Published on Mar 22, 2019
Published on Mar 22, 2019
Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Mar 25, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
Mueller’s Report is what was expected. The report does conclude that the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia during the 2016 election, according to the letter from Barr to Congress. It notes that Mueller’s investigation found the campaign was given “multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign” but no one within the campaign or “anyone associated with it” conspired with Russia.
Essentially, Mueller’s report marked the end of an investigation that was launched in secret months before Trump was even elected by the Democrats. The FBI began gathering clues that made them suspicious of aides to Trump’s campaign under the direction of the Obama Administration which even calls into question Comey’s entire integrity given his white-wash of Hillary’s emails and selling influence via the now-defunct Clinton Foundation.
The FBI probe fueled by Hillary’s dossier she paid to go after Trump mushroomed to include allegations that began with Hillary whether the campaign coordinated with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. She furthered the idea that Trump himself attempted to obstruct her victory. There was bad blood between Hillary and Putin, to begin with. Putin accused Hillary of inciting a political protest in Russia back in 2011.
Interestingly enough, how do we know the server was hacked since the Democrats refused to turn it over to the FBI? Where is it now? The Democrats seem to have refused to cooperate with the FBI on Russia’s Supposed hacking, and intentionally destroyed the physical evidence of Russian Hacking if it ever existed. Where are the servers, and shouldn’t some Democrats be charged with Obstruction of Justice and aiding espionage for not cooperating in the investigation and destroying evidence? The Democrats (DNC) claimed to have been hacked by Russians ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
However, the timeline rarely is ever looked at in detail and the fact that there was no professional hacking of anyone’s computers. The entire access was simply gained by a fake email saying reset your password known as a phishing email. John Podesta simply did what the fake email said. We all get these and they are not something unique to high-level Russian intelligence, CIA, NSA or any government agency. Teenage kids in their basement try this sort of thing.
The New York Times reported in detail, the FBI discovered that a hacking group linked to the Russian government had gained access to at least one computer at the DNC. However, when the FBI contacted the DNC in September 2015 to let them know, the organization’s tech-support contractor didn’t do much with the information beyond performing “a cursory search of the DNC computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion.”
If we assume that there was a professional hack underway, the DNC was notified and did nothing. Indeed, it actually took nine months before DNC officials even held a formal meeting with the FBI about the alleged hack. By that time, it was too little, too late if there was a professional hack, to begin with. The hackers, whoever they were, ultimately had access to the DNC’s network for seven months before top DNC officials ever knew about the attack or hired anyone to combat it. During that time, the hackers stole countless emails and documents, later releasing them to the public.
- September 2015 – The FBI contacts the DNC’s IT department warning that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.
- November 2015 – The FBI reaches out again to the DNC this time warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC later admitted that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached in typical government worker fashion.
- March 19, 2016 – Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta received a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. This is not a high-level hack but a very common way to get into anyone’s computer. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password and he shared the email with a staffer from the campaign’s help desk. The staffer replies with a typo – instead of typing “This is an illegitimate email,” the staffer types “This is a legitimate email.” Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access all his emails. This was clearly NOT a major sophisticated hack that one would associate with Russia, CIA, or NSA tactic with unlimited resources.
- June 12, 2016 – In an interview on British television, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says that the website has obtained and will publish a batch of Clinton emails.
- June 14, 2016 – The Washington Post reports hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC’s computer system. They stated that oppositional research on Donald Trump was taken along with staffers’ emails and chat exchanges. The Kremlin came out and denied that the Russian government was linked to the hack. A US official then told CNN that investigators did not yet conclude that there was a cyberattack directed by the Russian government. This was clearly just a phishing email and not even a high-level cyberattack, which we all get from time to time by people trying to into our accounts.
- June 15, 2016 – A cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC posts a public notice on its website describing an attack on the political committee’s computer network by two groups associated with Russian intelligence. According to the post, two Russian-backed groups called “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” tunneled into the committee’s computer system. In response, a blogger called Guccifer 2.0 claims that he alone conducted the hack, not the Russians. As proof, he posts internal DNC memos and opposition research on Trump. Furthermore, Guccifer 2.0 claims to have passed along thousands of files to WikiLeaks. This was by no means a real hack to even begin with just a low-level phishing email that even a teenager often does and got lucky. Guccifer 2.0 claims were certainly far more credible than the pretend claims by the DNC that this linked back to Russia to start with.
- July 22, 2016 – A few days before the DNC convention, WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 emails hacked from the DNC server. The documents include notes in which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insults staffers from the Bernie Sanders campaign and messages that infer the DNC wants Hillary and not Bernie. Wasserman Schultz resigns in the aftermath of that leak.
- July 25, 2016 – The FBI announced it was launching an investigation into the DNC “hack” when it was clearly just a phishing email, to begin with, and not a cyberattack at all. Although the statement doesn’t indicate that the agency had a particular suspect in mind, the FBI was pointing the finger at Russia.
- July 27, 2016 – During a press conference, Trump talks about Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and calls on hackers to find the 30,000 deleted emails as a joke.
- August 12, 2016 – Hackers publish cell phone numbers and personal email addresses for Nancy Pelosi and other members of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
- September 1, 2016 – Putin in an interview with Bloomberg News, said that he and the Russian government have no ties to the hackers. He said that the identity of the culprit or culprits is not as important as the content of the leaks, and ultimately the hackers revealed important information for voters. That much I would have to agree since nothing was fake or altered.
- September 22, 2016 – Then Dianne Feinstein and Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, issued a joint statement declaring that based on information they received during congressional briefings, they believe that Russian intelligence agencies carried out a plan to interfere with the election without any hard evidence whatsoever.
- September 26, 2016 – During a presidential debate with Clinton, Trump questions whether the DNC cyberattack was carried out by a state-sponsored group or a lone hacker. “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.” Indeed, there simply was NO sophisticated cyberattack – just a childish phishing email.
- October-November 2016 – Over the course of a month, WikiLeaks published more than 58,000 messages simply taken from the account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman because he gave them the password.
- October 6, 2016 – DCLeaks, a self-described collective of “hacktivists” seeking to expose the influence of special interests on elected officials, published a batch of documents stolen from Clinton ally Capricia Marshall. DCLeaks is later also claimed to have links to the Russian military intelligence.
- October 7, 2016 – The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of National Intelligence on Election Security issued a joint statement declaring that the intelligence community is “confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions.” According to their statement which is not genuine, they claimed that the document releases on websites WikiLeaks and DCLeaks mirror the methods and motivations of past Russian-directed cyberattacks. But this was not even a cyberattack. It was a low-level phishing email that would not identify a high-level national-level intelligence hacking operation.
- November 29, 2016 – Then, after the election, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to President Obama demanding he declassifies information about “the Russian Government and the US election” intelligence hacking. The Obama Administration then said publicly that they shared with lawmakers that intelligence claiming Russia’s purpose for meddling in the election was to sway voters towards Trump, rather than broadly undermining confidence in the system.
Phishing Email (Fake Email to Get you to Put in Your Password)
What’s less clear is that there was no sophisticated hacking of the DNC servers. This was simply a low-level phishing email that we all get. This is NOT the hallmark of Russian Intelligence, CIA, NSA or any other major government with all their sophistication. It is truly amazing how people have called this “hacking” which means in the computer world someone breaks into your system – not that you give them your password.
Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator’s original objective. Those individuals who engage in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as “hackers.”
This simple phishing email has produced a cascade of other criminal investigations targeting people around Trump. The investigation led to the indictment of 34 people and three companies on scores of charges that were never related to the subject matter, to begin with. Dozens of Russian nationals were charged with hacking Democratic computers and spreading disinformation during the campaign. Several Trump aides were convicted of lying to Congress or investigators, or for campaign-finance violations or for tax and bank fraud. All of this for something that was NEVER an actual hack of anyone’s computers.
Fox News has published a small set of text messages between FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe and his DOJ Attorney Lisa Page. The set of messages released come from the device(s) of Lisa Page and outlines that she must have shared with investigators the totality of her texting and not just messages between herself and FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
The aspect covered within the release speaks to a concern from Main Justice toward the FBI application of the FISA warrant used against Carter Page. Specifically, concerns held by Stuart Evans, then the DOJ’s National Security Division deputy assistant attorney general, about the bias held by the FBI source, Christopher Steele.
FOX NEWS – Just nine days before the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil a top Trump campaign aide, bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had “continued concerns” about the “possible bias” of a source pivotal to the application, according to internal text messages obtained by Fox News.
The 2016 messages, sent between former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also reveal that bureau brass circulated at least two anti-Trump blog articles, including a Lawfare blog post sent shortly after Election Day that called Trump possibly “among the major threats to the security of the country.” (read more)
The issues presented within the Fox article are well known and have been widely discussed. Essentially further evidence of some people within Main Justice having concerns with the FBI’s aggressive approach toward gaining a sketchy FISA warrant.
However, the revelation that Lisa Page shared text messages beyond those previously outlined in communication with Peter Strzok now leads to a possibility that investigators have much more internal communication that previously understood. It would appear Ms. Page was considerably more forthcoming than other members of the small group.
Additionally, the leaking of this information to Fox News might indicate the investigation by Inspector General Michael Horowitz could be approaching completion.
Everything about last year’s headline story just two-weeks before the mid-term election was weird; including the refusal of the FBI to state what ‘specifically’ was the material suspect Cesar Sayoc was accused of using to create his Acme looking pipe bombs.
You might remember: FBI Director Christopher Wray outlined during his remarks that the devices consisted of PVC pipe, clocks, batteries, wiring and “energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction”.
The FBI director went out of his way to state: “these were not hoax devices.” The DOJ then moved to seal all court filings and the case against the nut continued behind the curtain of ‘national security’. Suspect Cesar Sayoc was scheduled to go on trial this summer on charges relating to the pipe bombs. However, today he entered a guilty plea before a federal judge in New York.
(Via Washington Post) Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man accused of mailing explosive devices to more than a dozen politicians and media figures who have been critical of President Trump, pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court.
Sayoc, 57, was arrested and charged in October after a series of possible explosive devices were sent to former president Barack Obama, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the news network CNN, among others. Officials said he sent a total of 16 devices to 13 people across the country.
On Thursday, he appeared in a Manhattan court room and read from a brief written statement in a quiet, raspy voice. Sayoc acknowledging that he created the devices and sent them in the mail.
“I knew these actions were wrong. I’m extremely sorry,” Sayoc said. He briefly lost his composure at one point while speaking, prompting his attorneys to rub his back.
Responding to a question from U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, Sayoc said: “I was aware of the risk that they would explode.”
Sayoc’s guilty plea had been anticipated since his court docket showed last week that a pretrial conference scheduled for Thursday had been changed to a “plea” hearing. He had previously pleaded not guilty. (read more)
President Donald Trump is THE disruptor. The global financial, trade and economic system was challenged and is being reset within Trump’s “America First” national economic policy. There are trillions at stake…
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” ~Machiavelli
Additionally, if you stand back and contemplate the scale of what President Trump is doing, this multinational reality is also a reason for the global world-order to support a seasoned political ally such as Joe Biden to return the former status-quo.
There are trillions of dollars at stake; and there is an unlimited amount of financial support from abroad; and a myriad of ways they can skirt campaign finance rules and regulations on foreign donations (see Tom Donohue); and all of it would be overlooked by a compliant administrative state, to fuel any challenger.
WASHINGTON – […] Citing Biden’s long foreign policy track record and longtime commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance, some of the leaders — echoing views from across the continent — told Biden that his return to the White House would be a sure way to restore western alliances that President Donald Trump has dramatically fractured.
While Biden was already likely to enter the race even without the encouragement of foreign leaders, one Democratic Party official close to Biden’s circle said that their support had fueled his appetite to run. He is now widely viewed as likely to announce a 2020 bid in the coming weeks. (read more)
As we understand the level of corrupt insider assistance given by foreign governments in 2016 toward the end goal of eliminating Donald Trump; then it is not reasonable to predict those same foreign governments will work from the outside to attain the same objective in 2020.
Rule #1 – Everything is about the economics. Rule #2 – Never doubt rule #1. It is always the money that begets the power. Everything in politics is about money. Everything in geopolitics is about bigger money.
What candidate would fulfill the objectives of the global financial community? Who would be the preferred candidate of the multinational corporations and banks?
Another way to look at it is to look at the field and ask: who would Tom Donohue support?
Re-Posted Mar 21, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
As time passes, the newer generations lack any understanding of gold standards or even the events of 1971. There are many people who judge the future of gold based upon their belief that it is money. However, like religion, human society is fragmented and certainly neither of one faith nor one political party. While there are YouTube videos showing people preferred a chocolate bar to a bar of silver, it always comes down to what we believe. The younger generations do not even remember silver coins no less the role of gold. This is producing some interesting events.
A woman took a handful of $20 gold coins to pay for groceries at Walmart. They would not accept them, even at $20. She was told to take them to a bank to exchange them for real money. She did and the teller gave her the face value. The incident sparked a hunt for the woman since a $20 gold coin was worth about $1,000 instead of $20. Here we have a woman who had no idea that the gold coins were worth more, a Walmart clerk who refused to accept them for $20, and a bank teller who at least gave her $20 each. A very interesting problem which would have been much worse if it involved bullion bars.