VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal to Interview Assange
April 16, 2019
The bug in Mueller's report released on Thursday is that he accepts that the
Russian government interfered in the election. Trump should challenge that,
says VIPS.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment
April 16, 2019
Mr. President:
The song has ended but the melody lingers on. The release Thursday of the
redacted text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "Report on the
Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election"
nudged the American people a tad closer to the truth on so-called
"Russiagate."
But the Mueller report left unscathed the central-but-unproven allegation
that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave
them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you win the election. The thrust
will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you
colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for
becoming president. And that melody will linger on for the rest of your
presidency, unless you seize the moment.
Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth,
apparently in the lack of any disinterested, independent forensic work.
Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director
James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied for forensics on a discredited,
DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with
"pee-tape dossier" compiler Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was
hired and paid by the DNC (through a cutout).
We brought the lack of independent forensics to the attention of Attorney
General William Barr on March 13 in a Memorandum entitled "Mueller's
Forensic-Free Findings", but received no reply or acknowledgement. In that
Memorandum we described the results of our own independent, agenda-free
forensic investigation led by two former Technical Directors of the NSA, who
avoid squishy "assessments," preferring to base their findings on
fundamental principles of science and the scientific method. Our findings
remain unchallenged; they reveal gaping holes in CrowdStrike's conclusions.
We do not know if Barr shared our March 13 Memorandum with you. As for
taking a public position on the forensics issue, we suspect he is being
circumspect in choosing his battles carefully, perhaps deferring until later
a rigorous examination of the dubious technical work upon which Mueller
seems to have relied.
Barr's Notification to Congress
As you know, the big attention-getter came on March 24 when Attorney General
William Barr included in his four-page summary a quote from Mueller's
report: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities." Understandably, that grabbed headlines -
the more so, since most Americans had been convinced earlier by the media
that the opposite was true.
There remains, however, a huge fly in the ointment. Barr's summary makes it
clear that Mueller accepts as a given - an evidence-impoverished given -
that the Russian government interfered in the election on two tracks:
Track 1involves what Barr, echoing Mueller, claims "a Russian organization,
the Internet Research Agency (IRA)" did in using social media "to sow social
discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election." A
careful look at this allegation shows it to be without merit, despite
Herculean efforts by the NY Times, for example, to put lipstick on this
particular pig. After some rudimentary research, award winning investigative
reporter Gareth Porter promptly put that pig out of its misery and brought
home the bacon. We do not believe "Track 1" merits further commentary.
Track 2 does need informed commentary, since it is more technical and - to
most Americans - arcane. In Barr's words: "The Special Counsel found that
Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained
emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic
Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through
various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the
Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian
military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States
for purposes of influencing the election."
We are eager to see if Mueller's report contains more persuasive forensic
evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked. In Barr's summary, the
only mention of forensics refers to "forensic accountants" - a far cry from
the kind of forensic investigators needed to provide convincing proof of
"hacking" by the Russian government.
But They Were Indicted!
Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S.
populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many Americans had
mistakenly assumed that Mueller's indictment of Russians - whether they be
posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence officers - was proof of
guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, "one can easily indict a ham
sandwich" - easier still these days, if it comes with Russian dressing.
Chances have now increased that the gullible folks who had been assured that
Mueller would find collusion between you and Putin may now be a bit more
circumspect - skeptical even - regarding the rest of the story-line of the
"Russian hack," and that will be even more likely among those with some
technical background. Such specialists will have a field day, IF - and it is
a capital "IF" - by some miracle, word of VIPS' forensic findings gets into
the media this time around.
The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community
Assessment" of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The authors noted: "The
nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not
impossible. Every kind of cyber operation - malicious or not - leaves a
trail." Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other
technical properties. VIPS has done that.
A "High-Class Entity?"
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on
CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he
is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack
investigator he is reputed to be. It simply does not suffice for Mueller's
former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a
"high-class entity." It is nothing of the sort and, in addition to its
documented incompetence, it is riddled with conflicts of interest. Comey
needs to explain why he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they
were said to have been "hacked."
And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his
claim last November that "the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what
the Russians had done." What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at
VIPS, in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC
emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else - and that
"Guccifer 2.0" is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from
forensics too.
But the Talking Heads Say .
Again, if Mueller's incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status
of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe that - whether you
colluded the Russians or not - Putin came through for you big time. In
short, absent President Putin's help, you would not be president.
Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the
mainstream-media fodder - half-cooked by intelligence leaks - that they have
been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playing thecentral
role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank)
complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia. We in VIPS have
repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the
2016 election are built on a house of cards. But, despite our record of
accuracy on this issue - not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the
fraudulent intelligence served up by our former colleagues - we have gotten
no play in mainstream media.
Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many
have extensive academic and government experience focusing on Russia. We
consider the issue of "Russian interference" of overriding significance not
only because the allegation is mischievously bogus and easily disproven.
More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind
of dangerous fever pitch not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962,
when the Russian provocation was real - authentic, not synthetic.
Sober minds resolved that crisis more than a half-century ago, and we all
got to live another day. These days sober minds seem few and far between and
a great deal is at stake. On the intelligence/forensics side, we have proved
that the evidence adduced to "prove" that the Russians hacked into the DNC
and Podesta emails and gave them to WikiLeaks is spurious. For example, we
have examined metadata from one key document attributed to Russian hacking
and shown that it was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Who Left the Bread Crumbs?
So, if it wasn't the Russians, who left the "Russian" bread-crumb
"fingerprints?" We do not know for sure; on this question we cannot draw a
conclusion based on the principles of science - at least not yet. We
suspect, however, that cyber warriors closer to home were responsible for
inserting the "tell-tale signs" necessary to attribute "hacks" to Russia. We
tacked on our more speculative views regarding this intriguing issue onto
the end of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to you entitled "Intelligence
Veterans Challenge Russia Hack Evidence."
We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum's key findings because
you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of
our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of
that Memorandum. On October 24, 2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with
Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters:
"You are here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know
about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
On the chance Pompeo has given you no report on his meeting with Binney, we
can tell you that Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began
by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian
hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. Pompeo reacted with disbelief,
but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We have no sign,
though, that he followed through. And there is good reason to believe that
Pompeo himself may have been reluctant to follow up with his subordinates in
the Directorate of Digital Innovation created by CIA Director John Brennan
in 2015. CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering
Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate.
'Obfuscation'
A leak from within the CIA, published on March 31, 2017 by WikiLeaks as part
of the so-called "Vault 7" disclosures, exposed a cyber tool called
"Marble," which was used during 2016 for"obfuscation" (CIA's word). This
tool can be used to conduct a forensic attribution double game (aka a
false-flag operation); it included test samples in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi,
Korean, and Russian. Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima, to her
credit, immediately penned an informative article on the Marble cyber-tool,
under the catching (and accurate) headline "WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations." That was
apparently before Nakashima "got the memo." Mainstream media have otherwise
avoided like the plague any mention of Marble.
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble, or tools like it, played some
kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Directorate of Digital Innovation have
been with the White House - or with former Director Pompeo - on this touchy
issue. Since it is still quite relevant, we will repeat below a paragraph
included in our July 2017 Memorandum to you under the sub-heading "Putin and
the Technology:"
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with
President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite
willing - perhaps even eager - to address issues related to the kind of
cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has
been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables
hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin" [of the hack] . And, vice versa, it is possible to
set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are
the exact source of that attack. Hackers may be anywhere," he said. "There
may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and
professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
. I can."
As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller's
findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso
factoincomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing
witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks' Julian Assange.
Political Enemies & Mainstream Media (Forgive the Redundancy)
You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice
Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an
agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss "technical evidence
ruling out certain parties" in the leak of the DNC emails" and agree to
redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity.
According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark
Warner, D,VA, Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of
the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt
"stand down" and an end to the discussions with Assange.
Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving "technical evidence
ruling out certain parties [read Russia]? We won't insult you with the
obvious answer. Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many -
including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must now "answer for what he has
done."
But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange's offer? Might he or his
associates be still willing to provide "technical evidence" showing, at
least, who wasnotthe culprit?
You, Mr. President, could cause that to happen. You would have to buck
strong resistance at every turn, and there all manner of ways that those
with vested interests and a lot of practice in sabotage can try to thwart
you - with the full cooperation of most media pundits. By now, you know all
too well how that works.
But you are the president. And there may be no better time than now to face
them down, show the spurious nature of the concocted "evidence" attempting
to put you in "Putin's pocket," and - not least - lift the cloud that has
prevented you from pursuing a more decent relationship with Russia.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team,
FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications
Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and
former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser
to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)