Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury…

There is not now nor will there ever be any evidence that the Russian government influenced even one single vote in 2016 election

If you listen to the podcast Wrongful Conviction, you often find yourself scratching your head: “How the hell did 12 people vote to convict someone on such scanty evidence?” The whole room fell for the prosecutor hook, line and sinker and no one noticed the evidence wasn’t there.

That’s what happened with Comey. He’s an unethical prosecutor. If you fell for his testimony, you might be the kind of person who gets on a jury and convicts an innocent man. Stop saying “he seemed credible” or thinking about how nice it would be to see Trump get it right in the kisser and look at the evidence that Russia played a role in the 2016 election.

There is none. You are being manipulated.

In his much hyped and stage-managed political theater, June 8 2017 testimony, James Comey said, “There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever, the Russians interfered in our election.” The impact of Russia on the election is “about as unfake as you can possibly get.”

Wrong.

It may be true that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. He is also certainly guilty of violating the emoluments and war powers clauses of the consitution. He and his people may have made illegal deals with Russian government agents and he may be subject to bribery and blackmail from Putin. He also could be removed for mental illness.

If you want grounds to impeach him, such a case exists. The part that is fake is when Comey says the Russian hackers or other agents had an effect on the election. Russia did not have any role in the 2016 election.

Comey is wrong for six (6) reasons: 1) When the FBI has released some of this evidence to us peons in the public, the evidence has been completely fuzzy and fake; and 2) the “Russia hacked the election by collaborating with Trump” story is not internally consistent or even plausible; and 3) guys like Comey are always wrong; and 4) no one seems to want to interview the people who might actually know something and 5) releasing the DNC emails and John Podesta’s emails to Wikileaks is not interference in the election; regardless of who leaked the emails, it’s a good thing they were leaked. If leaked by someone with official access to the DNC emails, as may well be the case, no laws were broken at any time in the process and the public is better off than if the emails had not been released. So call off the dogs. 6) In 2009, the US rejected a Russian proposal for an international agreement on hacking and cyber warfare because “a treaty would be ineffective because it can be almost impossible to determine if an Internet attack originated from a government, a hacker loyal to that government, or a rogue acting independently.”

1. So far, the FBI and their allies have only released “digital fingerprint” evidence: such evidence is not reliable

Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified report on Russia’s role in influencing the US election on January 6, 2017. It’s complete crap. You don’t need a powerful state to get ahold of the DNC emails and to hack John Podesta’s account.

The ODNI report was released January 16 and rendered moot on March 7, 2017 by Wikileaks with the Vault 7 publication. Comey referred to neither his botched January report nor the publication in March that undercut his entire argument.

“Podesta gave out that his password was the word ‘p@ssw0rd’… a 14-year-old kid could have hacked Podesta,” Assange said while commenting on the DNC leaks and Russia’s alleged involvement in it in an exclusive interview with Fox News. Podesta never installed two-step verification on his Gmail account.

The ODNI is flawed in more ways. One, the government relies on Google-owned Crowdstrike. Next, the whole idea of “digital fingerprints” is flawed since CIA created tools like UMBRAGE were available to many people in 2016. The ODNI has nothing but “digital fingerprints” in their report. Anyone with the Vault 7 tools could have faked Russian fingerprints.

To prove Russian involvement in guessing that Podesta’s password for his iCloud account was Hillary16, you would have to have sworn testimony from a Russian government hacker, or some such non-digital evidence. Otherwise, there is not now nor will there ever be reliable evidence of hacking that cannot be tracked back to the CIA Vault 7 tools as easily as Russian intelligence.

Think of it like this: suppose someone invented a technology that would allow some kind of bacteria to re-write my fingerprints to be exactly the same as James Comey’s. Then I committed a crime and the fingerprints were traced back to Comey and he were arrested for the break in solely on the fingerprint evidence. If evidence that such a technology became common knowledge, then the case against him would have to be dismissed.

What literal fingerprints and DNA proves is that infinite variability is built into organic life. The digital world isn’t like that. Since computers and the Internet were created by humans, determined and well informed humans, such as CIA hackers, can alter the digital equivalent of fingerprints and DNA at Will.

Pretty ludicrous idea for a technology. However, in the Vault 7 release, in the digital sphere, there are many such technologies. Therefore, the government has to offer some other kind of evidence if they want to implicate Russia in hacking the DNC or John Podesta.

The FBI and their allies need a spy or other human, someone claiming assylum or something, that can testify that they were involved in hacking while working for the Russians and that they personally handed files over to Wikileaks. Then you might corroborate that story with digital evidence. But with only “digital fingerpints”? After Vault 7? No. The CIA has permanently spoiled all such evidence by releasing this malware into cirrculation prior to the election in 2016.

2. US intelligence agencies have never been right about anything

Furthermore, the American “intelligence” establish is always wrong. Always. Every time. They have a budget of about 100 billion a year but they have never been right about anything important ever.

The Vietnamese Communists fighting France and the US in the 1950s and 60s were never the puppets of the Soviet Union or Communist China ever. Therefore there was never a strategic reason for US involvement in Vietnam. Whether they were communist or not is not relevant. More than a million people died for no reason. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a deliberate forgery perpetrated by the US government on the people of America.

The Soviet Union was always a multi-ethnic state with a minority Russian population and always vulnerable to break up along ethnic/linguistic lines. Rather than an evil empire, it was a tottering multi-ethnic conglomeration based on 19th century imperial boundaries and was never stable. When it collapsed, the intelligence apparatus was surprised.

Iraq had zero weapons of mass destruction and no links to Al-Qaeda when the US invaded in 2003, resulting in maybe a million dead for no reason again. Abolishing the Iraqi army left a power vacuum occupied by Iran and Isis.

The American intelligence establishment created Isis. See here for a link to this. The American intelligence establishment did not know that the Iranian revolution was possible. They did not predict or stop 9/11. So you can be sure if ODNI says Russia had an impact on the US election in 2016, you can be sure that Russia had no impact.

3. The Russia hacking story isn’t even plausible or logical or internally consistent

Now, how would have Russia influenced the US election in 2016? Hacking machines? There is no real allegation that anyone did hack e-voting machines, so no, that’s not it. What else did they do?

The only claim for “interference” is the release of real emails through Wikileaks. That’s the only way Russia might have influenced the election. There is no other possible or alleged activity.

That is weak tea. So they guessed that John Podesta’s password was “podesta1234”? The fate of the nation depends on whether or not John Podesta changes his password regularly?

Anyone could have gotten Podesta’s email, the Wikileaks publication released in October 2016. The DNC emails, released in July 2016, are less easy to access and may have been gathered by an insider, as those that speculate about Seth Rich would note.

Why would Russia have to talk to Trump about releasing these emails, if that is what the allegation suggests? What is the point of collaborating? Can’t Russia hand the emails to Wikileaks without Trump’s campaign even knowing about it?

If Trump and the Russians were talking, it was not about releasing emails and influencing the election in that way. Maybe the Russian government is blackmailing Trump. That’s possible. Maybe Trump has some dirty deals in Russia that he is planning to make money off his presidency through some kind of dark money transfer. That’s possible. But it’s not logical for Trump to talk to Russia about releasing hacked emails. What is there to talk about?

No one should be surprised if the Russians broke into John Podesta’s email — anyone could have. Dozens of people and entities might have broken into his email account: he did not use two step verfication, picked easy to guess passwords, and he left his phone in a cab. If thousands of people could have broken into his email, and if the whole idea of digital fingerprints is flawed, then how are you going to blame Putin? You can’t.

The DNC case from the July Wikileak publication is a bit more complicated. If Comey had been careful to distinguish between the two incidents, then he might be more credible. You really claim that Russia was behind both incidents?

Sure, it could have been the Russians, or my uncle Charly, or almost anyone. The people most likely to know work with Wikileaks. Everyone else, such as Comey, has no good way of knowing by foresics alone. The FBI would have to have someone either in Russia or at Wikileaks testify in open court. They don’t have any such person.

The case should now be dismissed. Comey, if he were an ethical prosecutor intested in the truth, would dismiss the case for lack of evidence. He’s not a spy. He’s a prosecutor. And he is acting unethically.

4. The FBI studiously avoids talking to people who might actually know something about Wikileaks

Next, Craig Murray says the Russians were not involved in the DNC release of July 2016 and he should know. Did Comey take Murray’s sworn statement? How about Kim DotCom? Julian Assange? Why is it that people with information are not allowed to provide the FBI or the intelligence establishment with information that may be pertinent to how Wikileaks got Podesta’s and the DNC’s email?

What’s wrong with Craig Murray? Why isn’t he an adult human being who can testify in court? What is he, a ghost? Over 18? What’s the problem with his testimony?

In this article “debunking” the idea that Seth Rich (although Murray does not seem to know the identity of the man in the park) handed a flashdrive to Craig Murray in a park in Washington DC in the summer of 2016 and that was the source of the first, DNC leak, we read: “FBI officials told NBC [Seth Rich’s] computer didn’t have a correspondence with Wikileaks, and the FBI was never even in possession of it.”

Wait: you’re sure there’s no emails to or from WikiLeaks on there … but how can you know that if you never looked at the computer? When you come across whoopers like this, you should question the narrative.

Do you notice that here in this little blog post I am careful to distinguish between the July DNC release and the October Podesta release? Do you notice that I am careful to categorize evidence by type—“digital fingerprints” as a category? I refer to all possible evidence, including Murray?

Comey didn’t separate the two leaks in his testimony. Is he claiming Russia hacked both Podesta and the DNC? Is he basing his allegations only on digital fingerprint type of evidence of does he have something else? How does Vault 7 play into his trust of digital fingerprints?

He never explains any of that. He throws two indicidents into one category of “interference” and simply ignores a sea change in how reliable his evidence is: Vault 7.

It does not sound like he is doing a real investigation to get to a truthful answer.

5. Publishing John Podesta’s emails or the DNC emails is not a bad thing to do and if those emails changed the election, that is the fault of the people who wrote the emails

What we learned from John Podesta’s emails is that we do not live in a democracy. That is something we need to know. Podesta himself told us we do not live in a democracy. Hillary (private position) told us. We should believe them.

How is publishing information that is accurate and true about the fact that we do not live in a democracy a bad thing to do? If Podesta were not a node in a system of fake democracy, publishing his email would not prove that he is a node in a system of fake democracy.

So if Russia did have a role in these releases — and there is no evidence that they did — then thank you Russia. If people learning that the DNC is corrupt caused the Pied Piper strategy to blow up in Podesta’s face, then it matters not at all who made public the Pied Piper memo and the Froman spreadsheet and the Clinton Foundation audit. Now we know.

The United States government actively worked to inform the people of Eastern Europe when they were dominated by an undemocratic tyranny. Radio Free Europe and Radio Marti are examples of direct governmental broadcasting to attempt to circumvent state control. The US also engages in similar covert campaigns to influence foreign public opinion.

If Russia is doing the same thing — influencing American public opinion — but only by releasing or encouraging the release of true and accurate reporting, actual real news, as in the case of John Podesta’s evil emails, then more power to them. Thanks for the information.

If the America people live in a propaganda environment, are poorly educated and easy to influence by foreign agents, then the American government should change how broadcast licenses are allocated to allow for a greater diversity of opinion on the airways and improve education, including a diversity of opinion even in US history classes.

If you give control of your airwaves to for profit corporate propaganda and someone bursts your bubble with real information, locking up or demonizing the source of the real information is not the democratic response.

If we lived in a democracy, then the DNC and Podesta emails would not have influenced the election because Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee of the Democratic party. The problem is not Russia.

Russia is not a democracy. Putin is not a figure that represents any positive force in world politics. But Putin is not the enemy of the American people. We do not live in a fake democracy because of Putin.

Barack Obama was an agent of CitiGroup. He was never working for the American people but the insurance companies and the big banks. Here is the proof that Obama was a Judas to progressives and Black America. One email, one spreadsheet, means he was always working for the man to steal from the people.

If you never heard about the Froman spreadsheet and what it means, you do not live in a democracy.

6. Read this New York Times article from 2009

“But American officials are particularly resistant to agreements that would allow governments to censor the Internet, saying they would provide cover for totalitarian regimes. These officials also worry that a treaty would be ineffective because it can be almost impossible to determine if an Internet attack originated from a government, a hacker loyal to that government, or a rogue acting independently.”

That was then. Suddenly, after the CIA spent 7 years making it more difficult to “impossible to determine if an Internet attack originated from a government” then letting those tools leak out to the public in 2016, all of a sudden, now… there is, as Comey said, “no fuzz”?

What a load of…

Conclusion

You really should not take James Comey at his word about hacking and Russia. For a claim this profound, we should have profound evidence. We have zero evidence, except digital fingerprint type of evidence, all of which is suspect following the Vault 7 release.

Maybe Trump is being bribed or blackmailed by Russia. Their arrangements certainly have nothing to do with the actual break-ins into the email systems of the DNC or of John Podesta. Even if Russian agents told Trump people that they were involved in the DNC releases, that doesn’t make it true.

Again, I can believe that the Russians and the Trump campaign have some kind of dirty deal.

Maybe Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice to hide the blackmail or bribery. Whatever Trump may be covering up, that something has nothing to do with hacking computers and passing information to Wikileaks. So far there is no evidence of anything Comey said.

The situation reminds me a bit of what happened in Brazil with Dilma Rouseff. Her popularity had sagged a bit due to an economic downturn. Her deep state opponents decided it was the moment to pounce. She was convicted of a nonsensical charge that was not particularly serious based on no substantial evidence.

The difference for me is that I like Dilma and I hate Trump. Still I see some parallels in the dynamic.

Now, I supposed if professional waterboys and girls for oligarchs, also known as Democrats and Republicans, want to mix it up with Trump, there is nothing much to lose. Hopefully they can all damage each other and clear the deck for a real change, with people throwing off this oppressive system of fake democracy. Its frustrating to sit here and watch everyone believe something that is obviously not true — Russia had a role in the 2016 election. It’s like being an atheist in Medieval Europe. You know there can’t be an all knowning, all good, all powerful God and praying for the end to plague has never worked. But what can you do? They are not going to listen to you.

So that’s the situation we have here. The story is idiotic — a huge army of Russian hackers to guess that Podesta didn’t have two-step verification on his Google account. Why not tell people to put two-step verification on their accounts and pick hard to guess passwords instead of bringing the nation to a standstill and ratcheting up tensions with Russia? Why not “investigate” by asking people who actually know something and not ignoring huge holes in your story, like there is no such thing as reliable digital forensics?

Oh well. They’re not listening. For the record, you didn’t fool me.