“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, March 20, 2017

WikiLeaks released more than 8,000 webpages that document numerous hacking tools developed and used by the Central Intelligence Agency







Why is it that the House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ includes only DNC-hired tech experts?

by LEE STRANAHAN
Breitbart.com

A list of witnesses scheduled to appear at a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Open Hearing on “Russian Active Measures” contains a glaring problem: the only technical experts scheduled to testify are from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is a firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and has become the primary source of the narrative about “Russian hacking” of the 2016 election and has acted as a mouthpiece for the Democrats since last June.

The initial witness list released by House Intelligence includes a number of intelligence officials, all appointed during the Obama administration, such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, but the sole technical people on the invitation list are two representatives of CrowdStrike, President Shawn Henry, and the co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch.

Breitbart News has interviewed tech experts who do not agree with the CrowdStrike assessment or Obama administration’s claims that the DNC/DCCC hacks clearly committed by Russian state actors, with much criticism aimed at the FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” that was released at the end of December. As ZDNet reported after the JAR report was released by the Obama administration on the same day that they announced sanctions against Russia:
The JAR included “specific indicators of compromise, including IP addresses and a PHP malware sample.” But what does this really prove? Wordfence, a WordPress security company specializing in analyzing PHP malware, examined these indicators and didn’t find any hard evidence of Russian involvement. Instead, Wordfence found the attack software was P.AS. 3.1.0, an out-of-date, web-shell hacking tool. The newest version, 4.1.1b, is more sophisticated. Its website claims it was written in the Ukraine.
Mark Maunder, Wordfence’s CEO, concluded that since the attacks were made “several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S sic which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources.”

True, as Errata Security CEO Rob Graham pointed out in a blog post, P.A.S is popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. But it’s “used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world.” In short, just because the attackers used P.A.S., that’s not enough evidence to blame it on the Russian government.
Independent cybersecurity experts, such as Jeffrey Carr, have cited numerous errors that the media and CrowdStrike have made in discussing the hacking in what Carr refers to as a “runaway train” of misinformation.

For example, CrowdStrike has named a threat group that they have given the name “Fancy Bear” for the hacks and then said this threat group is Russian intelligence. In December 2016, Carr wrote in a post on Medium:
A common misconception of “threat group” is that [it] refers to a group of people. It doesn’t. Here’s how ESET describes SEDNIT, one of the names for the threat group known as APT28, Fancy Bear, etc. This definition is found on p.12 of part two “En Route with Sednit: Observing the Comings and Goings”:

As security researchers, what we call “the Sednit group” is merely a set of software and the related network infrastructure, which we can hardly correlate with any specific organization.

Unlike CrowdStrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone.
Despite these and other criticisms from technical experts with no political axe to grind, the House Intelligence committee has called no independent cybersecurity professionals to challenge the Democrats’ claims of “Russian hacking” that have been repeated ad naseum by the media.

Instead of presenting counter-arguments to allow the general public to make up their own minds, the House committee has invited Shawn Henry and Dmitri Alperovitch from CrowdStrike,

The danger is especially high since the subject involves technical details that the public—and, frankly, most politicians—don’t understand and can be easily fooled about. A presentation with no rebuttal at all from other technical experts will lead to even more disinformation being given to the American people.

There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of the objectivity of CrowdStrike’s assessments.

As Esquire reported in a long profile piece, the DNC specifically used Alperovitch and Henry as part of an anti-Trump publicity plan related to the hacking in early June 2016:
The DNC wanted to go public. At the committee’s request, Alperovitch and Henry briefed a reporter from The Washington Post about the attack.
Alperovitch told me he was thrilled that the DNC decided to publicize Russia’s involvement. “Having a client give us the ability to tell the full story” was a “milestone in the industry,” he says. “Not just highlighting a rogue nation-state’s actions but explaining what was taken and how and when. These stories are almost never told.”
The Esquire piece also indicates that as the election wore on, the Obama administration was also using Alperovitch and CrowdStrike’s claims to push the Democrat narrative that the Russians were behind the attack:
On October 7, two days before the second presidential debate, Alperovitch got a phone call from a senior government official alerting him that a statement identifying Russia as the sponsor of the DNC attack would soon be released. (The statement, from the office of the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, appeared later that day.)
It is worth noting that CrowdStrike and Alperovitch’s story has evolved over time to match a Democrat narrative. In an article in Inc. on June 14, 2016, titled “Why the DNC Hired This Cybersecurity Firm to Fight Russian Spies,” Alperovitch claimed that the purpose of the DNC hack was to expose Donald Trump:
On Tuesday, it was revealed that the Russian government is implicated in a security breach of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, through which opposition research on the bombastic presidential candidate was lifted.

“Every world leader is trying to figure out who Mr. Trump is, especially if he’s elected president, and they want to know what his foreign policies would be. Russia is no exception,” says Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and CTO of CrowdStrike. His firm was hired to manage the breach. “The actors are also interested in any other information the DNC might have in their opposition research to use it against Trump if he becomes president,” says Alperovitch, who leads the Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams.
There is no justification for a technical expert like Alperovitch ascribing motives to the hackers or making statements about what “world leaders” think. It is simply outside his area of expertise, but the point of the Democrats using Alperovitch and Henry to promote their “Russian hacking” narrative is to provide a technical veneer to their story to score political points.

Shawn Henry, the other House witness from CrowdStrike scheduled to testify on March 20 before House Intelligence, said on his LinkedIn page that he also works for NBC News, where he says his role is to “advise NBC News on all aspects of national, homeland, and cyber security, to include on-air appearances on all NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC News programs.” He added that he is to “regularly appear on Nightly News, The Today Show, and MSNBC news programming.”

CrowdStrike also has a financial connection to one of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats’ most high-profile supporters in Silicon Valley: Google.

In 2015, CrowdStrike raised $100 million in a new round of financing, according to the New York Timeswhich reported that “the investment was led by Google Capital, one of the technology giant’s venture capital arms, in its first cybersecurity deal.”

As Breitbart News reported, the WikiLeaks releases showed that Eric Schmidt, executive of Google Capital parent company and financier Alphabet, appeared to be working directly with the Clinton campaign.

All of this makes the reliance of the House Committee and the media on CrowdStrike disturbing, but even worse, earlier this year, BuzzFeed reported that the FBI did not examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee but, instead, based their assessment on CrowdStrike’s evaluation:
Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.
The FBI has instead relied on computer forensics from a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike, which first determined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infiltrated by Russia-linked hackers, the U.S. intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.
“CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official said, adding they were confident Russia was behind the widespread hacks.
Despite that claim by an unnamed intelligence official, there is reason to believe that what CrowdStrike has concluded is not accurate. At this point, however, the House Committee and the American people will not see it.
Breitbart News has requested an interview with Dmitri Alperovitch, but at press time there was no response.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says that initial witness invitation lists “may be expanded or modified as warranted.”

88 comments:

  1. How is it possible, that the entire US Corporate Media and the Democrats have been incessantly screaming that the Russians interfered in US elections and hacked the DNC computers, yet the same DNC has not been permitted the FBI to examine their servers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. On Feb. 2, House officials banned Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan from the House of Representatives network as part of a Capitol Police criminal investigation into House computer security. But longtime employers including Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Gregory Meeks have stood by them. Meeks, of New York, said although they had access to his data, he’d “seen no evidence that they were doing anything that was nefarious” like steal or hack, and were being unfairly picked on for being Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

    The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.

    Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.

    Jamal handled IT for Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat who serves on both the intelligence and foreign affairs panels.
    Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid $161,000 and Imran $165,000.

    Democrats evidently paid the Awan brothers over $4 MILLION dollars. They are also aliens from Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The mainstream media hammers away at ‘the Russians are spying, the Russians are spying’ and ignoring this story.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MORE HERE:

    https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/meet-the-awan-brothers-from-pakistan-they-ran-dnc-congress-computers-committed-treason/

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Awan Brothers

    3 Awan brothers are named by Webb : Imran, Jamal and Abid. (A 4th brother and wife of one of the Awan's are also believed to be involved).

    Originally installed in congressional positions by Greg Meeks who is widely regarded as the most corrupt member of congress.

    Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz also requested top secret clearance for the Awan brothers. The Awans are Pakistani Nationals not US citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Knew I had seen Jackie Speir's name before.
      ...it all could have turned out differently if the CA Democrat party weren't already terminally corrupt in 1978.

      ===

      Vodka and Steak:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=Jackie+Speier&rlz=1C1AVSU_enUS357&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0er9zeTSAhVElFQKHdhvDNQQiR4IlwE#imgrc=vuEu7YE3C4EbuM:

      Jonestown:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=Jackie+Speier&rlz=1C1AVSU_enUS357&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0er9zeTSAhVElFQKHdhvDNQQiR4IlwE#imgrc=AJSTOLLrqtiKnM:

      "I'm 28 years old, and I am about to die."
      I was curled up behind the wheel of an airplane on a jungle airstrip in Guyana, South America.

      This isn't what I expected when I signed on to work for a United States congressman. Our fact-finding trip to investigate the Peoples Temple in Jonestown had gone horribly wrong.

      I lay as still as I could, pretending to be dead, as an unknown gunman pumped five bullets into me at close range. Pop-pop. Pop. Pop-pop.

      When the shooting stopped, I looked around and saw bodies, including that of my boss and mentor, Congressman Leo Ryan. Was he, too, pretending to be dead? I called his name, but he didn't respond. Looking down, I saw what appeared to be a bone. It was my own, and it was sticking out of my shattered right arm.

      http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Congresswoman-remembers-day-of-horror-3261573.php

      I volunteered for the campaign of my state assemblyman, Leo Ryan, who seemed unlike other politicians.
      He was provocative; he didn't mince words or beat around the bush; he told you what was on his mind whether you wanted to hear it or not; and he took pride in not being able to be pigeonholed into any one ideology.

      For instance, he was a public school teacher, but supported education vouchers, opposed by teachers unions as a threat to public schools.

      Delete
    2. Revive the ERA

      Meryl Streep Revives Ages-Old Amendment, Jackie Speier Listens

      http://www.ravishly.com/worth-mention/meryl-streep-revives-ages-old-amendment-jackie-speier-listens

      Delete
  8. Why is it that the House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ includes only DNC-hired tech experts?

    Because the Republicans control the House.

    ===

    All of this makes the reliance of the House Committee and the media on CrowdStrike disturbing, but even worse, earlier this year, BuzzFeed reported that the FBI did not examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee but, instead, based their assessment on CrowdStrike’s evaluation:

    Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

    The FBI has instead relied on computer forensics from a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike, which first determined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infiltrated by Russia-linked hackers, the U.S. intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

    “CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official said, adding they were confident Russia was behind the widespread hacks.
    ===

    When will Trump fire Comey?

    ReplyDelete
  9. BUT WAIT: THERE IS MORE:

    Awans worked for 31 different congressional democrats and notably 21 burglaries of these congressional offices hare alleged to have occurred.

    Awans worked under congressional members who work for top secret level congressional committees (DHS, Foreign affairs, Select intelligence committee).

    The 4 Awan brothers are rarely seen at congressional staff meetings.

    Awans are paid 2X the median salary of congressional staffers in similar positions.

    Awans operated an external server, which is against all protocols concerning secured government information

    Awans had special access to the White House for Visas

    It is believed that the Awan server houses Hillary’s Enemies list in association with tracking information

    At least 1 of the Awan brothers operated a Fake Car dealership which shows signs of money laundering

    Since the 21 congressional burglaries, the Awan’s have fled to Pakistan

    Awans held their step mother prisoner in a Springfield, Virginia home, also hacked and monitored her phone

    It is believed that the Awans are part of a network feeding a global information grid in association with overseas rat-lines

    Rat-lines are routes for weapons smuggling, drug smuggling, human trafficking, organ harvesting, and sensitive information

    Awans have links to drug lines from Pakistan to Turkey, connected to Hezbolla figure, Al-Attar, and exiled Turkish national Gulen.

    Gulen operates Madrassas all over the World and is believed to have been involved in the recent assassination attempt on Erdogan, the president of Turkey.

    Webb states that DynCorp is also involved in police training in Pakistan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://steemit.com/pedogate/@v4vapid/awan-brotherhood-hackers-in-the-house-a-webb-companion-day-139-summary

      Delete
  10. There is no doubt. Trump is paranoid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How could anyone doubt a political party and the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, that hires an unimpeachable source like Donna Brazille?

    ReplyDelete
  12. These people and their sychophants make Diogenes the Cynic look like an optimist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. THIS SUNDAY ON "MEET THE PRESS"

    Schiff, D-Calif., told host Chuck Todd, "I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that because I don't think you can make that claim categorically as he did. I would characterize it this way at the outset of the investigation: There is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that's where we begin the investigation."

    Schiff is the ranking Democratic member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Schiff: 'Circumstantial Evidence of Collusion' Between Trump Campaign, Russia
      NBCNews.com

      http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/schiff-defends-committee-examining-russia-trump-connections-n735391

      Delete
  14. FINALLY, LEST WE FORGET

    Donne Brazile (who has a striking resemblance to Aunt Jamima) gave Hillary debate questions before at least one debate, in spite of the fact that the moderator explicitly said at the beginning that neither candidate had any foreknowledge of the questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Still lying after all this time:

      Donna Brazile Parses Words in Her Denial of Email Leaks

      Donna Brazile, in an exclusive with Richard Prince, who pens the Journal-isms column for The Root, flatly denies ever giving questions to the Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

      Donna Brazile, the veteran Democratic political strategist who parted ways with CNN last year amid…
      Read more on journalisms.​theroot.​com
      However, based on Brazile’s own essay in Time magazine, this seems to some like she is parsing her words.

      Brazile told Prince via email, “At no time did I receive or participate in the drafting or dissemination of questions provided by CNN,” and then, “I’m not going to allow the lies to stand,” which would seem like a direct contradiction of her essay.

      However, if you look at the wording of Brazile’s essay, she talks about sharing “potential topics” versus “questions,” which to some is inappropriate, to others, understandable as Brazile is a longtime Democratic party strategist whose job is to advise candidates about what to look out for.

      A reader of Prince’s column shared the actual hacked email from Brazile with the subject line, “One of the questions directed at HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” and refers to a woman from Flint, Mich., who asked Clinton about the beleaguered community there.

      http://www.theroot.com/donna-brazile-regrets-leaking-those-town-hall-topics-to-1793395730

      Delete
  15. Donna Brazile finally admits giving primary debate questions to Clinton campaign

    Donna Brazile has finally come clean: Yes, the fix was in for Hillary Clinton during last year’s Democratic primary.

    The former Democratic National Committee chair and ex-CNN contributor, in a piece published this weekend in Time magazine, acknowledged funneling inside info to the Clinton camp before two debates with Bernie Sanders.

    “Among the many things I did in my role as Democratic operative and DNC vice chair ... was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” writes Brazile.

    Emails published by WikiLeaks in October exposed the correspondence where Brazile tipped the Hillary camp about questions before the two Democratic Party showdowns.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donna-brazile-finally-admits-giving-debate-questions-clinton-article-1.3002221

    “My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she wrote. “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”

    A pair of emails from March 2016 showed Brazile advising Clinton’s communications director that Hillary would get questions about the death penalty at one debate and the Flint, Mich., water crisis at a second.

    The leaks occurred while Brazile was working for the cable news station, which immediately cut ties with her when the scandal broke. CNN sponsored the debates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies



    1. ‘I’m Not Going to Allow the Lies to Stand’

      Donna Brazile, the veteran Democratic political strategist who parted ways with CNN last year amid WikiLeaks revelations appearing to show that she provided the Hillary Clinton campaign with questions she would be asked in a televised CNN town hall, flatly denied Saturday that she had done so.

      “At no time did I receive or participate in the drafting or dissemination of questions provided by CNN,” Brazile told Journal-isms by email.

      In a follow-up telephone conversation, Brazile said, “I’m not going to allow the lies to stand.”

      She said she needed no prompting to advise Clinton to discuss the contaminated water crisis in Flint, Mich. “I as a black woman wanted Flint to be front and center in our conversation about who should be the next president,” she said.

      Brazile is a New Orleans native who had witnessed Hurricane Katrina. “Am I supposed to sit there and let people get poisoned?” she asked.

      A second question was about the death penalty. She noted that Black Lives Matter was vocal during this period.

      Brazile said she felt more at liberty to speak out now that she is no longer interim chair of the Democratic National Committee.

      In fact, she disclosed that she had been accepted as a fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University in the fall and plans to write about punditry and journalism.


      Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected new party chair on Feb. 25.

      Brazile spoke with Journal-isms after publishing an essay in Time magazine that some reporters interpreted as confirming that she had passed along town hall questions to Clinton.

      http://journalisms.theroot.com/donna-brazile-flatly-denies-giving-questions-to-hillary-1793408781

      Delete
    2. "...some reporters interpreted as confirming that she had passed along town hall questions to Clinton."

      :-)

      Delete
    3. “I as a black woman wanted Flint to be front and center in our conversation about who should be the next president,” she said.

      She left out that she's a black CHRISTIAN woman.

      ===

      A more recently unearthed email finds that the question Brazile sent to Clinton's campaign was regarding the death penalty. It appears to be word-for-word.

      When Kelly asked Brazile who forwarded her those questions, Brazile refused to answer.

      "As a Christian woman, I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted" she said.

      https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/10/20/donna-brazile-vs-megyn-kelly-n2234946

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donna Brazile DOES look a lot like AUNT JEMIMA!!!

      I wonder what's going on with that....twins....sisters....

      Of the two I find myself liking Aunt Jemima better....

      What about you, if you had to choose......?

      Delete
    2. I'm goin' with Aunt Gemima, at least she knows how to cook a pancake.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. One would cook your pancake, the other would steal your pancake.

      Delete
    5. Aunt Jemima was as honest as the day is long.

      1889 Formula for Aunt Jemima mix:

      100 lb Hard Winter Wheat
      100 lb Corn Flour
      7½ lb B.W.T. Phosphates from Provident Chem[ical] St L[ouis]
      2¾ lb Bicarb[onate] Soda
      3 lb Salt.

      Delete

    6. In 1933, Quaker Oats hired Anna Robinson to play Aunt Jemima as part of their promotion at the Chicago World Fair in 1933.[1] She was sent to New York City by Lord and Thomas to have her picture taken.

      "Never to be forgotten was the day they loaded 350 pounds of Anna Robinson on the Twentieth Century Limited."

      Other photos showing Robinson making pancakes for celebrities and used in advertising "ranked among the highest read of their time".


      https://www.google.com/search?q=anna+robinson+aunt+jemima&rlz=1CAACAO_enUS720US720&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi53JCR_-TSAhUC92MKHalvAXoQ_AUIBigB&biw=960&bih=430

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

      Delete
    7. Why not send Aunt Jemima to Harvard, instead of Donna Brazile?

      Delete
  17. Kids today can't eat Aunt Jemima foods.

    The scientists have ruled it's not good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. .

    Deuce ☂Mon Mar 20, 03:58:00 AM EDT
    There is no doubt. Trump is paranoid.
    Reply
    Replies


    DougMon Mar 20, 04:12:00 AM EDT
    He's mentally ill.



    Ditto. Couldn't agree more.

    Paranoid? Heck, the man has installed 'loyalty' commissars that report directly to the White House in departments throughout the government.

    Mentally ill?

    Close enough for government work.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. I did not watch all of Comey's testimony. What I saw, I'm skeptical. I give him a "low confidence" factor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skeptical of what - that they are investigating Trump and his cronies ties to Russia?

      Delete
    2. Please, Did Trump sell 25% of our uranium to Russia?

      Did Trump set up a "charitable trust" and accept money from Russian oligarchs?

      Did Trump whisper to the president of Russia (on an open mic) that after the election he could deal and to pass that onto Vlad?

      Did the FBI, under Trump, allow the DNC to refuse access to their servers?

      Did the SOS, under Trump, break every rule in the book with US security?

      Did the SOS, under Trump delete 33,000 emails while under subpoena from Congress?

      Delete
    3. I'm up to my eyeballs in skeptical.

      Delete
    4. There is no more well recorded pathological liar in US political history than Hillary Clinton.

      Delete
    5. How many people did Obama/Clinton/Bush get needless killed, maimed and made homeless?

      What is Trump's score on that matter?

      Did the Russians destabilize, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Syria?

      Did Trump?

      Did Trump double the US debt in eight years?

      Delete
    6. Cronies! Thy name is Clinton!

      Delete

    7. Facts confuse Quirk and Ash:

      Just say it's all in Trump's head.

      Delete
  20. The Donald is not nuts.

    Quite sane.

    The world is nuts.

    Quirk has a soft spot for moooslims.

    Quirk is crazy.

    Quirk has no idea what to do about anything.

    Nothing in the noggin.

    All Quirk does is call everyone else 'dicks', his favorite, and nearly only, word.

    Smirk is even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What are any on you going to do about Kim, and Iran ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuttin' basically.

      Call 'em 'dicks' maybe.

      Good strategy.

      Delete
  22. "Crisis analysis: How much damage can Trump do? (A lot)
    Thomas Homer-Dixon

    Special to The Globe and Mail

    Thomas Homer-Dixon is the CIGI chair of global systems in the Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo.

    “Okay, here’s what happened,” wrote an American friend after the U.S. election. “Someone threw a switch, and now we’re living in an alternative universe.”

    The big problem with alternative universes is that we don’t know how they work. The assumptions, intuitions and rules of thumb we’ve previously used to anticipate events, and guide our navigation, suddenly don’t apply. So we face an exploding range of possible futures, including many that once seemed crazy.

    U.S. President Donald Trump’s psychological characteristics make such uncertainty acute. It’s clear, for instance, that Mr. Trump’s lying is less a calculated political strategy than a reflection of his deep inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. He creates a make-believe world for himself and surrounds himself with people who, to advance their narrow ends, help him sustain that world. When Mr. Trump appears to be lying, he’s simply reporting what he sees in his own alternative world, where fantasy and reality mush together.

    As Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted on March 6: “We must accept possibility that POTUS does not know fact from fiction, right from wrong. That wild claims are not strategic, but worse.”

    The entirely predictable chaos of the new administration’s first weeks has many liberals fantasizing that Mr. Trump will be removed from office before his term finishes. But we’ve seen enough of him to know he’s unlikely to leave willingly through any legitimate and lawful political mechanism, like impeachment. Instead, if Mr. Trump feels cornered, he’ll declare that his enemies are conspiring against him and call his supporters – many of whom are heavily armed – to come to his aid.

    It’s also possible that Mr. Trump will find his groove, allowing things to settle down. Yet his performance so far suggests his administration will instead lurch from crisis to crisis. To make some sense of these outcomes, I’ve charted the most likely crisis types. Drawing on analysis by a wide range of scholars, I’ve also estimated the probabilities of each type at one, two, and five years into a Trump administration (the latter timeline assumes that Trump is re-elected in 2020).


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are four principal types, I’d argue: financial crisis, civil violence, authoritarianism, and war. Each crisis type then has various possible levels of intensity. “Moderate” authoritarianism could involve, for instance, use of federal resources to intimidate or constrain journalists and judges; substantially increased application of force to track, detain and deport immigrants; and criminalization of protest. Mr. Trump, or in the case of criminalization of protest, his acolytes at the state level are already checking some of these boxes, so I estimate the probability of this degree of authoritarianism in the administration’s first year to be 70 per cent. “Severe” authoritarianism would involve actions like a declaration of a state of emergency, federalization of the National Guard, or suspension of key civil liberties. This outcome is much less likely; even after five years, I don’t think it’s higher than 30 per cent.

      A “moderate” war crisis, by my definition, would include any regional conflict between the United States and an intermediate power like Iran, or a great power like China, say in the South China Sea. “Severe” war would involve use of massed military force against a great power like Russia. The category would also include any conflict, for instance, with North Korea, that carries a substantial risk of nuclear escalation. In part, because of Mr. Trump’s expressed hostility towards Iran and China, and his tendency to see all international relations in zero-sum terms, I estimate the five-year probability of a “moderate” war crisis to be high, at 60 per cent.

      The four crisis types are likely to be causally linked. In particular, civil violence or war could create conditions that Mr. Trump might use to justify an authoritarian crackdown. Financial crisis could also be a consequence of war. The administration’s decision-making incompetence increases the risk of financial crisis, civil violence, and war. For instance, Mr. Trump’s team of advisers contains little high-level economic expertise, so his administration could be out of its depth should serious trouble develop in financial systems overseas, say in China or Europe.


      The specific probabilities that one plugs into this model are not entirely speculative. Experts can argue about the details, but they’re largely in agreement that, for instance, the risk of nuclear war has jumped, which is why The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently moved the minute-hand of its doomsday clock closer to midnight.

      Yet the specific probabilities are less important than the overall analytical exercise of categorizing the types of crisis Mr. Trump might create and the causal pathways that might lead to them. It helps us see possible futures more clearly. In Mr. Trump’s alternative universe, we need all the help we can get."

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/crisis-analysis-how-much-damage-can-trump-do-a-lot/article34341100/

      Delete
    2. You're a thoughtless dick, Ash, with nothing to say.

      Delete
  23. ...and the bullshit about Russia interfering in US elections, that really takes the cake. I can name 20 countries off the top of my head, including most of Latin America, Iraq, Iran, Thailand, Viet Nam, Ukraine, and the Philippines, where the US interfered in elections that go way beyond reading someone's mail. Under Bush/Obama/Clinton, the troika of regime change, we did a hell of a lot more than influence an election, we overthrew the results and killed and imprisoned leaders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Despite the intelligence agencies (today, Comey's) reluctance to talk about what they have, what they have told us so far and even what has been reported on it is all circumstantial. They seem to have nothing that could be called solid evidence. What we have seen offered as proof is merely the consensus opinion of a number of analysts.

      When I first heard the claim that Russia was the hacker put forth last summer, I was highly skeptical, not because Russia is some paragon of honesty or I thought they wouldn't do it if they could but because the conclusion seemed to have been reached rather precipitously and some of the 'evidence'(negative RT articles on Clinton) just seemed silly.

      However, I am more open to the idea now (though not thoroughly convinced) because of the reasons mentioned by Deuce above, that and the apparent contempt with which Putin holds Clinton.

      It shouldn't surprise anyone that Russia would go out of its way to delegitimize the US elections given that Clinton went out of her way to try to do the same to Russia. What goes around comes around.

      We have seen the same before. The US was the first to use drones (well except for Hitler) in asymmetrical warfare. Now, everyone uses them even the terrorists. The US was the first to weaponize the internet and launch cyberwar when they used Stuxnet to destroy Iranian nuclear equipment. Now, we suffer from a barrage of the same type of attacks.

      .

      Delete
  24. For Quirk and Ash:

    Why is it that the House Committee on ‘Russian Hacking’ includes only DNC-hired tech experts?

    Why didn't the FBI examine the servers of the Democratic National Committee?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      I answered to the whole investigation just above.

      As for your specific questions, I have to protect my sources and methods so will be unable to answer at this time, well that and the obvious question, why would I waste my time answering your silly ass questions?

      .

      Delete
    2. Excellent

      IOW, your answer is NO ANSWER.

      Delete
    3. .

      Read between the lines.

      Or, invest in a Magic 8 Ball.

      .

      Delete
  25. Federal Bullshit Investigator

    FBI Director James Comey declined to say Monday whether his team has launched an investigation into the leaks that led to former White House national security advisor Mike Flynn's ouster.

    Comey was pressed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to say whether he could confirm such an investigation is taking place, but Comey said he could not because it might confirm that classified information was leaked.

    "I can't, but I hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information," he said during Monday's hearing on Russia's influence on the election. "But I don't want to confirm it by saying that we're investigating it."

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/comey-wont-commit-to-investigating-obama-officials-over-flynn-leaks/article/2617870

    MIKE FLYNN'S NAME WAS LEAKED!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      My god, you're kidding.

      A leak? I've never heard of such a thing. This must be the first time this has ever happened in the history of the union.

      Maybe Trump should be declaring martial law?

      Damn.

      .

      Delete
    2. Yes, the Flynn leak was THE ONLY ONE in this affair.

      Delete
  26. Obama orders secrets to be spread as widely as possible.

    No big deal.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+orders+secrets+to+be+spread+as+widely+as+possible&rlz=1C1AVSU_enUS357&oq=Obama+orders+secrets+to+be+spread+as+widely+as+possible&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Masking?

      We don't need no stinking masking!

      Delete
    2. But Trump's Paranoid:

      Quirk, Ash, and the MSM tell us so.

      Delete
    3. .

      Not very nice of Obama. Makes him look bad politically. Legally? Not so much.

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      Paranoid?

      Of course, Trump is paranoid. Anyone who has taken Psych 101 in high school or college would spot the symptoms immediately, the 'loyalty commissars' he has installed, his thin skin, the fact that his much ballyhooed 'counter-punching' is often counterproductive, leaving him to make mountains out of mole hills, making him look petty and childish, creating unforced errors that diminish his message and set back his agenda. The man wastes way more time responding to petty slights than he does getting things accomplish.

      .

      Of course, Trump is paranoid.

      Delete
  27. Buchanan: Goldman Sachs Influence ‘Fatal’ to Trump Presidency

    Conservatives worry 'America First' voices struggling to beat back Establishment clout in White House

    Conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan warned President Donald Trump “the game is over” if he allows pro-globalist Establishment figures to lead his administration down “the Goldman Sachs route” during an interview Monday on “The Laura Ingraham Show.”

    Buchanan, a former senior adviser to President Reagan, said he was troubled by a Washington Post report published Saturday titled, “Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion.”

    The article describes skirmishes between the voices of conservative populists and more globalist-minded Establishment figures and suggests the clashes have forced White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon to grow closer to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, “in part to counter the New Yorkers” and their influence.

    “If [Trump] decides to go with the old Goldman Sachs route, the globalists, then the game is over. And all the effort is in vain,” Buchanan said.

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buchanan-goldman-sachs-influence-fatal-trump-presidency/

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tim Allen also Insane and Paranoid:

    http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Tim-Allen-says-being-a-non-liberal-in-Hollywood-11012733.php

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anyone that isn't a little off base just isn't really all there.

    Doesn't mean one has to go walking around the infield like Quirk, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw Quirk steal four bases and score once.

      Slid into the picher's mound like it was fourth base, then a short trip from there to home plate.

      The crowd started throwing stuff at him, seat cushions, beer and wine bottles...

      Delete

    2. What if the entire stadium treated him like the entire MSM treats Trump?

      I know:

      His steely character would not be affected.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  30. .

    There is no more well recorded pathological liar in US political history than Hillary Clinton.

    Hell, Trump's only been in office for 2 months. Give him a little time.

    How many people did Obama/Clinton/Bush get needless killed, maimed and made homeless?

    What has that got to do with Trump?

    What is Trump's score on that matter?

    Again, he's only been in office 2 months. Give him time. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen continue. He has just introduced US combat troops in Syria. He has now used US ground troops in Yemen killing a lot of civilians. It was just reported that our bombing raid took out about 40 civilians in Idlib. The man has put up a budget calling for a massive increase in military spending. He has mused as to why we couldn't use our nukes. This from the guy who said he was going to get us out and keep us out of all of these interventions. Give him time.

    This is another clue to his personality and his paranoia. The man just cannot abide any suggestion no matter how slight that he is in any way 'weak'. I've watched him over the last few days as he was meeting with foreign leaders. The two words that dominate his conversations are 'weak' and 'strong' no matter what the subject, trade, the judiciary, NATO, America pre- and post-Trump, you name it. Give him time.

    Did the Russians destabilize, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Syria?

    No, so what?

    Did Trump?

    No, but give him time. One thing about having the largest military in the world and constantly spending more than the next biggest militaries combined, you've got to use it or you lose it as the scam becomes obvious.

    Did Trump double the US debt in eight years?

    No, but when his final budget is approved it will simply continue that growth. In the spring of 2016, Trump told the WaPo that he would eliminate the $19 trillion 'national debt' in a fairly short time. He estimated about 8 years. Last week, his budget director walked that back a little saying the 'budget deficit' would be eliminated within 10 years. Both of those claims are bubblegum and bullshit, the spiel of the snake oil salesman.


    The Donald is not nuts.


    Close enough for government.


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not just publish the full text of all Trump's calls with foreign leaders?

      Delete


  31. How many people did Obama/Clinton/Bush get needless killed, maimed and made homeless?

    What has that got to do with Trump?

    What is Trump's score on that matter?


    This may come as shock, but there were two choices, Clinton or Trump. We have been over this before. If you chose Christ on a Harley, you owed for Clinton. I don't vote for sociopathic killers.

    On another matter, I just reviewed Comey's testimony. He is a political puke. Of that, there is no doubt. I'll do a post to defend my assessment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I'd puke if I watch him on YouTube.

      Delete
  32. SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch Interrupts Hearing to Hug and Kiss Wife, “I Love You So Much” (Video)

    That might be a Puker, also.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/scotus-nominee-neil-gorsuch-interrupts-hearing-hug-kiss-wife-love-much-video/

    ReplyDelete
  33. Laurel Hubbard, a 39 year-old transgender who was born male, won her first international women’s weightlifting title in Australia

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    Like so much else, these days.

    ReplyDelete
  34. FBI Director Refuses to Tell Congress If He Discussed Gen. Michael Flynn’s Phone Calls with Obama (VIDEO)

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/fbi-director-refuses-tell-congress-discussed-gen-michael-flynns-phone-calls-obama-video/

    ReplyDelete
  35. Secret Service Agent Who Said She Would Not Take Bullet for Trump Keeps Government Job

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/secret-service-agent-said-not-take-bullet-trump-keeps-government-job/

    ReplyDelete
  36. I wouldn't take a bullet for Trump.

    I like Pence better.

    And I wouldn't take a bullet for him, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My wife says she might, if the pay were right.

      But, not if she were younger, no matter the money.

      Delete
    2. Quirk would take a rubber bullet for Melania.

      Delete
    3. I'd take a bullet for Sandra Smith if it were just a flesh wound.

      Delete
  37. Napolitano pulled from Fox News

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-napolitano-fox-news-20170320-story.html

    Bob pulls Fox News.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fox News has become just another shit ass bull shit station.

      Delete
    2. About the level of, or even less than, Quirk Ass News.

      And that, folks, is really shit ass bad news.

      Delete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm using AVG protection for a couple of years, I recommend this solution to all of you.

    ReplyDelete