NSA Whistleblower: Not So Fast On Claims Russia Behind Hillary Clinton Email Hack

The mainstream media alleges that Russia was behind the hack of the DNC’s emails.

The media is parading out the usual suspects alleged experts to back up this claim.

Washington’s Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – what he thinks of such claims:

Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails:

But mainstream media say it couldn’t:   http://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hack-russian-government-2016-7

The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the email leaks are to Clinton and the DNC’s character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html

Who’s right?

Binney responded:

Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here’s what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (“VIPS” for short).]

Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And, I’m sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked to see if others also hacked in?

Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.

I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it “Wellgrounded.” NSA did not want anyone (especially congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of
code that goes across the network is logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.

The newest allegation tying the email hack to Russia seems to be all innuendo.

Binney explained to us:

 My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site.  I suspect that’s because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.

Of course, this brings up another question; if it’s a know attack, why did the DNC not have software to stop it?  You can tell from the network log who is going into a site.  I used that on networks that I had.  I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what they did while in my network.

Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things.  Others of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries.  But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.

Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software.  If the DNC and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don’t care to fix weakness probably because the want to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.

Why is this newsworthy?

Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the content of the DNC and Clinton’s emails is not important … and that it’s a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.

But there are other issues, as well …

For example, an allegation of hacking could literally lead to war.

So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • andrew1212

    Q: How can the NSA, the CIA, the DIA and the DoD not be able to stop Julian Assange? They know his exact location and he’s on foreign soil…Are you telling me that the billions upon billions of dollars the USA has spent is all being undermined by just one brainiac?

  • gamesjon

    I mean here is some other relevant information concerning this event. All of this came out last month when the leaker, a hacker under the name Guccifer 2.0 (in honor of a previous hacker) and confirmed by Assange a few days later.

    Oh and this whole Russian accusation… they did that a month ago as well. Here FAIR does a good job documenting how an allegation is just tossed out without any evidence to back it up and the transition it took from being an allegation to being a fact with literally no evidence.

    So I mean the Russians may or may not have had any role in it, but the current reports that mention articles and allegations by people refer back to these allegations and reports from a month ago…

    • Brockland A.T.

      Blame Putin seems to be the goto fix for whatever goes wrong with the neocon war party.

      Next neocons will blame Putin for them being neocons.

      • Marycbianco4

        <<o. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!be714p:….,……

    • I call BS

      Wow these hacks are boring. The DNC has donors? Didn’t see that coming. They have a strategy against Trump? Isn’t that what you do? etc… dumb, boring, distraction, not damning

  • lauraroslin

    DNC emails, not Clinton emails. Re-read what Snowden tweeted. DNC DNC

    • Glynis

      yeah, what’s with the headline when the Russian hack is all about the DNC server which has nothing to do with Clinton’s emails or her server. Me thinks that there is an attempt to conflate the two.

      • BackToBasics

        Indeed, to keep eyes off of Seth Rich and his murder.

  • I call BS

    Have you read the Leaks? They’re really pretty boring. We knew that Bernie was a sheepdog who tried to run off without a leash, we knew the DNC supported Hillary from the start. What about that is news? Most of this stuff is fine, in context. What, we’re really going to pretend she’s calling some Bernie fans an awful name like “basement dwellers” to finger them as underground trolls or something? Or can we listen to the whole clip ourselves and hear that she spoke to millennials who just graduated college and found out that the reason they support Bernie is because they had to move back home with their parents (into their proverbial basement) in order to pay off college debt, angry that their best jobs after school have no future (barista)? When i see these “Leaks” they just infuriate me – because of the lack of news content that they are, and the absolute terrible wording of these articles that pander to me like I’m some kind of idiot. They’re terribly written, full of bias, and they, so weakly, do their best to twist and turn audio bites, emails and public statements into damning facts, which they are not. They exemplify the worst type of reporting, if you can even call it that, and only spark reactions in very stupid people who usually don’t even get passed the headlines.

  • Wheatley