When It Comes to Meddling in the US Election, Was it the UK? by Publius Tacitus

I learned a long time ago that when you are close to the truth the opposition, if there is any, springs into action and launches a desperate counter attack. That appears to define what happened in the wake of Fox News suspending Judge Andrew Napolitano for the following claim:

that former US President Barack Obama asked British intelligence agency GCHQ to monitor President Donald Trump. . . .

Andrew Napolitano, a political commentator and former New Jersey judge, said on Tuesday Obama used GCHQ in order to "make sure there were no American fingerprints."

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice," said Napolitano. "He used GCHQ."

Well, the Brits went absolutely bonkers. GCHQ came as close to having a full blown aneurysm as any bureaucratic entity can. 

"We've made clear to the administration that these claims are ridiculous and they should be ignored and we've received assurances that these allegations will not be repeated," a Downing Street spokesman told reporters.

One of Judge Napolitano's sources apparently was Larry Johnson. However, according to Johnson, the Judge did not accurately report what Johnson had said. According to Mr. Johnson, President Obama did not order anything. Instead, information collected by GCHQ was passed to people in the U.S. intelligence community and then distributed in an unauthorized manner. To deny that GCHQ did not do anything in response to a request from President Obama, but that does not mean that GCHQ (aka General Communication's Headquarters) was passive and doing nothing.

Let me suggest one possible logical explanation. GCHQ, by virtue of being a foreign entity can (and does) easily and routinely collect electronic communications information in the United States. The Brits can do this without having to worry about FISA courts, probable cause, etc. Want proof? Here is the NY Times piece on 17 March 2017 that cites one example:

The conspiracy theorizing also tested what is often called the special relationship between the United States and Britain. American intelligence agencies enjoy a closer collaboration with their British counterparts than any other in the world. GCHQ was the first agency to warn the United States government that Russia was hacking Democratic Party emails during the presidential campaign

Got that? US and UK have a "special relationship" and the GCHQ was THE FIRST (not the second or third) to warn Obama that Russia supposedly was hacking Democrat Party emails.  When did they warn us? Before the discovery of the DNC hack or afterwards? If afterwards, how long? Who received that warning and what steps were taken to take counter measures? Lots of questions.

Here's another one--if the Brits knew that the Russians were hacking the DNC emails then how did they completely miss the Russians passing that info to one Julian Assange, who happens to be holed up in London in the Ecuadorian Embassy?

So why the enormous pushback from the Brits on Fox News? If we were playing Poker I would call that a tell. The Brits, normally implacable, allowed us to see their left eyebrow twitching. Judge Napolitano works for the Murdoch's, who also happen to have significant economic interests in Great Britain. I have heard the the British Government leaned hard on the Murdochs to do something about the Judge. So far, he has been suspended. Remains to be seen if he comes back on air.

To recap, we have the GCHQ routinely collecting on U.S. citizens and sharing that with the United States via NSA.  Let me suggest one additional twist--the Brits decided, with encouragement from people in U.S. intelligence (John Brennan, perhaps? Mike Rogers?) to step up their collection on Donald Trump and associates and then passed that information, unfiltered and unmasked, to their U.S. counterparts. Is that what alarmed Devin Nunes earlier this week?

Let's stretch out a bit further. Is it possible that Britain's version of the CIA, MI-6, also got into the act and helped its former officer, one Mr. Steele, compile and distribute the now infamous dossier?

Why in the world would the Brits do something so risky? I think the answer to that is pretty simple, straight forward and self-evident. Trump’s policy positions on Syria and NATO represented direct threats to British interests. In Syria, Trump expressed a willingness to side with Russia in defeating ISIS and to withdraw the U.S. from the business of nation building. Trump also turned over the apple cart of status quo foreign policy by stating quite plainly that NATO was an anachronism and needed to be given a good, hard look. Anyone want to argue that our British cousins were comfortable with these policy shifts?

Therefore, it is not a train to crazy town to suggest that GCHQ and MI6 would be quite willing to lend a hand in helping take out Trump. Could that will be one of the key revelations coming down the pike in coming weeks. This also helps account for British establishments' consternation of the claims of Judge Napolitano. It also provides a plausible explanation for the tremendous pressure brought on Judge Napolitano who, without fully understanding what he was talking about, identified a the fat, ugly naked man in the room that looked a lot like the Queen (apologies to her Majesty).

Wouldn't that be a shocker--learning that the Government of Great Britain was working hand in glove with U.S. counterparts to sandbag Donald Trump and his Presidency?

Most overlook an obvious but obscure issue--GCHQ has been collecting intelligence on American citizens for years. Especially Americans of Irish descent or those with ties to Irishmen in the Northern Ireland. That was especially true twenty years ago. You do not have to hold Top Secret clearances to understand this fact. The British were collecting intelligence on Americans with names like Moynihan, O'Keefe, Lang and Kelly. Make no mistake about that.

One final point. The dog that did not bark. By that I mean that notwithstanding all of these machinations, no significant intelligence was generated that provided a smoking gun that could have spelled the end of Donald Trump. How do I know that? Only by deduction. If such information had been scooped up you can be assured that it would have found its way immediately to the front pages of the NY Times and the Washington Post. That has not happened. I think he real story is what did the Brits know and when did they know it? I suspect any further investigations into this matter will put a bit of a damper on US/UK relations.

Comments

[David Habakkuk]

pmr9,

Thanks for that.

Assuming that the claim is born out by the e-mails – which seems to me likely, but I have not checked – a number of things would follow.

The original 14 June ‘Washington Post’ report, which first brought ‘CrowdStrike’ into the picture, contained the following paragraph:

‘Some of the hackers had access to the DNC network for about a year, but all were expelled over the past weekend in a major computer cleanup campaign, the committee officials and experts said.’

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.b8516315637a .)

In any case, this never made much sense. If ‘CrowdStrike’ had immediately identified ‘Fancy Bear’ in late April, one would have expected that the ‘cleanup campaign’ would have started there – and not have been delayed until the weekend of 11-12 June. Moreover, ‘about a year’ would not take us back to January 2015.

And further, if I recall right, TTG told me that there it is not possible to be reliably sure that all intruders have been expelled – in which case, the ‘committee officials and experts’ must either been incompetent or lying (if not both.)

On top of this, the final memorandum – supposedly from Christopher Steele – whose claims about Gubarev and XBT provoked the lawsuit, specifically claimed that they went on happily hacking throughout this period.

Obviously, if that is the case, then ‘CrowdStrike’ would need not simply to be mendacious but utterly incompetent. Anyone who looked to them to provide internet security would be liable to come very badly unstuck. (Their share price, if they have one, should be close to zero.)

Perhaps there will be a court case, in which Christopher Steele will have to come out of the shadows and testify, and there will be an honest judge (not Sir Robert Owen) and competent counsel asking questions which might cause problems for MI6 (not Robin Tam QC and Hugh Davies QC.) And perhaps they will call Alperovitch as a witness.

If the exfiltration of material – by whatever means – stopped in late May, that could generate a timeline that worked quite well.

Assuming that Seth Rich was identified as the source of the leaks at or around that date, there would have been enough time to organise his assassination.

Moreover, there would have been enough time to involve ‘CrowdStrike’ and other similar companies in producing disinformation to back up the ‘cover-up’ story.

And here, a piece which is clearly relevant is by Andrew Levine, sometime of ‘The Exile’, entitled ‘From Russia, with Panic’.

(See https://thebaffler.com/salvos/from-russia-with-panic-levine .)

It relates how claims about Russian cyberattacks were used in an attempt to validate the – as it turned out, completely false – argument that Russian initiated the 2008 Georgian War.

And it appears that, in his younger years, Dmitri Alperovitch was a ‘bit part player’ in these ‘information operations’.

None of this enables to push any hypotheses right up close to the 100% proven position, and indeed it is eminently possible that the murder of Rich was nothing to do with the DNC leaks. (Claims that David Kelly was murdered now have come down to something close to a 5% probability, it seems.)

But one really needs a serious argument, and there is not much point in attempting to have one with people who regard the ‘Guardian’, or GCHQ, as reliable sources, after all that has happened over the past years.

[DianaLC]

11214 Quivas Loop

[DianaLC]

I have wondered something for some time in regard to this entire "Russia hacked the electon" narrative. Now I am reminded that I've never read an explanation, and it might also have a connection the possible GCHQ link,given Assange's current location.

Back in January Assange offered to come to the U.S. if Chelsea Manning was pardoned. I know that Snowden was also interested in Manning's pardon. So, three leakers are involved here.

I could not figure out Assange's agenda with that suggestion. Perhaps he was just very concerned about Manning's mental health. And then nothing else was mentioned. Was he willing to give out detailed information to help Chelsea Manning get treatment for her suicidal tendencies? Is that the only reason he could have for his offer? Or did it have something to do with exchanging information in regard to this "hacking" story also?

Obviously I am guessing. It just seemed strange to me coming at that time.

[Priam's Crazy Daughter]

My question comes late to this subject. Back in January, Assange offered to come to the U.S. if Chelsea Manning was pardoned. I know that Snowden was also interested in Manning's pardon. But I've heard nothing else in regard to Assange's offer.

Did it simply fall flat and get no response? Was his motive simply to ease Manning's mental state?

Or, because of the timing in regard to all that "Russian hacked the election" narrative, was he also hinting that he might talk?

The timing of his offer seemed very strange.

[Thomas]

"... but it is very clear that Soros is turning his propaganda machine away from Russia, and fully focussing it on Trump."

No, he is going after one and all, as he should be, because when the lid blows off he is going to covered up to his eyeballs.

[Priam's Crazy Daughter]

And now everyone knows why I could never serve in intelligence organizations.

[Thomas]

"And now everyone knows why I could never serve in intelligence organizations."

Well, being Crazy could have got you in during the past sixteen years, but the door is closing on that.

In answer to your question it was bit part in this overall power play, with the key goal being to keep the Neo Cold War Redux alive so that things like the Syrian state surviving, Jihadis dying, and other nefarious acts seeing the light would not come to past. And maintaining positions and places in the Exceptional Empire court matters to these people with severe pathological issues too.

Stay tuned, more to come.

[Mikey]

Marketwatch: "Consumer confidence soars in March to best reading in 16 years"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-confidence-soars-in-march-to-best-reading-in-16-years-2017-03-28

[David Habakkuk]

Small correction.

It should have been Yasha Levine, not Andrew.

Yesterday, he produced a ‘tweet’ which reads:

‘CrowdStrike, the huckster cyber company blaming Russia for hacking America, is basically a privatized NATO cyber arm https://www.ncia.nato.int/NewsRoom/Pages/170323_nitec17.aspx … ‘

(See https://twitter.com/yashalevine/status/846691599992176640 .)

The link is to a release by the ‘NATO Communications and Information Agency’ about their annual conference, to be held in April, whose title this year is “Sharpening NATO’s Technological Edge: Adaptive Partnerships and the Innovative Power of Alliance Industry.”

Among the ‘cybersecurity and telecommunications industry leaders’ addressing the conference will be Alperovitch. His contribution to the release reads as follows:

‘“For the last 30 years, Western governments have focused a great deal of attention on the potential kinetic impacts posed by cyber-attacks,” said CrowdStrike Co-founder and CTO Dmitri Alperovitch. “Our adversaries, however, have learned to appreciate cyber as an information warfare domain first and foremost. Now that we have witnessed how democracy itself can be attacked through cyber-enabled leaks and propaganda, it is more imperative than ever for NATO to develop a strategy for leveraging both public and private resources to raise preparedness in combatting these threats.”’

This is the familiar oleaginous ‘butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth’ tone which has become characteristic of Western ‘information operations’.

So Alperovitch’s remarks further reinforce the questions which have been buildin up about the conventional ‘narrative’ on the DNC hacks. That organisation brings in a supposedly ‘independent’ expert, who however turns out on closer inspection to be part of NATO networks heavily invested in ‘StratCom’, as is evident from the clearly close links between the ‘Atlantic Council’ and the ‘NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence.’

Rather than have either own experts look at the DNC servers, the FBI and the NSA are happy to accept this expert’s analysis on trust.

Jesting apart, it seems to me highly unlikely that simple incompetence provides a plausible explanation for this extraordinary behaviour.

A more plausible hypothesis is that both the FBI and the NSA were aware that actual test results carried out by competent and independent experts on the DNC servers would not support the ‘narrative’. With their own people, there would have been a real possibility that the truth might leak out. (It is also possible of course, that a proper investigation was carried out, and the results suppressed.)

Accordingly, their own realistic course of action was to rely on a ‘huckster cyber company’ which was intimately involved with official Western ‘information operations’ networks.

Another obvious hypothesis is that all the claims by the FBI, NSA and GCHQ that they had identified Russian penetration of the DNC in either autumn or August 2015 are BS. It seems likely that the existence of a serious exfiltration of information from the DNC was not identified until May 2016 – not April, as claimed by in the ‘narrative’ put out by ‘CrowdStrike’ and others.

I am still wondering what percentage probability to put on these various hypotheses – if one wanted to follow the ‘Rootclaim’ example. It seems to me that, while it should be significantly less than 100%, it should be quite high.

[Eric Newhill]

A revelation released on Morning Joe by Evelyn Farkas that the Obama admin sought intel on Trump:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/29/former-obama-official-discloses-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html

[dorothy108]

Indeed, and Col. Lang was the first to point it out!
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/03/is-evelyn-farkas-a-felon.html

[turcopolier]

dorethy108

Publius tells me he is writing a piece on Dr. Farkas' embarrassing admissions on MJ this morning. I must force myself to go back to watching that circus. pl

[Valissa]

Thanks, David, for putting all the pieces together so lucidly in this and other recent comments on the "hack."

Given all the information operations likely in play it has become clear that the heads of the various IC agencies cannot be trusted to speak the truth to the public about these investigations. Given that, and the intense polarization, I do not see how any congressional investigations into these matters would clear anything up. These people are not interested in attempting to get at the truth, they are too driven by their ambitions, egos and tribal loyalties.

[dorothy108]

Sir:
I know this whole 'circus' must be so tedious for you, but you, and the fine members of your committee are just about the only source of unbiased truth left out there. Your insights are appreciated and revered. I cannot thank you, enough for your continued service.

[Pundita]

This American-British spy tale has taken on the earmarks of a Shaggy Dog joke that the American author James Dickey ("Deliverance") was good at acting out. It was the one about the man who was told that the right cuff on his jacket was a little longer than the left cuff. So he drew his right hand a little into the jacket sleeve to even out the appearance of the cuffs.

Then someone pointed out that the left cuff on his jacket looked a little longer than the right cuff. So he drew his left hand a little into the jacket sleeve to even out the sleeves. But then someone told him the right cuff looked longer than the left cuff.

It went on and on like that until Dickey's arms were completely out of the jacket with the empty sleeves flopping around.