trump wins hillary losesImage result for cartoons trump wins hillary losesImage result for cartoons trump wins hillary losesImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons russian hackingImage result for cartoons russian hackingImage result for cartoons russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons russian hacking

Image result for cartoons democrats blame russia for clinton's lossImage result for cartoons democrats blame russia for clinton's lossImage result for cartoons hacking dncImage result for cartoons democrats blame russia for clinton's lossImage result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Image result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Tomi Lahren – The Blame Game Continues | Final Thoughts  

Tomi Lahren – The Real “Fake News” 12/08/16 | Final Thoughts

FULL: Bill O’Reilly Interviews Tomi Lahren – Fox News

Donald Trump at Fox News Sunday Special – Full Interview on Russia Hacking Election

Fox News Sunday 12/11/2016: Interview with Donald Trump

Kellyanne Conway MOCKS Hillary Clinton and Democrats, “They’re a BUNCH of Wrist Flickers” – WHAT?

WIKILEAKS Assange says Clinton election hack was ‘inside job’ NOT Russia

Published on Dec 14, 2016

WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL: Assange ally says Clinton election hack was ‘inside job’ NOT Russia

AN ally of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the hack of the Democratic Party in the run up to the US elections was not Russia but instead an ‘inside job’.
Former British ambassador Craig Murray said he has met the person who handed over the e-mails and they WERE from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Clinton and Trump Clash Over Alleged Russian Hack of DNC at the First Presidential Debate

Trump Benefited From Russia Hacking Suggests Obama Spokesman

JUDGE “RUSSIA DID NOT HACK THE ELECTION”! CHAOS! CHUCK TODD AND REINCE PRIEBUS GO AT IT!

BREAKING: WikiLeaks Just ENDED Russia Hacking Rumors!See Who Is Really Behind The DNC Leaks!Assange?

WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL: Assange ally says Clinton election hack was ‘inside job’ NOT Russia.Wikileaks!

The Truth About Fake News | Russia Hacked U.S. Election For Donald Trump?

Democrat hasn’t heard anything from intelligent sources on Russian hacking the election

HEATED EXCHANGE: Tuck vs Democrat on Russian Election Hacking

Corporate Media & Democrats Play Russia FEAR Card; Hide Hillary Clinton’s Russian Record

Def Secretary Gates: Obama Double-Crossed Me

US Russian Cyber Attack Election Propaganda to Cover Clinton Dem Corruption Revealed in Wikileaks

Speaking Of ‘Fake News’!! Rachel Maddow Was So Happy Spewing Out Fake Polls!!

MSNBC Apologizes for Fake News

Globalists Are To Blame For Their Collapse, Not Russia

CIA Agent Admits “No Evidence” for “Fact” of Election Tampering

Clinton Refuses To Take The Blame

Paul Jay and Abby Martin on Trump and ‘Fake News’

The Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes John Podesta

Published on Nov 5, 2016

With the Wikileaks release of thousands of emails belonging to John Podesta, very little is known in US society about Podesta himself. While he’s maintained a low profile, John Podesta is actually considered one of Washington’s biggest players, and one of the most powerful corporate lobbyists in the world.

In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin explores John Podesta’s political rise, his vast network of corporate connections and his think tank “Center for American Progress.” Learn why the Podestas and the Clintons are a match made in ruling class heaven.

Abby Martin on Hillary Clinton’s Hunger for Endless Wars

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents

Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part Two]

Published on Aug 10, 2016

Tariq Ali talks to investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, about his revelations concerning the chemical attack at Ghouta, Syria in August 2013.

Image result for ship used to destroy Syrian chemicals weapons

Image result for ship used to destroy Syrian chemicals weapons cape ray

Image result for ship used to destroy Syrian chemicals weapons

Image result for ship used to destroy Syrian chemicals weapons

Image result for ship used to destroy Syrian chemicals weapons cape ray

Image result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Image result for cartoons branco russian hackingImage result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Image result for cartoons branco russian hacking

Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part One]

Published on Aug 10, 2016

Tariq Ali talks to investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, about the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 and describes what the Americans and Pakistanis knew about his whereabouts.

Glenn Greenwald: Why Did Trump Win? Blame the Failed Policies of the Democratic Party

GREAT INTERVIEW: Stephen Cohen Analyzes US Prospects with Russia after Trump’s Win

John Pilger talks on RT about Trump, Very Interesting Interview

2016 RED ALERT! PUTIN HAS LEFT THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND IS FIGHTING THEM

Putin Tells The West A Dirty Little Sercet! The New World Order Is terrified!

Putin: US / NATO is irreversibly pushing the world towards nuclear war

Biggest News Story Of The Year! And you’ve never heard about it. Until Now.

McCain Steps On Gen Dunford To Protect Establishment Elite War Option in Syria

No-fly zone would require war with Syria and Russia – top US general

Putin Issues No Fly Zone, Puts Obama On Notice!

THEY WILL DESTROY THE ELITE! Vladimir Putin And Donald Trump Have First phone Call

NATO Now In Declared War With Russia!

The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Push for War & the Making of a Failed State

Published on Mar 3, 2016

http://democracynow.org – The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled “The Libya Gamble” on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: http://democracynow.org

‘Greater share of oil production’ Hillary Clinton emails reveal motives of Libya intervention

Libya 5 years after NATO intervention: From one of richest nations in Africa to most troubled

How Will History Judge U.S., Coalition Intervention in Libya?

Global Empire – US 2016: Trump or Hillary?

Hillary Clinton & The Truth About Libya, watch this & you will vote Bernie Sanders P3

Published on May 17, 2016

Minute 23 Dr Derbesh states his feelings about Hillary Clinton.

Tariq Ali talks to Professor Mabruk Derbesh, formerly University of Tripoli, now in exile, about the worsening state of affairs in Libya. May 2016. Dr Derbesh was opposed to Gadaffi, but now is shocked at how how his country was “liberated”.

Original can be found http://videos.telesurtv.net/en/video/…
Part 1 can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSi6…

Hillary Clinton & the truth about Libya: Watch this & you will vote for Bernie Sanders!

Semantics – The Rise and Fall of Muammar al Gaddafi

Gaddafi The Truth About Libya- Documentary

Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi?

This Is How a No-Fly Zone Actually Gets Enforced

Debate The Libyan Intervention: Humanitarian or an Aggression?

Inside Story – NATO’s intervention in Libya

U.N. approves Libya no-fly zone

CNN: UN approves no-fly zone in Libya

CNN: A closer look at Libyan no-fly zone

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for ‘disgusted’ Democratic whistleblowers

  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com  he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources 
  • The leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  ’tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders’
  • Murray says: ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks’
  • ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,’ Murray insists
  • Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by ‘disgusted’ whisteblowers – and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right), told the Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray’s claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta.

In Podesta’s case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic ‘phishing’ scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.

But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’  Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

He said the leakers were motivated by ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University

Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University

His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks – which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.

Wikileaks published the DNC messages in July and the Podesta messages in October. The messages revealed efforts by some DNC officials to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was running against Hillary Clinton.

Others revealed that Clinton aides were concerned about potential conflicts and mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation.

Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities.

He suggested that Podesta’s emails might be ‘of legitimate interest to the security services’ in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

‘I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true,’ he said. ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.’

Murray was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office.

He describes himself as a ‘close associate’ of Julian Assange and has spoken out in support of the Wikileaks founder who has faced rape allegations and is currently confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.

‘The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,’ Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.

‘Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.’

Murray suggested that John Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials

Murray suggested that John Podesta’s emails might be ‘of legitimate interest to the security services’ in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials

The Washington Post reported last Friday that U.S. intelligence agencies had ‘identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails.’

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

‘It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,’ a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. ‘That’s the consensus view.’

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

‘It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,’ a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. ‘That’s the consensus view.’

The Obama administration has been examining Russia’s potential role in trying to influence the presidential election. Officials said Russians hacked the Republican National Committee, but did not release that information in a deliberate effort to damage Clinton and protect Donald Trump.

Several congressional committees are also looking into the suspected Russian interference.

While there is a consensus on Capitol Hill that Russia hacked U.S. political groups and officials, some Republicans say it’s not clear whether the motive was to try to swing the election or just to collect intelligence.

‘Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that’s the subject of investigation,’ said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. ‘But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.’

President elect Donald Trump raised doubts about the reports and said this was an ‘excuse’ by Democrats to explain Clinton’s November loss.

‘It’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,’ said Trump on Fox News Sunday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SwyHoZs8

WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange suggests that Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails
WikiLeaks have suggested that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked the Clinton and Podesta emails, and not Russian hackers as is widely reported.

According to a new interview in the U.K.’s Daily mail newspaper, WikiLeaks say that U.S. intelligence reports suggesting that Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary are “absolutely wrong”.

Alexanderhiggins.com reports:

In the interview Wikileaks envoy Craig Murray and former British ambassador stated the he personally flew to the United States and was handed both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails.

Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Murray stated regardless of whether Russia hacked any emails or not the Wikileaks emails did not come from Russia.

‘Neither of the leaks came from the Russians,’ Murray said. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

He said the motivation behind the leaks was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.’

The new information may likely lead U.S. intelligence sources to the more information about the source of the leak given they will be able to cross-reference Murray’s flight records and cross-reference satellite and CCTV cameras during the time Murray was in Washington.

Murray told the Express that the person that who handed over the e-mails was from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Murray’s statements now officially corroborate prior claims initially made by Director Oliver Stone who suggested the leak was most likely an inside job in an interview with CNN three months ago.

Wikileaks is also retweeting confirming that Russia was not their source.

Although Wikileaks still is not officially naming their source Wikileaks is adding more fuel to the fire fueling the conspiracy that their source was suspiciously murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

As Buzzfeed reported:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange floated the possibility on Tuesday that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was an informant for the organization.

“Whistleblowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks,” Assange said in an interview to be aired Tuesday on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.”

Seth Rich, a DNC employee who did voter outreach, was shot to death last month early in the morning in Washington, D.C. The case is unsolved and police have speculated it was an attempted robbery.

On Reddit, Rich’s death has become the source of theories about whether he was involved in the leaks of emails and files from the Democratic National Committee last month. US intelligence officials have linked the leak to a Russian hack, though there has been no official conclusion on the matter.

“I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange added, when asked what he was alleging. “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

Asked by interviewer Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal why he would speculate about someone being shot, Assange said it showed “our sources face serious risks.”

This was coupled by a tweet from WikiLeaks offering a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s murderer.

ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

Here’s Assange’s Interview:

Murray told the Guardian:

Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Murray said: “I know who leaked them.

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.”

http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-seth-rich-leaked-clinton-emails/

Did the Russians Hack Hillary?

President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?

Here is the back story.

The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies — God only knows the number of secret agencies — have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.

The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.

I have often argued that this is profoundly unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment requires a judicially issued search warrant specifically describing the place to be searched or the thing to be seized before the government may lawfully invade privacy, and these warrants must be based on probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the person whose privacy the government seeks to invade.

Instead of these probable cause-based, judicially issued search warrants, the government obtains what the Fourth Amendment was written to prohibit — general warrants. General warrants are not based on evidence of probable cause of criminal behavior; rather, they are based on government “need.” This is an unconstitutional and absurd standard because the government will always claim that what it wants, it needs.

General warrants do not specifically describe the place to be searched or the thing to be seized; rather, they authorize the bearer to search where he wishes and seize whatever he finds. This is the mindset of the NSA — search everyone, all the time, everywhere — whose data forms the basis for analysis by the other agencies in the intelligence community.

In the case at hand, the CIA and the FBI looked at the same NSA-generated raw data and came to opposite conclusions. Needless to say, I have not seen this data, but I have spoken to those who have, and they are of the view that though there is evidence of leaking, there is no evidence whatsoever of hacking.

Leaking is the theft of private data and its revelation to those not entitled or intended to see it. Hacking is remotely accessing an operational system and altering its contents — for example, removing money from a bank account or contact information from an address book or vote totals from a candidate’s tally. When Trump characterized the CIA claim that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails intending to affect the outcome of the election as ridiculous, this is what he meant: There is no evidence of anyone’s altering the contents of operational systems, but there is evidence — plenty of it — of leaking.

If hackers wanted to affect the outcome of the election, they would have needed to alter the operational systems of those who register voters and count votes, not those who seek votes.

During the final five weeks of the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of DNC and Clinton campaign emails to the public. WikiLeaks denies that its source was the Russian government, yet for the purposes of the DNC and Clinton campaign claims, that is irrelevant because whoever accessed these emails did not alter the operational systems of any of the targets; the accessor just exposed what was found.

We do not know what data the president-elect examined. Yet in six weeks, he will be the chief intelligence officer of the U.S., and he’ll be able to assimilate data as he wishes and reveal what he wants. He should be given the benefit of the doubt because constitutionally, the intelligence community works for him — not for Congress or the American people.I

Who did the leaking to WikiLeaks? Who had an incentive to defeat Clinton? Whose agents’ safety and lives did she jeopardize when she was extremely careless — as the FBI stated — with many state secrets, including the identity and whereabouts of U.S. intelligence agents and resources?

The answer is obvious: It was the same intelligence community that cannot agree on the meaning of the raw data it has analyzed.

Someone leaked the Democrats’ and the Clinton campaign’s private work, and the government has a duty to find the person or entity that did so, even if it was one of the government’s own. Though the truthful revelation of private facts may have altered some voters’ attitudes, there is no evidence that it altered ballot totals. The law guarantees fair elections, not perfect ones.

Did the Russians hack Hillary Clinton? No. No one did. But some American intelligence agents helped WikiLeaks to expose much dirty laundry.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/andrew-p-napolitano/russians-hack-hillary/

 

President Obama Addresses Russian Hacking Review on ‘Daily Show’
Yahoo
– The Washington Times – Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Foreign governments have launched numerous cyberattacks on the U.S. government and sensitive industrial sites, but Republicans say President Obama has not responded in a forceful way to years of Russian hacking.

A more assertive response might have headed off the type of hacking Russia is accused of launching during the presidential election, they say.

Russia, whose supposed cyberoffensive now is generating a Democratic Party movement that would delegitimize the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, has hacked Pentagon systems. In 2014 it penetrated computer networks at the White House and the State Department. Neither the White House nor the mainstream media reacted with any great alarm.

In one of the most extensive hacks on America, Chinese hackers invaded the massive files of the Office of Personnel Management and stole personnel data and security background checks of millions of federal workers.

In other examples, the Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy and oversees the banking industry, detected more than 50 cyberbreaches between 2011 and 2015, and some were called espionage, Reuters reported in June, citing federal records. The IRS also has acknowledged that taxpayer files have been stolen by hackers.

Mr. Obama’s record on defeating hackers has come into focus during the transition as he orders a sweeping probe of Russia’s alleged hack on the president’s own Democratic Party.

His White House spokesman has joined Democratic politicians in issuing a blistering attack on Mr. Trump and his aides for ties to Russia, even as it was this administration that early on reached out to the Kremlin and asked for a “reset” in relations. In 2010 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped Moscow create a “Russian Silicon Valley.” White House press secretary Josh Earnest even seemingly questioned the patriotism of Trump supporters in Congress.

House intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes accused Mr. Obama of not taking Russia’s cyberthreat seriously until now, a month before he leave office, when Democratic Party politics are involved.

“Russia’s cyberattacks are no surprise to the House intelligence committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s belligerence for years,” Mr. Nunes said. “As I’ve said many times, the intelligence community has repeatedly failed to anticipate [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s hostile actions.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous intelligence committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat,” said Mr. Nunes, California Republican.

CIA Director John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s former campaign adviser and White House aide, has taken the extraordinary step of having his agency add to the climate of illegitimacy Democrats are trying to wrap around the Republican president-elect.

The Washington Post reported last week that CIA briefers told senators that Mr. Putin had ordered the hacking to help elect Mr. Trump, who sporadically has praised the former KGB officer as a stronger leader than Mr. Obama.

The CIA assessment goes well beyond a statement by James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence. He told the House intelligence committee on Nov. 17 that his agency does not have good intelligence on any link between the Putin regime and WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Mr. Clapper assessed Russia’s motives as a desire to “interfere” in elections in the West, as it has done in Europe. He did not say it was designed to get Mr. Trump elected.

Former CIA officer Kent Clizbe charges that Mr. Brennan has politicized the spy agency, and with the hacking brief to Congress, even more so today.

“But all the politicization of the CIA of the previous eight years is nothing compared to Brennan’s current operation — his vile use of the good name of the CIA in an attempt to invalidate our presidential election,” Mr. Clizbe said. “Brennan’s misuse of the CIA in an effort to serve his political masters is unprecedented and unforgivable. These are the actions of totalitarian dictators, using foreign security services to sully political opponents. Someone needs to stop him before it’s too late.”

Mr. Earnest, the White House press secretary, was asked Monday what the administration did to thwart Russia from hacking U.S. sites.

“Our intelligence community, our national security agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, were closely watching Russia’s malicious cyberactivity,” he said. “There was an ongoing investigation. It was being investigated. It was being closely watched in order to protect our democracy.”

Mr. Earnest unleashed a long attack on Mr. Trump, a recitation that might be unprecedented for a White House during what is supposed to be a smooth transition.

“You didn’t need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyberactivity,” Mr. Earnest said. “The president-elect didn’t call it into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton. So he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on. The last several weeks of the election were focused on a discussion of emails that had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were emails from the DNC and John Podesta — not from the RNC and Steve Bannon.”

Mr. Bannon, a former Breitbart News executive, is a senior Trump adviser headed to the White House.

Mr. Trump said in July that perhaps Russia could find the 33,000 emails deleted from Mrs. Clinton’s secret server during her tenure at the State Department. A federal judge ruled that her exclusive use of a private server for government business violated federal information laws.

Mr. Earnest also attacked Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress.

“So what I’ve stated is not an argument but really just a presentation of objective facts about what all of you and the American public knew in advance of the election,” he said. “And, yes, this was all material that was known by Republican politicians in the Congress that endorsed the president-elect. And how they reconcile their political strategy and their patriotism is something they’re going to have to explain.”

One of those supporters is Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and a former Marine Corps officer who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

“How misinformed. I think this statement verifies just how out of touch and clueless this administration truly is to the demands and expectations of the public,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s chief of staff. “There’s a reason why Democrats don’t have the House and the Senate, and have lost seats in various elections. I can tell you that Rep. Hunter was not duped by any stretch, and to question his patriotism means that he’s being questioned both as a lawmaker who loves this country and will fight for its interests and a U.S. Marine who did three tours.”

He added: “If the administration and Democrats are so worried about Russian hacking, they should have done something about it. They didn’t, but stating concerns now sure makes it one heck of an argument of convenience.”

As Mr. Obama began his second term, a number of experts said the U.S. still had not adjusted to the new world of hundreds of hackers attacking America daily.

“We are in a conflict — some would call it war,” Oracle’s security chief Mary Ann Davidson told Congress. “Let’s call it what it is. Given the diversity of potentially hostile entities building cadres of cyberwarriors probing our systems for weakness, infiltrating government networks and making similar attempts against businesses and critical industries, including our defense systems, is there any other conclusion to be reached?”

It was not until February that the White House proposed $3 billion in new funding to upgrade cyberdefenses and appoint a federal czar to oversee network protection.

When Russia hacked the White House two years ago, there did not appear any public threats against Moscow. The news media treated the story as a sign of the times: China, Russia and other adversaries are trying to hack into thousands of computer networks.

What makes the election hacking different, Democrats say, is that a foreign power was interfering in an election by targeting Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman and the DNC. WikiLeaks periodically dumped huge volumes of emails, creating news stories on Clinton aides’ intolerance toward Christians and, sometimes, toward each other.

Mr. Earnest stopped short of saying that the embarrassing disclosures released by WikiLeaks were a main factor in the election’s outcome, noting that analysts have cited a number of issues, such as Mrs. Clinton’s official emails and her strategy in battleground states.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/13/obama-shrugs-off-russian-hacking-until-donald-trum/

Webster Tarpley: Obama’s Bay of Pigs in Libya – Imperialist Aggression Shreds UN Charter 1/2

Uploaded on Mar 21, 2011

Webster Tarpley
March 21, 2011
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Late today US and British cruise missiles joined with French and other NATO combat aircraft in Operation Odyssey Dawn/Operation Ellamy, a neo-imperialist bombing attack under fake humanitarian cover against the sovereign state of Libya. Acting under UN Security Council resolution 1973, US naval forces in the Mediterranean on Saturday night local time fired 112 cruise missiles at targets which the Pentagon claimed were related to Libya’s air defense system. But Mohammed al-Zawi, the Secretary General of the Libyan Parliament, told a Tripoli press conference that the “barbaric armed attack” and “savage aggression” had hit residential areas and office buildings as well as military targets, filling the hospitals of Tripoli and Misurata with civilian victims. Zawi accused the foreign powers of acting to protect a rebel leadership which contains notorious terrorist elements. The Libyan government repeated its request for the UN to send international observers to report objectively on events in Libya.

The attacking forces are expected to deploy more cruise missiles, Predator drones, and bombers, seeking to destroy the Libyan air defense system as a prelude to the systematic decimation of Libyan ground units. International observers have noted that US intelligence about Libya may be substandard, and that many cruise missiles may indeed have struck non-military targets.

Libya had responded to the UN vote by declaring a cease-fire, but Obama and Cameron brushed that aside. On Saturday, France 24 and al-Jazeera of Qatar, international propaganda networks hyping the attacks, broadcast hysterical reports of Qaddafi’s forces allegedly attacking the rebel stronghold of Bengazi. They showed a picture of a jet fighter being shot down and claimed this proved Qaddafi was defying the UN by keeping up his air strikes. It later turned out that the destroyed plane had belonged to the rebel air force. Such coverage provided justification for the bombing attacks starting a few hours later. The parallels to the Kuwait incubator babies hoax of 1990 were evident. Qaddafi loyalists said Saturday’s fighting was caused by rebel assaults on government lines in the hopes of provoking an air attack, plus local residents defending themselves against the rebels.

At the UN vote, the Indian delegate correctly pointed out that the decision to start the war had been made on the basis of no reliable information whatsoever, since UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s envoy to Libya had never reported to the Security Council. The bombing started shortly after a glittering Paris summit “in support of the Libyan people,” where Sarkozy, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Harper of Canada and other imperialist politicians had strutted and postured.

Token contingents from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were supposed to take part in the attack, but were nowhere to be seen, while some Arab states were expected to provide financial support. The minimum estimated cost of maintaining a no-fly zone over Libya for one year is estimated in the neighborhood of $15 billion — enough to fund WIC high-protein meals for impoverished US mothers and infants for two years.
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-bay-of…

Webster Tarpley: Obama’s Bay of Pigs in Libya – Imperialist Aggression Shreds UN Charter 2/2

From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Fake Intelligence’
WAYNE MADSEN | 13.12.2016 | OPINION

From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Fake Intelligence’

Never in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency has it and its surrogates so blatantly and boldly interfered in a U.S. election. The U.S. media, in a matter of hours, altered course from concentrating on «fake news» about innocent pizzerias being linked to child sexual exploitation to spotlighting «fake intelligence» about Russia’s alleged cyber-espionage operation designed to elect Donald Trump president. The CIA leaked to The Washington Post, the owner of which has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing, findings of a secret report on Russia’s alleged «fixing» of the 2016 U.S. presidential election to favor Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The scandal-plagued Mrs. Clinton was defeated by Trump not because of nefarious cyber-sleuths from Moscow but because she and her campaign forgot how Barack Obama’s and her husband’s free trade deals destroyed the economic lifeblood of America, particularly in the «rust belt» Midwestern states. Rather than talk jobs and the economy, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign concentrated on such trivial matters as trans-gender restrooms and a former Miss Venezuela harping in poor housemaid English about how she was insulted over her weight by Trump.

Mrs. Clinton has been reduced to appearing in public dressed in purple outfits looking like the children’s character «Barney» the dinosaur. Clinton’s «purple haze» is a continuation of George Soros’s election-overturning «Purple Revolution». While Soros-paid protesters commit acts of vandalism across the country, the failed presidential candidate is pathetically complaining about «fake news». But when it comes to the CIA’s «fake intelligence» about Russia and the U.S. election, some of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent supporters are demanding that the results of the November 8th election be rejected and that President Obama remain in office indefinitely until a new election can be sorted out. Of course, none of this is constitutional. And the Clintonistas even have a novel solution for dealing with the certain resulting protests by states that voted for Trump and his supporters: Obama must declare martial law and suspend the U.S. Constitution.

The CIA intelligence on Russian involvement in the U.S. presidential election is so sketchy that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in response to questions from members of Congress who were briefed on the CIA report, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the CIA’s contentions about Russia were «fuzzy and ambiguous». The FBI did not support the CIA’s findings, claiming that the CIA’s conclusions lacked «facts and tangible evidence». Even the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Devin Nunes of California, told The Washington Post that, as far as he was concerned, the CIA conclusions about Russia lacked «clear evidence», adding, «There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it».

But the comments of Nunes and the FBI have not prevented the CIA and their puppet-stringed Democrats and media pundits from complaining about a «rigged» election and even the need for an election «do over». There are no constitutional provisions for election remakes in the United States. Obama, who claims to be a constitutional scholar, did not help matters by ordering the intelligence community to undertake a full-scale investigation of Russia’s alleged involvement in the U.S. election. Chomping at the bit to derail Trump’s selection of Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State are the «all-but-married» neocon duo of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. This political version of «Ken and Barbie» want to turn Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing into a Russia-bashing event. McCain, continuing to show classic signs of dementia, declared that Russia waged a form of «warfare» against the United States during the election campaign. This is the same man who thought selecting Alaska’s governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 vice presidential running mate was wise political move.

It is instructive that Obama, by ordering an investigation into foreign interference in the election, helped provide ammunition to the CIA in trying to nullify the election results. Obama’s actions came the same week that Gambia’s dictator president, Yahya Jammeh — after conceding his re-election loss to his opponent — reversed course and nullified the election and Ghana’s President John Mahama, dragged his feet on conceding his election loss to his opponent. Obama, who is a friend of both Jammeh and Mahama, was acting more like a tin-pot African dictator than President of the United States in lending official credence to the election conspiracy story involving Russia.

Trump’s transition team dismissed the CIA’s charges and their flimsy report, stating, these are «the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction». It was CIA director George Tenet that told George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11 that it was a «a slam dunk case» that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The claim was used as prima facie evidence for the U.S. to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now, the very same CIA and some of the same discredited CIA officials are trying to convince the American people that Russia somehow «selected» Trump as president of the United States.

During the election campaign, it was not Russia, but the CIA that was trying to influence the American people. In August, after Trump’s nomination for president, former acting CIA director Michael Morrel said, «Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security». Morrel then began the CIA’s campaign to link Trump to Russia by telling CBS News that, «we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation». By «we», Morrel was saying the CIA. Those comments, alone, showed a CIA that was not hesitant to play favorites in the U.S. election. The entire meme that Russia interfered with the presidential election is a false one. The real headlines should read: «CIA interfered in presidential election by supporting Clinton over Trump».

Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, the architect of NSA’s unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program, said that Trump was «factually incorrect” in dismissing the CIA’s report about Russia’s alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails prior to the election. Five days before the election, Hayden penned an op-ed column for the CIA-linked Washington Post, in which he claimed that Trump was a «polezni durak», or «useful fool», for President Vladimir Putin. Such political commentary by intelligence chiefs, active or retired, is unprecedented in modern times.

Former CIA clandestine operative Robert Baer told CNN that he favors an election re-vote, even though there is no constitutional provision for one. Baer said, «It looks like to me, the Russians did interfere in our elections… Having worked in the CIA, if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections, and any democracy would». This is where Baer is altering history to suit himself and his Democratic friends. The CIA repeatedly has interfered in elections in Europe and Asia, as well as Latin America, Africa, and Oceania and there were no «do-overs» but plenty of coups engineered by the boys from Langley. Baer continued, «I don’t know how it would work constitutionally, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence… If the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again as an American citizen».

It is doubtful that Baer would have made his comments had he not been given some sort of green light from the CIA director, the Saudi-loving John Brennan. Brennan spent so much time as the CIA station chief in Riyadh kissing the robes of the Saudi royals that he lost any conception of what a constitutional federal republic is all about. It was Brennan who prevailed on Obama to fire Trump’s national security adviser-designate, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, as chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn concluded that it was Brennan and Obama who authorized the creation of the Islamic State to help topple the Syrian government.

The CIA has learned nothing from its blatant involvement in the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the 1972 set-up of President Richard Nixon in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, the 1980 «October Surprise» that resulted in President Jimmy Carter’s re-election loss, and the 1980s «Iran-contra» scandal that almost forced President Ronald Reagan from office through impeachment and his replacement by the former CIA director, Vice President George H. W. Bush.

The CIA is the actual villain in the 2016 presidential election, just as it has been the villain in every major domestic and foreign scandal involving the United States since 1947. The problem with the CIA is that for the past 70 years it has held sway over almost every facet of America’s political, social, religious, entertainment, and educational life. As described in this author’s newly-released book, «The Almost Classified Guide to CIA Proprietaries, Front Companies & Contractors», the CIA has stamped its insidious imprimatur on every sector of American society, including the media. It is the CIA’s remote-controlled media, with its «fake news» and its pushing of the CIA’s «fake intelligence», that is victimizing the American people. President Trump’s first action as commander-in-chief should be a complete shake-up of the CIA with the goal of doing what President Kennedy vowed to do with the «bastards» who ran the agency: splinter it in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. The CIA were bastards in the early 1960s and they continue to be bastards today. Trump should fire every one of the bastards on January 20, 2017.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/13/from-fake-news-to-fake-intelligence.html

Putin calls Obama ‘decent man’ for confessing Libya was his ‘greatest mistake’

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and Russia's President Vladimir Putin. © Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the US against repeating the mistake it made in Libya in Syria, noting that Barack Obama’s confession about Libya being his “greatest mistake” shows the US President is a “decent person.”

Firstly, it confirms once again that the current US president is a decent man – and I say this without irony, because it’s not easy to say such things,” President Putin said during his annual Q&A session.

He recalled that Barack Obama, while still a senator, had criticized the actions of the US administration on its 2003 Iraq campaign.

Unfortunately, [Obama] himself made those mistakes in Libya. It is very good that my colleague has the courage to [admit it], not everyone can do it,” Putin said, adding that “only a strong man” can make such bold statements. But Putin stressed “the bad thing is that this series of errors continues. After all, the same mistake was almost made in Syria, and it is still not clear what the outcome will be.

When asked by Fox News last week what his “worst mistake” as a president had been, the US leader answered: “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.

Putin’s response to the question about Obama was one of the most unexpected at the Q&A session.

When asked about his thoughts on Obama leaving his post later this year, the Russian president said “we will all leave some day,” adding, “there will come a new president, and we will work with the new one.” He did not, however, say who he prefers to see as US president – Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, saying only that he “prefers someone less exceptional.

https://www.rt.com/news/339636-obama-putin-russia-us/

When Putin Bailed Out Obama

Story 2: Obama Recession in 2017 — Trump Boom in 2018 — Videos

Image result for 10 year treasury bond history through 2016

Image result for federal feds rates history

Image result for federal feds rate hike december 14, 2016

Image result for 10 year treasury bond history throught 2016

Image result for 10 year treasury bond history through 2016

US Fed raises key interest rate, as expected

Yellen Speech On FOMC + Market Ticks

Jim Rickards on The U S Dollar, Interest Rates & Donald Trump

Mr Marc Faber The Risk of Global Collapse

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGIMiJ7VF2U]

Marc Faber The Risk of Global Collapse and American Economy

Why Economic Collapse Will Happen Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux

Jim Rogers Interview on This Week Interest Rates Will Rise, New Recession Imminent

Jim Rogers 2016 | Stock Market Cash – Fox Business News Gold Dollar Collapse

JIM ROGERS Shocking Explanations about Donald Trump MUST LİSTEN

Jim Rogers: Buy Russia after Trump win

Peter Schiff on Trump, the Trade Deficit, the Fed, and More

Ep. 214: A Candidate’s Bubble Is a President-Elect’s Bull Market

BREAKING NEWS – TRUMP CABINET PREDICTS RECESSION IN 2017

Published on Dec 4, 2016

BREAKING!!
The new Sec. Of Commerce Wilbur Ross predicts that an economic U.S. Recession is “Likely in Next 18 Months”.
IT Production

Jim Rickards 2016 12 9 – The US Economy Is Too Weak

Published on Dec 8, 2016

Jim Rickards 2016 12 9 – The US Economy Is Too Weak

GLOBALISTS DECLARE TRUMP WILL USHER IN NEW ERA OF PROSPERITY FOR THE UNITED STATES

Trump economic advisor: Obama, Clinton economy is dying

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 806-812

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 767, September 30, 2016, Story 1: Obama’s October Surprise Surrender Of The Internet Domain Names To Multinational Organization Including Such Tyrannies as China, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Russia — The Road To Global Internet Censorship (GIC) –In Your Guts You Know Obama’s Nuts — Yes ICANN — Videos — Story 2: National Security Agency — Fourth Amendment of United States Constitution — Edward Snowden — William Binney — Thomas Drake — Turnkey Tyranny — Collect It All So We Can Know It All — Tailored Access Operations (TAO) — Cyberwar — Videos

Posted on September 30, 2016. Filed under: Applications, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Fourth Amendment, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Islam, Obama, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Scandals, Senate, Servers, Software, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Story 1: Obama’s October Surprise Surrender Of The Internet Domain Names To Multinational Organization Including Such Tyrannies as China, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Russia — The Road To Global Internet Censorship (GIC) –In Your Guts You Know Obama’s Nuts — Yes ICANN — Videos

Image result for cartoons internet give away by obama

Image result for cartoons stop obama give away to ICANN

Image result for cartoons ICANN

Image result for cartoons obama give away ICANN

Image result for cartoons obama give away to ICANN

Image result for cartoons internet give away by obama

Image result for cartoons stop obama give away to ICANN

Image result for cartoons internet give away by obama

Image result for jon postel 

STUNNING SECRET of Julian Assange and Obama’s Internet Surrender to ICANN!! (Hillary’s Demise)

Julian Assange – Wikileaks has the email put Clinton in prison!

It Finally Happened: America Gave up the Internet Today to the UN

What Obama’s internet ‘giveaway’ is really about

The Internet Takeover ICANN & The UN Oct 1, 2016

ACTION REQUIRED: STOP THE INTERNET TAKEOVER NOW!

SR#1210 – 6 Days Until Internet D-Day? Obama Givesaway Control & Oversight -IANA -ICANN

Stop President Obama’s Internet Giveaway – The Federalist Society – 9/17/2016

October Surprise: Obama Is About to Give Dictators Control of the Internet

Obama Admin Plans To Give Global Control Over Internet Domain Names – America’s Election HQ

Sen. Cruz Speaks on Internet Freedom at The Heritage Foundation

Sen. Cruz Urges Colleagues to Stop Obama’s Internet Giveaway

Sen. Cruz Questions NTIA Assistant Secretary Strickling – Part 1

Sen. Cruz Questions ICANN’s CEO & President Marby – Part 2

Sen. Cruz Questions Witnesses at Internet Freedom Subcommittee Hearing – Part 3

Sen. Cruz Questions Witnesses at Internet Freedom Subcommittee Hearing – Part 4

Sen. Cruz Questions Witnesses at Internet Freedom Subcommittee Hearing – Part 5

Hearing On Obama Relinquishing Control Of The Internet Domain Name System

Blackburn on Obama Internet Giveaway

Obama Plans To Give Control of the Internet to the World at Large: Why We Must Stop Him

Obama Plays Dumb On UN Takeover Of The Internet Oct 1st

ALERT! UN to SHUTDOWN Internet Oct 1, 2016

Obama’s Internet Surrender: ICANN GIVEAWAY

The Clock Is Ticking, The Control Of The Internet Will Shift To A Foreign Power

The Band – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Jim DeMint: It’s now or never to save the internet – Fox News

Fox NewsJim DeMint: It’s now or never to save the internetFox NewsAlthough there are many problems with this budget deal, only one is irreversible and permanent: allowing the Obama administration to cede oversight of the internet to foreign bodies. It’s troubling that the Senate has failed to include language …Congress Has Three Days to Stop Obama’s Internet SurrenderBreitbart NewsRepublicans Say Obama Administration Is Giving Away The InternetNPRHas the United States really ‘lost control’ of the internet? – CSMonitor …Christian Science MonitorNew York Times -Daily Signal -The Hill -YouTubeall 42 news articles »
Source: internet

7 Days Before Obama Gives Away Internet & National Security

Jody Westby

In one week, President Obama will allow what remains of the United States’ control over the Internet to pass to a California non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  This is a reckless and dangerous decision that has serious national security consequences that have not been fully considered.

Currently, ICANN has a contract with the Department of Commerce’sNational Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to manage the naming and numbering functions associated with the Internet. The most important of these is the assignment of Internet Protocol Addresses (IP Addresses) to domain names.  This is called theIANA function — Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.  ICANN performs this function pursuant to its contract, then NTIA reviews the assignment, and authorizes Verisign to post the IP Address to the “A server” — the authoritative root zone server that is the “master” file of all IP Addresses.  This A server is replicated to all of the other root zone servers globally on a daily basis. This is how a domain name gets online.

Domain Name —> IP Address Assigned —> NTIA Reviews & Authorizes —> Verisign Posts

Thus, the integrity of every IP Address for every domain name on the Internet is under U.S. control and stewardship.  The NTIA contract with ICANN expires October 1, 2016.  Even though it could be extended for any period through September 2019, upon expiration, President Obama has agreed to let the Department of Commerce hand full control over the IANA functions to ICANN, effectively ceding the last control that the U.S. has over the Internet to an ambitious non-profit organization that will have no ties to the U.S. Government.

To be fair, some people are very much in favor of the transfer.  Some claim that getting the government out and transferring all authority to ICANN will help ensure a multi-stakeholder process to Internet governance and shared authority over the Internet.  Others claim the transfer will help ensure freedom of expression because giving our control to ICANN will keep the Internet out of the hands of the UN and its International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Russia and China have been grasping for it.  These governance issues, however, have overshadowed the national security considerations and proper attention has not been given to the importance of our control over the IANA function.  We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Solutions can be designed to meet legitimate concerns of users and nation states, while preserving national security interests.

Others, however, believe the transfer is not only a bad idea, it is mad.  Currently, the U.S. Government vets and approves every domain name and IP Address on the Internet. When the A server is replicated nightly, it is done following U.S. Government oversight and authority to post the new IP Addresses.  Now, think about if the U.S. was engaged in cyberwar — a situation surely to occur.  Under this new arrangement, the U.S. may not know if all of the IP Addresses for domain names are legitimate or if they have been manipulated or compromised in some fashion.  Moreover, the Government’s — and the private sector’s — ability to get new sites accessible on the Internet would be dependent upon the actions of a non-profit organization which is increasingly multinational. It is also possible that ICANN may fall under the influence of powerful corporations or nation states who do not have U.S. national security interests at the forefront.

In sum, in a cyberwar scenario, the U.S. government may not have control over a very strategic area of its military operations — cyber.  Even if it secures military and government domains and IP Addresses, the targets in cyber warfare are likely to be civilian, and the U.S. Government requires private sector infrastructure to operate.  Since the Internet underpins our computer systems, electrical grids, communication systems, and other critical infrastructure, our entire civilian society could be at risk: the Internet may not function properly or changes necessary to protect us may not be implemented or made in a timely fashion.  I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that ICANN is not to be trusted today. I am simply stating that the Internet is critical to our military operations and civilian society and certaintyregarding its operations and changes to its addressing system is a vital national security interest that cannot be cavalierly given away.

ICANN’s own documents describe the U.S. Government’s role this way:

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunication and
Information Administration (NTIA) provides general stewardship of
ICANN’s performance of the root zone management function….
When a request is made to change any information contained within the root,
the details of the request are transmitted by ICANN to NTIA as a recommendation
for implementation in the root. NTIA verifies that ICANN followed established
procedure and policy in processing the change request; and then authorizes
Verisign and ICANN to implement the change in the authoritative root zone file and
root zone database, respectively.

Once the contract expires and NTIA hands authority to ICANN, this cannot be reversed by Congress or a new Administration.  Once it is given away, it is gone, just like when you sell your car, you can’t take it back.  The U.S. loses control over IANA functions.

In the future, how are we to know that established processes were followed in making such changes?  ICANN is certainly not dominated by Americans.  Take a look at its board.  The current board is highly responsible, and its chairman, Steve Crocker, is a patriot and one of the finest people I know.  Well, people come and go, but authority remains.  By transferring this authority, we are giving ICANN the authority to make decisions (or not make decisions) important to our national and economic security interests (remember, every U.S. company needs to be on the Internet to make money and conduct its operations).

It is also important to acknowledge that the U.S. Government has failed miserably over the past decade in establishing meaningful stakeholder involvement on Internet governance issues.  I agree that other nations should be involved in Internet governance and their input should be meaningful and listened to.  It is possible to structure current oversight in such a way that multi-stakeholders are involved.  For example, existing U.S. authority could be shared with other governments and stakeholders; the U.S. does not necessarily have to have sole authority.  Designing such structures is possible, but not in 7 days.

There also is the consideration that the U.S. developed the Internet and allowed the National Science Foundation to turn it over to four commercial providers on April 30, 1995, but it did not give away the IANA function.  This was a retained property interest.  Just because there are 3.6 billion Internet users today, it does not mean that the U.S. should no longer retain the IANA function.  There should be some measure of respect for the control that the U.S. retained.  It is a U.S. Government property interest that is important to national security.  The U.S. Government has been a responsible steward of the Internet and ensured that its resources have remained stable and available to people around the globe.

If the U.S. is to give up the IANA function, a clear and certain structure should be developed that ensures multi-stakeholder involvement, as well as protection of U.S. — and every other countries’ — national security interests.  ICANN is not a “certain” structure.  It is a non-profit organization that is not subject to the international laws and treaties applicable to nation states, diplomatic processes and protocols, or even certain jurisdiction.  ICANN currently has offices in Los Angeles, Singapore, and Istanbul.

So, what can be done if the NTIA contract is to expire in only 7 days?  President Obama should extend the turnover of IANA functions one year so these national security considerations can be fully debated and a new multi-stakeholder governance approach can be developed.  Are you an Internet user?  Does your company need the Internet to operate?  Is public safety and certainty in military operations important to you and your family in times of warfare?  Take some action.  Send the President an email at president@whitehouse.gov. Maybe it will make him think about his legacy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2016/09/24/7-days-before-obama-gives-away-internet-national-security/#546310341216

 

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.

If the U.S. abdicates internet stewardship, the United Nations might take control.

When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

Delaware’s secretary of state objected: “Legitimate policy concerns have been systematically brushed to the curb by Icann staffers well-skilled at manufacturing bureaucratic processes to disguise pre-determined decisions.” Dot Registry’s lawyer, Arif Ali of the Dechert firm, told me last week his experience made clear “Icann is not ready to govern itself.”

Icann also refuses to award the .gay domain to community groups representing gay people around the world. Icann’s ombudsman recently urged his group to “put an end to this long and difficult issue” by granting the domain. Icann prefers to earn larger fees by putting the .gay domain up for auction among for-profit domain companies.

And Icann rejects the community application for the .cpa domain made by the American Institute of CPAs, which along with other accounting groups argues consumers should expect the .cpa address only to be used by legitimate accountants, not by the highest bidder. An AICPA spokesman told me he has a pile of paperwork three feet high on the five-year quest for the .cpa domain. The professional group objected in a recent appeal: “The process seems skewed toward a financial outcome that benefits Icann itself.”

The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one—or by a Web-censoring U.N. Congress still has time to extend its ban on the Obama administration giving up protection of the internet. Icann has given it every reason to do so.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165

 

Cruz’s Internet Crusade Gains Steam in U.S. Funding Debate

ICANN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ICANN
ICANN Logo
Founded September 18, 1998; 18 years ago
Focus Manage Internet protocol numbers and Domain Name System root
Location
Key people
Göran Marby (CEO and President),Steve Crocker (Chairman of the Board)
Slogan One World. One Internet.
Website www.icann.org

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN/ˈkæn/ eye-kan) is a nonprofit organization that is responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces of the Internet – thereby ensuring the network’s stable and secure operation.[1] ICANN performs the actual technical maintenance work of the central Internet address pools and DNS Root registries pursuant to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function contract.

Much of its work has concerned the Internet’s global Domain Name System, including policy development for internationalization of the DNS system, introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs), and the operation of root name servers. The numbering facilities ICANN manages include the Internet Protocol address spaces for IPv4and IPv6, and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries. ICANN also maintains registries of Internet protocol identifiers.

ICANN’s primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of the global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.[2]

ICANN was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998 in the state of California.[3] It is headquartered in the Playa Vista neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles.

History

Before the establishment of ICANN, the IANA function of administering registries of Internet protocol identifiers (including the distributing top-level domains and IP addresses) was performed by Jon Postel, a Computer Science researcher who had been involved in the creation of ARPANET, first at UCLA and then at the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute (ISI).[4][5] In 1997 Postel testified before Congress that this had come about as a “side task” to this research work.[6] The Information Sciences Institute was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, as was SRI International’s Network Information Center, which also performed some assigned name functions.[7]

As the Internet grew and expanded globally, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a process to establish a new organization to perform the IANA functions. On January 30, 1998, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, issued for comment, “A Proposal to Improve the Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses.” The proposed rule making, or “Green Paper“, was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1998, providing opportunity for public comment. NTIA received more than 650 comments as of March 23, 1998, when the comment period closed.[8]

The Green Paper proposed certain actions designed to privatize the management of Internet names and addresses in a manner that allows for the development of competition and facilitates global participation in Internet management. The Green Paper proposed for discussion a variety of issues relating to DNS management including private sector creation of a new not-for-profit corporation (the “new corporation”) managed by a globally and functionally representative Board of Directors.[9] ICANN was formed in response to this policy.[citation needed] ICANN manages the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) under contract to the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and pursuant to an agreement with the IETF.[10]

ICANN was incorporated in California on September 30, 1998, with entrepreneur and philanthropist Esther Dyson as founding chairwoman.[3] It is qualified to do business in the District of Columbia.[11] ICANN was established in California due to the presence of Jon Postel, who was a founder of ICANN and was set to be its first Chief Technology Officer prior to his unexpected death. ICANN formerly operated from the sameMarina del Rey building where Postel formerly worked, which is home to an office of the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. However, ICANN’s headquarters is now located in the nearby Playa Vista section of Los Angeles.

Per its original Bylaws, primary responsibility for policy formation in ICANN was to be delegated to three supporting organizations (Address Supporting Organization, Domain Name Supporting Organization, and Protocol Supporting Organization), each of which was to develop and recommend substantive policies and procedures for the management of the identifiers within their respective scope. They were also required to be financially independent from ICANN.[12] As expected, the Regional Internet Registries and the IETF agreed to serve as the Address Supporting Organization and Protocol Supporting Organization respectively,[13][14]and ICANN issued a call for interested parties to propose the structure and composition of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.[15] On 4 March 1999, the ICANN Board, based in part on the DNSO proposals received, decided instead on an alternate construction for the DNSO which delineated specific constituencies bodies within ICANN itself,[16][17] thus adding primary responsibility for DNS policy development to ICANN’s existing duties of oversight and coordination.

On July 26, 2006, the United States government renewed the contract with ICANN for performance of the IANA function for an additional one to five years.[18] The context of ICANN’s relationship with the U.S. government was clarified on September 29, 2006 when ICANN signed a new Memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC).[19] This document gave the DOC oversight over some of the ICANN operations.[19][20]

During July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement[21] that it has “no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN”. The letter also stresses the separate roles of the IANA and VeriSign.[22]

On September 30, 2009, ICANN signed an agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC), known as the “Affirmation of Commitments”, that confirmed ICANN’s commitment to a multi-stakeholder governance model, [23] but did not remove it from DOC oversight and control.

On March 10, 2016, ICANN and the DOC signed a historic, culminating agreement to finally remove ICANN and IANA from the control and oversight of the DOC.[24] This agreement is scheduled to go for approval by the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration in April, 2016. This approval must occur before ICANN’s current contract with the DOC expires in September, 2016.[needs update]

Notable events

On March 18, 2002, publicly elected At-Large Representative for North America board member Karl Auerbach sued ICANN in Superior Court in California to gain access to ICANN’s accounting records without restriction. Auerbach won.[25]

During September and October 2003, ICANN played a crucial role in the conflict over VeriSign‘s “wild card” DNS service Site Finder. After an open letter from ICANN issuing an ultimatum to VeriSign, later endorsed by the Internet Architecture Board,[26] the company voluntarily ended the service on October 4, 2003. After this action, VeriSign filed a lawsuit against ICANN on February 27, 2004, claiming that ICANN had exceeded its authority. By this lawsuit, VeriSign sought to reduce ambiguity about ICANN’s authority. The antitrust component of VeriSign’s claim was dismissed during August 2004. VeriSign’s challenge that ICANN overstepped its contractual rights is currently outstanding. A proposed settlement already approved by ICANN’s board would resolve VeriSign’s challenge to ICANN in exchange for the right to increase pricing on .com domains. At the meeting of ICANN in Rome, which took place from March 2 to March 6, 2004, ICANN agreed to ask approval of the US Department of Commerce for the Waiting List Service of VeriSign.[citation needed]

On May 17, 2004, ICANN published a proposed budget for the year 2004-05. It included proposals to increase the openness and professionalism of its operations, and greatly increased its proposed spending from US $8.27 million to $15.83 million. The increase was to be funded by the introduction of new top-level domains, charges to domain registries, and a fee for some domain name registrations, renewals and transfers (initially USD 0.20 for all domains within a country-code top-level domain, and USD 0.25 for all others).[citation needed] The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR), which represents theInternet registries of 39 countries, rejected the increase, accusing ICANN of a lack of financial prudence and criticizing what it describes as ICANN’s “unrealistic political and operational targets“. Despite the criticism, the registry agreement for the top-level domains jobs and travel includes a US $2 fee on every domain the licensed companies sell or renew.[27]

After a second round of negotiations during 2004, the TLDs eu, asia, travel, jobs, mobi, and cat were introduced during 2005.

ICANN meeting, Los Angeles USA, 2007. The sign refers to Vint Cerf, then Chairman of the Board of Directors, who is working on the so-calledInterplanetary Internet.

On February 28, 2006, ICANN’s board approved a settlement with VeriSign in the lawsuit resulting from SiteFinder that involved allowing VeriSign (the registry) to raise its registration fees by up to 7% a year.[28] This was criticised by some people in the US House of RepresentativesSmall Business committee.[29]

During February 2007, ICANN began procedures to end accreditation of one of their registrars, RegisterFly amid charges and lawsuits involving fraud, and criticism of ICANN’s management of the situation. ICANN has been the subject of criticism as a result of its handling of RegisterFly, and the harm caused to thousands of clients as a result of what has been termed ICANN’s “laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud“.[30] Backend cybercrime detection within the ICANN sphere of influence is also lacking.

On May 23, 2008, ICANN issued Enforcement Notices against 10 Accredited Registrars and announced this through a press release entitled: “Worst Spam Offenders” Notified by ICANN, Compliance system working to correct Whois and other issues.[31] This was largely in response to a report issued by KnujOn called The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites and compliance failure.[32] The mention of the word spam in the title of the ICANN memo is somewhat misleading since ICANN does not address issues of spam or email abuse. Website content and usage are not within ICANN’s mandate. However the KnujOn Report details how various registrars have not complied with their contractual obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).[33] The main point of the KnujOn research was to demonstrate the relationships between compliance failure, illicit product traffic, and spam. The report demonstrated that out of 900 ICANN accredited Registrars fewer than 20 held 90% of the web domains advertised in spam. These same Registrars were also most frequently cited by KnujOn as failing to resolve complaints made through the Whois Data Problem Reporting System (WDPRS).

On June 26, 2008, the ICANN Board started a new process of TLD naming policy to take a “significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains.” This program envisions the availability of many new or already proposed domains, as well a new application and implementation process.[34]

On October 1, 2008, ICANN issued Breach Notices against Joker and Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.[35] after further researching reports and complaints issued by KnujOn. These notices gave the Registrars 15 days to fix their Whois investigation efforts.

During 2010, ICANN approved a major review of its policies with respect to accountability, transparency, and public participation by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University.[36] This external review was an assistance of the work of ICANN’s Accountability and Transparency Review team.[37]

On February 3, 2011, ICANN announced that it had distributed the last batch of its remaining IPv4 addresses to the world’s five Regional Internet Registries, the organizations that manage IP addresses in different regions. These Registries began assigning the final IPv4 addresses within their regions until they ran out completely.[38]

On June 20, 2011, the ICANN board voted to end most restrictions on the names of generic top-level domains (gTLD).[39][40][41] Companies and organizations became able to choose essentially arbitrary top-level Internet domain names. The use of non-Latin characters (such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc.) is also allowed in gTLDs. ICANN began accepting applications for new gTLDS on January 12, 2012.[39] The initial price to apply for a new gTLD was set at $185,000[42] and the annual renewal fee is $25,000.[43][44]

The 2013 NSA spying scandal has led to ICANN endorsing the Montevideo Statement.[citation needed]

Structure

At present ICANN is organized formally as a non-profit corporation “for charitable and public purposes” under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member Board of Directors composed of eight members selected by a nominating committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN’s purview; an At-Large seat filled by an At-Large Organization; and the President / CEO, appointed by the Board.[45]

There are currently three Supporting Organizations. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) deals with policy making on generic top-level domains (gTLDs).[46] The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) deals with policy making on country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) deals with policy making on IP addresses.[47]

ICANN also relies on some advisory committees and other advisory mechanisms to receive advice on the interests and needs of stakeholders that do not directly participate in the Supporting Organizations.[48] These include the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is composed of representatives of a large number of national governments from all over the world; the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is composed of individual Internet users from around the world selected by each of the Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO) and Nominating Committee; the Root Server System Advisory Committee, which provides advice on the operation of the DNS root server system; the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), which is composed of Internet experts who study security issues pertaining to ICANN’s mandate; and the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), which is composed of representatives of other international technical organizations that focus, at least in part, on the Internet.[49]

Governmental Advisory Committee

Governmental Advisory Committee representatives.

Representatives

The Governmental Advisory Committee has representatives from 111 states (108 UN members, the Holy See, Cook Islands, Niue and Taiwan), Hong Kong, Bermuda, Montserrat, the European Commission and the African Union Commission.[50]

Observers[edit]

In addition the following organizations are GAC Observers:[51]

Democratic input

In the Memorandum of Understanding that set up the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. government, ICANN was given a mandate requiring that it operate “in a bottom up, consensus driven, democratic manner.” However, the attempts that ICANN have made to establish an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not produce results amenable to the current Board. As a result, the At-Large constituency and direct election of board members by the global Internet community were soon abandoned.[52]

ICANN holds periodic public meetings rotated between continents for the purpose of encouraging global participation in its processes. Resolutions of the ICANN Board, preliminary reports, and minutes of the meetings, are published on the ICANN website, sometimes in real time. However, there are criticisms from ICANN constituencies including the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the At-Large Advisory Committee(ALAC) that there is not enough public disclosure and that too many discussions and decisions take place out of sight of the public.[citation needed]

During the early 2000s, there had been speculation that the United Nations might assume control of ICANN,[53] followed by a negative reaction from the US government[21] and worries about a division of the Internet.[54] The World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia during November 2005 agreed not to get involved in the day-to-day and technical operations of ICANN. However it also agreed to establish an international Internet Governance Forum, with a consultative role on the future governance of the Internet. ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee is currently established to provide advice to ICANN regarding public policy issues and has participation by many of the world’s governments.[55]

Some have attempted to argue that ICANN was never given the authority to decide policy, e.g., choose new TLDs or exclude other interested parties who refuse to pay ICANN’s US$185,000 fee, but was to be a technical caretaker. Critics[who?] suggest that ICANN should not be allowed to impose business rules on market participants, and that all TLDs should be added on a first-come, first-served basis and the market should be the arbiter of who succeeds and who does not.[citation needed]

Activities

Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

One task that ICANN was asked to do was to address the issue of domain name ownership resolution for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN’s attempt at such a policy was drafted in close cooperation with theWorld Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the result has now become known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This policy essentially attempts to provide a mechanism for rapid, cheap and reasonable resolution of domain name conflicts, avoiding the traditional court system for disputes by allowing cases to be brought to one of a set of bodies that arbitrate domain name disputes. According to ICANN policy, a domain registrant must agree to be bound by the UDRP—they cannot get a domain name without agreeing to this.

Examination of the UDRP decision patterns has caused some[56] to conclude that compulsory domain name arbitration is less likely to give a fair hearing to domain name owners asserting defenses under the First Amendment and other laws, compared to the federal courts of appeal in particular.

Proposed elimination of public DNS whois

In 2013, the initial report of ICANN’s Expert Working Group has recommended that the present form of Whois, a utility that allows anyone to know who has registered a domain name on the Internet, should be “abandoned”. It recommends it be replaced with a system that keeps most registration information secret (or “gated”) from most Internet users, and only discloses information for “permissible purposes”.[57][58] ICANN’s list of permissible purposes includes domain name research, domain name sale and purchase, regulatory enforcement, personal data protection, legal actions, and abuse mitigation.[59] Whois has been a key tool of investigative journalists interested in determining who was disseminating information on the Internet.[60] The use of whois by the free press is not included in the list of permissible purposes in the initial report.

Criticism

Since its creation, ICANN has been the subject of criticism and controversy.[61][62] In 2000, professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law argued that ICANN’s relationship with the U.S. Department of Commerce is illegal, in violation of either the Constitution or federal statutes.[63] In 2009, the new Affirmation of Commitments agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, that aimed to create international oversight, ran into criticism.[64]

During December 2011, the Federal Trade Commission stated ICANN had long failed to provide safeguards that protect consumers from online swindlers.[65]

Also during 2011, seventy-nine companies, including The Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung and others, signed a petition against ICANN’s new TLD program (sometimes referred to as a “commercial landgrab”[66]), in a group organized by the Association of National Advertisers.[67] As of September 2014, this group, the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight, that opposes the rollout of ICANN’s TLD expansion program, has been joined by 102 associations and 79 major companies.[68] Partly as a response to this criticism, ICANN initiated an effort to protect trademarks in domain name registrations, which eventually culminated in the establishment of the Trademark Clearinghouse.

IBSA proposal (2011)

One controversial proposal, resulting from a September 2011 summit between India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA), would seek to move Internet governance into a “UN Committee on Internet-Related Policy” (UN-CIRP).[69][70] The action was a reaction to a perception that the principles of the 2005 Tunis Agenda for the Information Society have not been met.[70][71] The statement proposed the creation of a new political organization operating as a component of the United Nations to provide policy recommendations for the consideration of technical organizations such as ICANN and international bodies such as the ITU.[72]Subsequent to public criticisms, the Indian government backed away from the proposal.[73]

Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation (2013)

On 7 October 2013 the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation was released by the managers of a number of organizations involved in coordinating the Internet’s global technical infrastructure, loosely known as the “I*” (or “I-star”) group. Among other things, the statement “expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance” and “called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing”. This desire to reduce United States association with the internet is considered a reaction to the ongoing NSA surveillance scandal. The statement was signed by the managers of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, and the five regional Internet address registries(African Network Information Center, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry, and Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre).[74][75][76]

Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (2013)

During October 2013, Fadi Chehadé, current President and CEO of ICANN, met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in Brasilia. Upon Chehadé’s invitation, the two announced that Brazil would host an international summit on Internet governance during April 2014.[77] The announcement came after the 2013 disclosures of mass surveillance by the U.S. government, and President Rousseff’s speech at the opening session of the 2013 United Nations General Assembly, where she strongly criticized the American surveillance program as a “breach of international law”. The “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(NET mundial)” will include representatives of government, industry, civil society, and academia.[78] At the IGF VIII meeting in Bali in October 2013 a commenter noted that Brazil intends the meeting to be a “summit” in the sense that it will be high level with decision-making authority.[79] The organizers of the “NET mundial” meeting have decided that an online forum called “/1net”, set up by the I* group, will be a major conduit of non-governmental input into the three committees preparing for the meeting in April.[76][80][81]

The Obama administration that had joined critics of ICANN during 2011[82] announced in March 2014 that they intended to transition away from oversight of the IANA functions contract. The current contract that theUnited States Department of Commerce has with ICANN expired in 2015, in its place the NTIA will transition oversight of the IANA functions to the ‘global multistakeholder community’.[83]

NetMundial Initiative (2014)

The NetMundial Initiative is a plan for international governance of the Internet that was first proposed at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (GMMFIG) conference (23–24 April 2014)[84][85][86] and later developed into the NetMundial Initiative by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade along with representatives of the World Economic Forum (WEF)[87] and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil), commonly referred to as “CGI.br”.[88]

The meeting produced a nonbinding statement in favor of consensus-based decision-making. It represented a compromise and did not harshly condemn mass surveillance or include the words “net neutrality”, despite initial endorsement for that from Brazil. The final resolution says ICANN should be controlled internationally by September 2015.[89] A minority of governments, including Russia, China, Iran and India, were unhappy with the final resolution and wanted multi-lateral management for the Internet, rather than broader multi-stakeholder management.[90]

A month later, the Panel On Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms (convened by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) with assistance from The Annenberg Foundation), endorsed and included the NetMundial statement in its own report.[91]

During June 2014, France strongly attacked ICANN, saying ICANN is not a fit venue for Internet governance and that alternatives should be sought.[92]

.sucks domain

ICANN has received more than $60 million from gTLD auctions,[93] and has accepted the very controversial domain names “.xxx” and “.sucks”.[94] When the .sucks registry announced their pricing model, “most brand owners were upset and felt like they were being penalized by having to pay more to protect their brands.”[95] The .sucks domain registrar has been described as “predatory, exploitive and coercive” by the Intellectual Property Constituency that advises the ICANN board.[94]

Because of the low utility of the “.sucks” domain, it is expected that most of the fees will come from “Brand Protection” customers registering their trademarks to prevent domains being registered.[96] Virginia member of Congress Bob Goodlatte says that trademark holders are “being shaken down” by the registry’s fees.[97]Jay Rockefeller says that .sucks is a “a predatory shakedown scheme” and “Approving ‘.sucks’, a gTLD with little or no public interest value, will have the effect of undermining the credibility ICANN has slowly been building with skeptical stakeholders.”[94]

Steve DelBianco says that businesses are “very concerned about what they consider extortionist pricing.” Canadian brands had complained that they were being charged “exorbitant” prices to register their trademarks as premium names. FTC chair Edith Ramirez has written to ICANN to say the agency will take action against the .sucks owner if “we have reason to believe an entity has engaged in deceptive or unfair practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act”.[98] The Register reported that intellectual property lawyers are infuriated that “the dot-sucks registry was charging trademark holders $2,500 for .sucks domains and everyone else $10.”[99]

See also

Story 2: National Security Agency — Fourth Amendment — Edward Snowden — William Binney — Thomas Drake — Turnkey Tyranny — Collect It All So We Can Know It All — PRISM — Tailored Access Operations (TAO) — Cyberwar — Videos

Image result for fouth amendment

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

File:XKeyscore presentation from 2008.pdf

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for keyscore slides

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons on hacking and nsa

Image result for cartoons oncyber warfare

Image result for cartoons oncyber warfare

Image result for cartoons oncyber warfare

Image result for cartoons oncyber warfare

Image result for Cyber Attacks On US

Image result for TAO NSA cyber command

Image result for TAO NSA cyber command

Image result for TAO NSA cyber command

The Snowden files — the inside story of the world’s most wanted man | Luke Harding | TEDxAthens

New Leaked NSA Program X Keyscore Dwarfs Prism

DOCUMENTARY: Edward Snowden – Terminal F (2015)

‘State of Surveillance’ with Edward Snowden and Shane Smith (FULL EPISODE)

DOCUMENTARY: Edward Snowden – Terminal F (2015)

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

Tom Drake — Full Interview

NSA Whistleblower – Jesselyn Radack & Thomas Drake | London Real

Top 10 Whistleblowers in History

Top 10 Whistleblower Movies

Ed Snowden Full Documentary 2015

Edward Snowden Live From Russia

Glenn Greenwald On NSA, TAO and Edward Snowden

USENIX Enigma 2016 – NSA TAO Chief on Disrupting Nation State Hackers

Cyber Defense – Military Training for Cyber Warfare, Full Length Documentary

Cyber War: U.S. Army Hackers

NSA Secrets Uncovered Snowden Coverup 2015 FULL Documentary

Cyber Warfare in the Military : Documentary on Information and Communication Warfare

ALGORITHM: The Hacker Movie

5 Most Dangerous Hackers Of All Time

Anonymous Documentary – How Anonymous Hackers Changed the World Full Documentary

Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton

Cyberwar S01 E02 The sony hack

Cyberwar S01E01 Who Is Anonymous

Cyberwar S01 E03

!#Cyber war! S01 E08 America’s Elite Hacking Force !.part 1.

!#Cyber war ! !S01!E08!+! America’s Elite Hacking Force !.part 2.end

Thailand’s Cyber Wars: Blackout

10 Biggest Computer Hacks Of All Time

NSA Surveillance and What To Do About It

Anonymous – The TRUTH about WW3

Psychological Warfare, Credibility

Enemy of the State – Will Smith, Gene Hackman, Jon Voight Movies

Fourth Amendment

FOURTH AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW

I. INTERESTS PROTECTED

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions.  Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment.

To have standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one must first demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mind but an expectation that society is prepared to recognized asreasonable under the circumstances.  For instance, warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand, a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment.  Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields.  An Expectation of privacy in an open field is not consideredreasonable.  However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.

A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages resulting from an unlawful search and seizure.  States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment requires, but states cannot allow conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.

 

II. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER FOURTH AMENDMENT

The courts must determine what constitutes a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.  If the conduct challenged does not fall within the Fourth Amendment, the individual will not enjoy protection under Fourth Amendment.

A. Search

A search under Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

Strip searches and visual body cavity searches, including anal or genital inspections, constitute reasonable searchesunder the Fourth Amendment when supported by probable cause and conducted in a reasonable manner.

dog-sniff inspection is invalid under the Fourth Amendment if the the inspection violates a reasonable expectation of privacyElectronic surveillance is also considered a search under the Fourth Amendment.

B. Seizure of a Person

A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police’s conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.

Two elements must be present to constitute a seizure of a person.  First, there must be a show of authority by the police officer.  Presence of handcuffs or weapons, the use of forceful language, and physical contact are each strong indicators of authority.  Second, the person being seized must submit to the authority.  An individual who ignores the officer’s request and walks away has not been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.

An arrest warrant is preferred but not required to make a lawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment.  A warrantlessarrest may be justified where probable cause and urgent need are present prior to the arrest.  Probable cause is present when the police officer has a reasonable belief in the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information prior to thearrest.  For instance, a warrantless arrest may be legitimate in situations where a police officer has a probable belief that a suspect has either committed a crime or is a threat to the public security.  Also, a police officer might arrest a suspect to prevent the suspect’s escape or to preserve evidence.  A warrantless arrest may be invalidated if the police officer fails to demonstrate exigent circumstances.

The ability to make warrantless arrests are commonly limited by statutes subject to the due process guaranty of the U.S. Constitution.  A suspect arrested without a warrant is entitled to prompt judicial determination, usually within 48 hours.

There are investigatory stops that fall short of arrests, but nonetheless, they fall within Fourth Amendment protection. For instance, police officers can perform a terry stop or a traffic stop.  Usually, these stops provide officers with less dominion and controlling power and impose less of an infringement of personal liberty for individual stopped.  Investigatory stops must be temporary questioning for limited purposes and conducted in a manner necessary to fulfill the purpose.

An officer’s reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions.  To determine if the officer has met the standard to justify the seizure, the court takes into account the totality of the circumstances and examines whether the officer has a particularized and reasonable belief for suspecting the wrongdoing.  Probable cause gained during stops or detentions might effectuate a subsequent warrantless arrest.

C. Seizure of Property

A seizure of property, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in the property.

In some circumstances, warrantless seizures of objects in plain view do not constitute seizures within the meaning ofFourth Amendment.  When executing a search warrant, an officer might be able to seize an item observed in plain vieweven if it is not specified in the warrant.

 

III. WARRANT REQUIREMENT

A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant, subject to only a few exceptions.

To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable cause that a search or seizure is justified.  An authority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances and determine whether to issue the warrant.

The warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has probable cause and obtaining awarrant is impractical.  For instance, in State v. Helmbright 990 N.E.2d 154, Ohio court held that a warrantless search of probationer’s person or place of residence complies with the Fourth Amendment if the officer who conducts the searchpossesses “reasonable grounds” to believe that the probationer has failed to comply with the terms of his probation.

Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.

There is no general exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in national security cases.  Warrantlesssearches are generally not permitted in exclusively domestic security cases.  In foreign security cases, court opinions might differ on whether to accept the foreign security exception to warrant requirement generally and, if accepted, whether the exception should include both physical searches and electronic surveillance.

 

IV. REASONABLENESS REQUIREMENT

All searches and seizures under Fourth Amendment must be reasonable.  No excessive force shall be used.  Reasonableness is the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a search or seizure.

Searches and seizures with a warrant satisfy the reasonableness requirement.  Warrantless searches and seizures arepresumed to be unreasonable unless they fall within a few exceptions.

In cases of warrantless searches and seizures, the court will try to balance the degree of intrusion on the individual’sright to privacy and the need to promote government interests and special needs.  The court will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the search or seizure was justified.  When analyzing the reasonableness standard, the court uses an objective assessment and considers factors including the degree of intrusion by the search or seizureand the manner in which the search or seizure is conducted.
V. EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from criminal proceedings.  There are a few exceptions to this rule.

 

VI. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

In recent years, the Fourth Amendment‘s applicability in electronic searches and seizures has received much attention from the courts.  With the advent of the internet and increased popularity of computers, there has been an increasing amount of crime occurring electronically.  Consequently, evidence of such crime can often be found on computers, hard drives, or other electronic devices.  The Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure of electronic devices.

Many electronic search cases involve whether law enforcement can search a company-owned computer that an employee uses to conduct business. Although the case law is split, the majority holds that employees do not have a legitimateexpectation of privacy with regard to information stored on a company-owned computer.  In the 2010 case of City of Ontario v. Quon (08-1332), the Supreme Court extended this lack of an expectation of privacy to text messages sent and received on an employer-owned pager.

Lately, electronic surveillance and wiretapping has also caused a significant amount of Fourth Amendment litigation.

 

VII. THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the intelligence gathering community’s ability to combat domestic terrorism.  Entitled the USA Patriot Act, the legislation’s provisions aimed to increase the ability of law enforcement to search email and telephonic communications in addition to medical, financial, and library records.

One provision permits law enforcement to obtain access to stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant.  Obtaining a basic search warrant requires a much lower evidentiary showing.  A highly controversial provision of the Act includes permission for law enforcement to use sneak-and-peak warrants.  A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about thewarrant’s issuance.  In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peak warrants as unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).

The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSL).  An NSL is an administrativesubpoena that requires certain persons, groups, organizations, or companies to provide documents about certain persons.  These documents typically involve telephone, email, and financial records.  NSLs also carry a gag order, meaning the person or persons responsible for complying cannot mention the existence of the NSL.  Under the Patriot Act provisions, law enforcement can use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even when law enforcement does not think the individual under investigation has committed a crime.  The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLsfrequently since its inception.  By using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court orderbefore conducting its search of records.

See constitutional amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Security hacker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Hacker (computer security))

In the computer security context, a security hacker is someone who seeks and exploits weaknesses in a computer system or computer network. Hackers may be motivated by a multitude of reasons, such as profit, protest, challenge, enjoyment,[1] or to evaluate those weaknesses to assist in removing them. The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground.[2]

There is a longstanding controversy about the term’s true meaning. In this controversy, the term hacker is reclaimed by computer programmers who argue that it refers simply to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks,[3] and that cracker is the more appropriate term for those who break into computers, whether computer criminal (black hats) or computer security expert (white hats)[4][5] – but a recent article concluded that: “…the black-hat meaning still prevails among the general public”.[6][tone]

History

In computer security, a hacker is someone who focuses on security mechanisms of computer and network systems. While including those who endeavor to strengthen such mechanisms, it is more often used by the mass media and popular culture to refer to those who seek access despite these security measures. That is, the media portrays the ‘hacker’ as a villain. Nevertheless, parts of the subculture see their aim in correcting security problems and use the word in a positive sense. White hat is the name given to ethical computer hackers, who utilize hacking in a helpful way. White hats are becoming a necessary part of the information security field.[7] They operate under a code, which acknowledges that breaking into other people’s computers is bad, but that discovering and exploiting security mechanisms and breaking into computers is still an interesting activity that can be done ethically and legally. Accordingly, the term bears strong connotations that are favorable or pejorative, depending on the context.

The subculture around such hackers is termed network hacker subculture, hacker scene or computer underground. It initially developed in the context of phreaking during the 1960s and the microcomputer BBS scene of the 1980s. It is implicated with 2600: The Hacker Quarterly and the alt.2600 newsgroup.

In 1980, an article in the August issue of Psychology Today (with commentary by Philip Zimbardo) used the term “hacker” in its title: “The Hacker Papers”. It was an excerpt from a Stanford Bulletin Board discussion on the addictive nature of computer use. In the 1982 film Tron, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) describes his intentions to break into ENCOM’s computer system, saying “I’ve been doing a little hacking here”. CLU is the software he uses for this. By 1983, hacking in the sense of breaking computer security had already been in use as computer jargon,[8] but there was no public awareness about such activities.[9] However, the release of the film WarGames that year, featuring a computer intrusion into NORAD, raised the public belief that computer security hackers (especially teenagers) could be a threat to national security. This concern became real when, in the same year, a gang of teenage hackers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, known as The 414s, broke into computer systems throughout the United States and Canada, including those of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Security Pacific Bank.[10] The case quickly grew media attention,[10][11] and 17-year-old Neal Patrick emerged as the spokesman for the gang, including a cover story in Newsweek entitled “Beware: Hackers at play”, with Patrick’s photograph on the cover.[12] TheNewsweek article appears to be the first use of the word hacker by the mainstream media in the pejorative sense.

Pressured by media coverage, congressman Dan Glickman called for an investigation and began work on new laws against computer hacking.[13][14] Neal Patrick testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on September 26, 1983, about the dangers of computer hacking, and six bills concerning computer crime were introduced in the House that year.[14] As a result of these laws against computer criminality, white hat, grey hat and black hat hackers try to distinguish themselves from each other, depending on the legality of their activities. These moral conflicts are expressed in The Mentor‘s “The Hacker Manifesto“, published 1986 inPhrack.

Use of the term hacker meaning computer criminal was also advanced by the title “Stalking the Wily Hacker”, an article by Clifford Stoll in the May 1988 issue of the Communications of the ACM. Later that year, the release by Robert Tappan Morris, Jr. of the so-called Morris worm provoked the popular media to spread this usage. The popularity of Stoll’s book The Cuckoo’s Egg, published one year later, further entrenched the term in the public’s consciousness.

Classifications

Several subgroups of the computer underground with different attitudes use different terms to demarcate themselves from each other, or try to exclude some specific group with whom they do not agree.

Eric S. Raymond, author of The New Hacker’s Dictionary, advocates that members of the computer underground should be called crackers. Yet, those people see themselves as hackers and even try to include the views of Raymond in what they see as a wider hacker culture, a view that Raymond has harshly rejected. Instead of a hacker/cracker dichotomy, they emphasize a spectrum of different categories, such as white hat,grey hat, black hat and script kiddie. In contrast to Raymond, they usually reserve the term cracker for more malicious activity.

According to Ralph D. Clifford, a cracker or cracking is to “gain unauthorized access to a computer in order to commit another crime such as destroying information contained in that system”.[15] These subgroups may also be defined by the legal status of their activities.[16]

White hat

Main article: White hat

A white hat hacker breaks security for non-malicious reasons, either to test their own security system, perform penetration tests or vulnerability assessments for a client – or while working for a security company which makes security software. The term is generally synonymous with ethical hacker, and the EC-Council,[17] among others, have developed certifications, courseware, classes, and online training covering the diverse arena of ethical hacking.[16]

Black hat

Main article: Black hat

A “black hat” hacker is a hacker who “violates computer security for little reason beyond maliciousness or for personal gain” (Moore, 2005).[18] The term was coined by Richard Stallman, to contrast the maliciousness of a criminal hacker versus the spirit of playfulness and exploration in hacker culture, or the ethos of the white hat hacker who performs hacking duties to identify places to repair or as a means of legitimate employment.[19] Black hat hackers form the stereotypical, illegal hacking groups often portrayed in popular culture, and are “the epitome of all that the public fears in a computer criminal”.[20]

Grey hat

Main article: Grey hat

A grey hat hacker lies between a black hat and a white hat hacker. A grey hat hacker may surf the Internet and hack into a computer system for the sole purpose of notifying the administrator that their system has a security defect, for example. They may then offer to correct the defect for a fee.[20] Grey hat hackers sometimes find the defect of a system and publish the facts to the world instead of a group of people. Even though grey hat hackers may not necessarily perform hacking for their personal gain, unauthorized access to a system can be considered illegal and unethical.

Elite hacker

A social status among hackers, elite is used to describe the most skilled. Newly discovered exploits circulate among these hackers. Elite groups such as Masters of Deception conferred a kind of credibility on their members.[21]

Script kiddie

A script kiddie (also known as a skid or skiddie) is an unskilled hacker who breaks into computer systems by using automated tools written by others (usually by other black hat hackers), hence the term script (i.e. a prearranged plan or set of activities) kiddie (i.e. kid, child—an individual lacking knowledge and experience, immature),[22] usually with little understanding of the underlying concept.

Neophyte

A neophyte (“newbie“, or “noob”) is someone who is new to hacking or phreaking and has almost no knowledge or experience of the workings of technology and hacking.[20]

Blue hat

A blue hat hacker is someone outside computer security consulting firms who is used to bug-test a system prior to its launch, looking for exploits so they can be closed. Microsoft also uses the term BlueHat to represent a series of security briefing events.[23][24][25]

Hacktivist

A hacktivist is a hacker who utilizes technology to publicize a social, ideological, religious or political message.

Hacktivism can be divided into two main groups:

Nation state

Intelligence agencies and cyberwarfare operatives of nation states.[26]

Organized criminal gangs

Groups of hackers that carry out organized criminal activities for profit.[26]

Attacks

Main article: Computer security

A typical approach in an attack on Internet-connected system is:

  1. Network enumeration: Discovering information about the intended target.
  2. Vulnerability analysis: Identifying potential ways of attack.
  3. Exploitation: Attempting to compromise the system by employing the vulnerabilities found through the vulnerability analysis.[27]

In order to do so, there are several recurring tools of the trade and techniques used by computer criminals and security experts.

Security exploits

A security exploit is a prepared application that takes advantage of a known weakness.[28] Common examples of security exploits are SQL injection, cross-site scripting andcross-site request forgery which abuse security holes that may result from substandard programming practice. Other exploits would be able to be used through File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), PHP, SSH, Telnet and some Web pages. These are very common in Web site and Web domain hacking.

Techniques

Vulnerability scanner
A vulnerability scanner is a tool used to quickly check computers on a network for known weaknesses. Hackers also commonly use port scanners. These check to see which ports on a specified computer are “open” or available to access the computer, and sometimes will detect what program or service is listening on that port, and its version number. (Firewalls defend computers from intruders by limiting access to ports and machines, but they can still be circumvented.)
Finding vulnerabilities
Hackers may also attempt to find vulnerabilities manually. A common approach is to search for possible vulnerabilities in the code of the computer system then test them, sometimes reverse engineering the software if the code is not provided.
Brute-force attack
Password guessing. This method is very fast when used to check all short passwords, but for longer passwords other methods such as the dictionary attack are used, because of the time a brute-force search takes.
Password cracking
Password cracking is the process of recovering passwords from data that has been stored in or transmitted by a computer system. Common approaches include repeatedly trying guesses for the password, trying the most common passwords by hand, and repeatedly trying passwords from a “dictionary”, or a text file with many passwords.
Packet analyzer
A packet analyzer (“packet sniffer”) is an application that captures data packets, which can be used to capture passwords and other data in transit over the network.
Spoofing attack (phishing)
A spoofing attack involves one program, system or website that successfully masquerades as another by falsifying data and is thereby treated as a trusted system by a user or another program — usually to fool programs, systems or users into revealing confidential information, such as user names and passwords.
Rootkit
A rootkit is a program that uses low-level, hard-to-detect methods to subvert control of an operating system from its legitimate operators. Rootkits usually obscure their installation and attempt to prevent their removal through a subversion of standard system security. They may include replacements for system binaries, making it virtually impossible for them to be detected by checking process tables.
Social engineering
In the second stage of the targeting process, hackers often use Social engineering tactics to get enough information to access the network. They may contact the system administrator and pose as a user who cannot get access to his or her system. This technique is portrayed in the 1995 film Hackers, when protagonist Dade “Zero Cool” Murphy calls a somewhat clueless employee in charge of security at a television network. Posing as an accountant working for the same company, Dade tricks the employee into giving him the phone number of a modem so he can gain access to the company’s computer system.
Hackers who use this technique must have cool personalities, and be familiar with their target’s security practices, in order to trick the system administrator into giving them information. In some cases, a help-desk employee with limited security experience will answer the phone and be relatively easy to trick. Another approach is for the hacker to pose as an angry supervisor, and when his/her authority is questioned, threaten to fire the help-desk worker. Social engineering is very effective, because users are the most vulnerable part of an organization. No security devices or programs can keep an organization safe if an employee reveals a password to an unauthorized person.
Social engineering can be broken down into four sub-groups:

  • Intimidation As in the “angry supervisor” technique above, the hacker convinces the person who answers the phone that their job is in danger unless they help them. At this point, many people accept that the hacker is a supervisor and give them the information they seek.
  • Helpfulness The opposite of intimidation, helpfulness exploits many people’s natural instinct to help others solve problems. Rather than acting angry, the hacker acts distressed and concerned. The help desk is the most vulnerable to this type of social engineering, as (a.) its general purpose is to help people; and (b.) it usually has the authority to change or reset passwords, which is exactly what the hacker wants.
  • Name-dropping The hacker uses names of authorized users to convince the person who answers the phone that the hacker is a legitimate user him or herself. Some of these names, such as those of webpage owners or company officers, can easily be obtained online. Hackers have also been known to obtain names by examining discarded documents (so-called “dumpster diving”).
  • Technical Using technology is also a way to get information. A hacker can send a fax or email to a legitimate user, seeking a response that contains vital information. The hacker may claim that he or she is involved in law enforcement and needs certain data for an investigation, or for record-keeping purposes.
Trojan horses
A Trojan horse is a program that seems to be doing one thing but is actually doing another. It can be used to set up a back door in a computer system, enabling the intruder to gain access later. (The name refers to the horse from the Trojan War, with the conceptually similar function of deceiving defenders into bringing an intruder into a protected area.)
Computer virus
A virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents. By doing this, it behaves similarly to a biological virus, which spreads by inserting itself into living cells. While some viruses are harmless or mere hoaxes, most are considered malicious.
Computer worm
Like a virus, a worm is also a self-replicating program. It differs from a virus in that (a.) it propagates through computer networks without user intervention; and (b.) does not need to attach itself to an existing program. Nonetheless, many people use the terms “virus” and “worm” interchangeably to describe any self-propagating program.
Keystroke logging
A keylogger is a tool designed to record (“log”) every keystroke on an affected machine for later retrieval, usually to allow the user of this tool to gain access to confidential information typed on the affected machine. Some keyloggers use virus-, trojan-, and rootkit-like methods to conceal themselves. However, some of them are used for legitimate purposes, even to enhance computer security. For example, a business may maintain a keylogger on a computer used at a point of sale to detect evidence of employee fraud.

Tools and Procedures

A thorough examination of hacker tools and procedures may be found in Cengage Learning’s E|CSA certification workbook.[29]

Notable intruders and criminal hackers

Notable security hackers

Main article: List of hackers

Customs

The computer underground[1] has produced its own specialized slang, such as 1337speak. Its members often advocate freedom of information, strongly opposing the principles of copyright, as well as the rights of free speech and privacy.[citation needed] Writing software and performing other activities to support these views is referred to as hacktivism. Some consider illegal cracking ethically justified for these goals; a common form iswebsite defacement. The computer underground is frequently compared to the Wild West.[32] It is common for hackers to use aliases to conceal their identities.

Hacker groups and conventions

Main articles: Hacker conference and Hacker group

The computer underground is supported by regular real-world gatherings called hacker conventions or “hacker cons”. These events include SummerCon (Summer), DEF CON, HoHoCon (Christmas), ShmooCon(February), BlackHat, Chaos Communication Congress, AthCon, Hacker Halted, and HOPE.[citation needed] Local Hackfest groups organize and compete to develop their skills to send a team to a prominent convention to compete in group pentesting, exploit and forensics on a larger scale. Hacker groups became popular in the early 1980s, providing access to hacking information and resources and a place to learn from other members. Computer bulletin board systems (BBSs), such as the Utopias, provided platforms for information-sharing via dial-up modem. Hackers could also gain credibility by being affiliated with elite groups.[33]

Consequences for malicious hacking

India

Section Offence Punishment
65 Tampering with computer source documents – Intentional concealment, destruction or alteration of source code when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to 20000 rupees
66 Hacking Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to 50000 rupees

Netherlands

Maximum imprisonment is one year or a fine of the fourth category.[34]

United States

18 U.S.C.§ 1030, more commonly known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, prohibits unauthorized access or damage of “protected computers”. “Protected computers” are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)as:

  • A computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government.
  • A computer which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

The maximum imprisonment or fine for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act depends on the severity of the violation and the offender’s history of violations under the Act.

Hacking and the media

Hacker magazines

Main category: Hacker magazines

The most notable hacker-oriented print publications are Phrack, Hakin9 and 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. While the information contained in hacker magazines and ezines was often outdated by the time they were published, they enhanced their contributors’ reputations by documenting their successes.[33]

Hackers in fiction

Hackers often show an interest in fictional cyberpunk and cyberculture literature and movies. The adoption of fictionalpseudonyms,[35] symbols, values and metaphors from these works is very common.[36]

Books

Films

Non-fiction books

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_hacker

Tailored Access Operations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reference to Tailored Access Operations in an XKeyscore slide

The Office of Tailored Access Operations (TAO) is a cyber-warfare intelligence-gathering unit of the National Security Agency (NSA). It has been active since at least circa 1998.[1][2] TAO identifies, monitors, infiltrates, and gathers intelligence on computer systems being used by entities foreign to the United States.[3][4][5][6] The NSA terms these activities “computer network exploitation”.

TAO is reportedly “now the largest and arguably the most important component of the NSA’s huge Signals Intelligence Directorate (SID)[7] (SIGINT), consisting of more than 1,000 military and civilian computer hackers, intelligence analysts, targeting specialists, computer hardware and software designers, and electrical engineers.”[1]

A document leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden describing the unit’s work says[not in citation given] TAO has software templates allowing it to break into commonly used hardware, including “routers, switches, and firewalls from multiple product vendor lines”.[8] According to The Washington Post, TAO engineers prefer to tap networks rather than isolated computers, because there are typically many devices on a single network.[8]

Organization

TAO’s headquarters are termed the Remote Operations Center (ROC) and are based at the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland. TAO also has expanded to NSA Hawaii (Wahiawa, Oahu), NSA Georgia (Fort Gordon, Georgia), NSA Texas (San Antonio, Texas), and NSA Colorado (Buckley Air Force Base, Denver).[1]

Since 2013, the head of TAO is Rob Joyce, a 25-plus year employee who previously worked in the NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD). In January 2016, Joyce had a rare public appearance when he gave a presentation at the Usenix’s Enigma conference. [9]

In the Remote Operations Center, 600 employees gather information from around the world.[10][11] Their motto is “Your data is our data, your equipment is our equipment – anytime, any place, by any legal means.”[citation needed]

  • Data Network Technologies Branch: develops automated spyware
  • Telecommunications Network Technologies Branch: improve network and computer hacking methods[12]
  • Mission Infrastructure Technologies Branch: operates the software provided above[13]
  • Access Technologies Operations Branch: Reportedly includes personnel seconded by the CIA and the FBI, who perform what are described as “off-net operations,” which means they arrange for CIA agents to surreptitiously plant eavesdropping devices on computers and telecommunications systems overseas so that TAO’s hackers may remotely access them from Fort Meade.[1] Specially equipped submarines, currently USS Jimmy Carter,[14] are used to wiretap fibre optic cables around the globe.

Virtual locations

Details[citation needed] on a program titled QUANTUMSQUIRREL indicate NSA ability to masquerade as any routable IPv4 or IPv6 host. This enables an NSA computer to generate false geographical location and personal identification credentials when accessing the Internet utilizing QUANTUMSQUIRREL.[15]

"Truly covert infrastructure, be any IP in the world."

QUANTUMSQUIRREL image from an NSA presentation explaining the QUANTUMSQUIRREL IP host spoofing ability

NSA ANT catalog

Main article: NSA ANT catalog

The NSA ANT catalog is a 50-page classified document listing technology available to the United StatesNational Security Agency (NSA) Tailored Access Operations (TAO) by the Advanced Network Technology (ANT) Division to aid in cyber surveillance. Most devices are described as already operational and available to US nationals and members of the Five Eyes alliance. According to Der Spiegel, which released the catalog to the public on December 30, 2013, “The list reads like a mail-order catalog, one from which other NSA employees can order technologies from the ANT division for tapping their targets’ data.” The document was created in 2008.[16] Security researcher Jacob Appelbaumgave a speech at the Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg, Germany, in which he detailed techniques that the simultaneously published Der Spiegel article he coauthored disclosed from the catalog.[16]

QUANTUM attacks[edit]

"I iz in ur space-time continuum, upsetting all your gravity and quantums and stuffs."

Lolcat image from an NSA presentation explaining in part the naming of the QUANTUM program

NSA’s QUANTUMTHEORY overview slide with various codenames for specific types of attack and integration with other NSA systems

The TAO has developed an attack suite they call QUANTUM. It relies on a compromised router that duplicates internet traffic, typically HTTP requests, so that they go both to the intended target and to an NSA site (indirectly). The NSA site runs FOXACID software which sends back exploits that load in the background in the target web browser before the intended destination has had a chance to respond (it’s unclear if the compromised router facilitates this race on the return trip). Prior to the development of this technology, FOXACID software made spear-phishing attacks the NSA referred to as spam. If the browser is exploitable, further permanent “implants” (rootkits etc.) are deployed in the target computer, e.g. OLYMPUSFIRE for Windows, which give complete remote access to the infected machine.[17] This type of attack is part of the man-in-the-middle attack family, though more specifically it is called man-on-the-side attack. It is difficult to pull off without controlling some of the Internet backbone.[18]

There are numerous services that FOXACID can exploit this way. The names of some FOXACID modules are given below:[19]

By collaboration with the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) (MUSCULAR), Google services could be attacked too, including Gmail.[20]

Finding machines that are exploitable and worth attacking is done using analytic databases such as XKeyscore.[21] A specific method of finding vulnerable machines is interception of Windows Error Reporting traffic, which is logged into XKeyscore.[22]

QUANTUM attacks launched from NSA sites can be too slow for some combinations of targets and services as they essentially try to exploit a race condition, i.e. the NSA server is trying to beat the legitimate server with its response.[23] As of mid-2011, the NSA was prototyping a capability codenamed QFIRE, which involved embedding their exploit-dispensing servers in virtual machines (running on VMware ESX) hosted closer to the target, in the so-called Special Collection Sites (SCS) network worldwide. The goal of QFIRE was to lower the latency of the spoofed response, thus increasing the probability of success.[24][25][26]

COMMENDEER [sic] is used to commandeer (i.e. compromise) untargeted computer systems. The software is used as a part of QUANTUMNATION, which also includes the software vulnerability scanner VALIDATOR. The tool was first described at the 2014 Chaos Communication Congress by Jacob Appelbaum, who characterized it as tyrannical.[27][28][29]

QUANTUMCOOKIE is a more complex form of attack which can be used against Tor users.[30]

Known targets and collaborations

According to a 2013 article in Foreign Policy, “TAO has become increasingly accomplished at its mission, thanks in part to the high-level cooperation it secretly receives from the ‘big three’ American telecom companies (AT&T, Verizon and Sprint), most of the large US-based Internet service providers, and many of the top computer security software manufactures and consulting companies.”[36] A 2012 TAO budget document claims that these companies, on TAO’s behest, “insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks and endpoint communications devices used by targets”.[36] A number of US companies, including Cisco and Dell, have subsequently made public statements denying that they insert such back doors into their products.[37]Microsoft provides advance warning to the NSA of vulnerabilities it knows about, before fixes or information about these vulnerabilities is available to the public; this enables TAO to execute so-called zero-day attacks.[38] A Microsoft official who declined to be identified in the press confirmed that this is indeed the case, but said that Microsoft can’t be held responsible for how the NSA uses this advance information.[39]

See also

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-767

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...