THE LEAD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Italian Brexit: Joining the New Paradigm Belt and Road Beats Brussels

March 18, 2019
Undersecretary of the Task Force China in the Italian government, Michele Geraci, EIR’s Claudio Celani, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Movisol's Liliana Gorini.

Download PDF

Zepp-LaRouche in Milan: “What Italy Is Doing, Right Now, is of the Greatest Historic Importance”

Addressing a March 13 Milan conference on “Italy and the New Silk Road,” Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche put on the table a strategic perspective for the rapid unification of a now-disintegrating Europe around its participation in the development of the Eurasian continent and the great Belt and Road Initiative, a move which she proposed could provide the critical factor in shifting the world away from the looming danger of thermonuclear extinction.

The potential for this shift “is growing more rapidly than you would think,” she told the seminar. “My prognosis is that the perspective of unifying Europe, not necessarily under the EU bureaucracy, but in the conception of de Gaulle, more like a ‘Europe of the Fatherlands’ uniting with China, with Russia, with the Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union, and European countries, to cooperate fully in this new paradigm is absolutely there.”

"That is also the only way Europe can impact the strategic situation,” Zepp-LaRouche added. She elaborated:

"Because if you had a united Europe of the Fatherlands cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative, including Germany and France, that would be the best way to get the United States to also give up their opposition—which I said, is not President Donald Trump himself, but these other [neoconservative] forces—and get the United States to join the new paradigm. And I think this is the only hope we have to avoid a catastrophe where we would end in World War III with nuclear weapons, meaning the extinction of civilization.

"So in that sense, what Italy is doing right now, is of the greatest historical importance; because Italy, with what you are doing, with the Memorandum of Understanding [on the Belt and Road], but also with the joint ventures with China in Africa, can become the role model for all the other European countries."

The British Empire and its neoconservative minions will be driven wild both by what Zepp-LaRouche is proposing, and when and where she proposed it. She is, after all, a German political leader, as well as the head of the International Schiller Institute.

This initiative comes as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has just demonstrated before the entire world, with the Prime Minister's failed Brexit votes in Parliament, that it is dysfunctional and disintegrating.

As they scramble at home, Helga Zepp-LaRouche—whose recently deceased husband, Lyndon LaRouche, is still hated and feared by the British Monarchy for his legacy as the Empire's leading opponent of the last half-century—then appears in Italy, addressing a conference co-sponsored by the LaRouche-associated organization in Italy, MoviSol, and the state legislature of the Lombardy Region. Furthermore, the first speaker to address the conference was the Italian Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economic Development and co-chair of the government's Task Force China, Michele Geraci, on whom London's press empire had just focused their invective as the alleged architect of Italy joining the Belt and Road.

And this occurs, one week before Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Italy on March 22–24, where he is expected to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on Italy's participation in the Belt and Road Initiative.

London and the wild-eyed neoconservatives in Washington have threatened the Italian government with ruin and blackballing from “their club,” should it proceed on that MOU, yet Italy is, thus far, sticking to its guns—a stance which will embolden the rest of Europe, too.

The southern and eastern nations of Europe are holding firm in looking to the New Paradigm emerging in Asia as their great hope, with the Greeks pointing out that the European Union and Western financial institutions ranting against European ties with China offer no investment themselves, and with Portugal inviting a member of the Advisory Committee for China's State Council on Poverty Alleviation to give four conferences in three days on how China is eliminating poverty.

Now the Belt and Road is knocking on the doors of France and Germany.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Milan: “Italy on the New Silk Road”

On March 13, 2019, Schiller Institute Founding President Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke in Milan at an event cosponsored by MoviSol (the LaRouche-associated organization in Italy) and the Lombardy regional government.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

SUPPORTING MATERIAL


Open Letter to President Trump, Calling for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche

This article was published as the lead item for Volume 3, No. 2 edition of The Hamiltonian.

Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Mr. President,

I have been writing to you in the last 2 years, the first time in October 2017, in defense of Christopher Columbus, whose statues were being destroyed or threatened in many American cities. Thanks to your intervention, the common cultural heritage between my country, Italy, and the United States, and which goes back to the Italian Renaissance, was safeguarded.

I wrote to you again last November, with a letter asking you to keep your election promise to reinstate Glass-Steagall and “make not only America great again, but also the whole world,” which has been signed by 217 members of the Italian and European Parliament and other elected officials and important representatives from all over Europe. Glass-Steagall is in the government program of the Giuseppe Conte government in Italy, and Premier Conte mentioned it during his inauguration speech at the Italian Parliament as the key to protect savings and make investments in the real economy possible.

Today I am writing to you on another very important matter, for Italy and for the United States: the exoneration of the American economist and scientist Lyndon H. LaRouche, who died on February 12, aged 96. I had the honor and pleasure of working with Mr. LaRouche for 35 years, and to organize important conferences for him in Italy, including a conference on Verdi tuning in Milan in 1988, and again in Busseto, the birth town of Giuseppe Verdi, in 1997, during which he was a speaker together with famous Verdi singers Piero Cappuccilli (baritone) and Carlo Bergonzi (tenor).

In 2007 and again in 2009 he was officially invited to Rome by the Italian Parliament, both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, and addressed the Defense Committee at the Italian Senate, and the Finance Committee at the Chamber of Deputies. He warned them of the danger of a financial blowout because central banks in the US and Europe were feeding the financial bubble (derivatives and other toxic waste) which did explode in 2008. At that time he also gave a conference with Giulio Tremonti, later Finance Minister in the Italian government, on the urgency of a New Bretton Woods and of a new Glass-Steagall Act. When the crisis started in 2008, many Italian members of Parliament told me that “LaRouche had always been to the point in his forecasts and his proposals; we should have listened to him.”

After he was railroaded and jailed in 1989, by the same British-allied networks, including William Weld and Robert Mueller, who are now conducting a witch hunt against you with the aim to destroy your Presidency one way or another, 80 members of the Italian Parliament wrote to President Clinton asking him to free LaRouche from prison. And he did grant him parole.

Yet, he has never been fully exonerated. Had his ideas and proposals been realized at that time, we would not be in such a difficult economic and strategic situation today.

I therefore call on you, Mr. President, to exonerate LaRouche, also for the sake of my country, Italy, which always looked with the greatest respect at him and his ideas.

Respectfully yours,
Liliana Gorini
Chairwoman of MoviSol (Movimento Internazionale per i Diritti Civili, Solidarietà)
Milan, Italy


Letters of Condolence, Obituary and Petition to Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche

Since Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., died on February 12, 2019, the response from leaders and citizens throughout the world and here in the United States has been to recognize that a great mind has been in their midst, a political genius who dedicated his life to build a movement around the same principles which accompanied the American Revolution, the Italian Renaissance, and other great leaps forward for the human race.

Many have begun to recognize that he was not some special treasure, known only to them but not more widely known because of his enemies’ concerted defamation campaigns. In fact, many knew him as their special friend but could not imagine how widely he was treasured or the number of people who carried his ideas close to their hearts and souls.


We will also print his obituary which honors his great life here on earth. We do so, in the hope that recognition of the broad and deep support for his ideas will spark their actual full realization in this world, the only real way to honor a true historical genius.


We have also launched a campaign for his exoneration from the criminal frame-up by the same forces now attacking Donald Trump and the U.S. Constitution. We do so to deny his enemies one tool they have used in attempting to bury or distort his ideas. Let them then come out of the shadows and propose a better alternative for the world for the next 100 years. It is impossible for them to do so. Their limited minds and decadent ideas blind them to the future. Robert Kennedy once said, “Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.” Lyndon LaRouche not only persistently asked, “why not?” He discovered the fundamental principles and laws animating successful and creative human societies and economies and their coherence with the fundamental laws of our universe.

Sign the petition to exonerate LaRouche



President Trump’s Committee on Climate Security: A Much-Needed, Overdue Return to Science

President Donald Trump plans to appoint a panel to find out if man-made climate change is actually causing an imminent, irreversible, insurmountable, inescapable crisis that threatens not only the entire human species, but planet Earth as a whole. Shouldn't we find out whether there truly is an impending catastrophe before committing literally trillions of dollars for prevention and remediation, putting at risk the well being of billions of people affected by expensive and unavailable energy? This committee requires urgent support!

On February 20, the Washington Post reported on leaked National Security Council planning documents regarding an executive order to establish a committee “to advise the President on scientific understanding of today’s climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States.”

In an effort to prevent the formation of this committee, a vicious defamation campaign has been launched against Dr. Happer, a distinguished scientist and Princeton Professor of Physics who has been asked to head the committee. Happer is also a deputy assistant to the president and the National Security Council's senior director for emerging technologies.

The Post snidely noted that several studies have already been performed by various US agencies, but that the NSC document had the audacity to assert that, “These scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

Happer, the former director of the Department of Energy research program (with a annual budget of $6 billion) has been accused of lacking expertise in the subject matter and of being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. This last charge is both untrue in Happer's case, and is selectively applied: how often are proponents of impending climate doom attacked for being part of the multi-trillion-dollar Climate, Inc.?

Two questions are raised most prominently: is the science settled, and what are the actual costs involved in a Green New Deal?

SAY NO TO THE GREEN NEW DEAL!

Is the Science ‘Settled’?

A March 5 letter signed by 58 self-described “national security leaders” opposes the climate committee on the grounds that the science is already settled: “Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts. In this context, we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy.”

Statistics such as the 0.2% cited in this letter, and the commonly heard “97% of scientists” who agree with climate change are both misleading and inaccurate. First off, there has been no meaningful survey of all scientists with relevant knowledge in this field. Secondly, it is essential to unpack what it might mean to “agree with” or “acknowledge” climate change. Clearly, climate change exists, and has existed for the history of the earth, even without human involvement.

The question is not whether but to what extent human-caused changes in the atmosphere drive climate variations, and whether such changes are good or bad. A meaningful statistic (but one that does not exist) would indicate levels of agreement with more specific claims:

  • What would be the impact of doubling atmospheric CO₂?
  • To what extent does water vapor cause a feedback effect?
  • To what extent must we take into account the solar magnetic field's effect on the creation of clouds via cosmic radiation?
  • What is the certainty range on these predictions?
  • How well have climate models of the last two decades fared at predicting the global climate of the past 5 to 10 years?
  • Will the specific, foreseen changes in climate be beneficial or harmful, or a mixture of the two?

The climate of the earth, as it exists in the solar system, is much more complex than a foolishly simple yes-no question about believing in or “denying” climate change.

And how can any such changes be determined? An individual cannot possibly notice that the climate is changing through their personal experience, which is necessarily limited in location and time. And it is of course absolutely laughable to claim that anyone could know, through their personal experience of weather, the cause of any such changes.

Science is not fashion. It is not decided by taking a poll or by seeing what is most popular. The idea that the Earth moves around the Sun was not popular, but it is true. Einstein's theory of relativity was not supported by a popular vote, but it is true. A scientific argument that relies on appeals to authority is suspect. But, sadly, it coheres with modern education, in which the joy of discovery through experiment is replaced by learning formulas but not their origin, and by performing virtual, simulated “experiments” on iPads, rather than learning by interacting directly with the physical world.

A true, adversarial review of supposedly obvious climate truths is needed to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

What are the Costs?

The United States currently relies on hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) for 78% of its energy needs. The recently proposed Green New Deal calls for a reduction of net CO₂ emissions down to zero within a decade. So-called “renewables,” which currently provide 17% of our electricity, would have to be scaled up to provide 100%. And that doesn't even address the majority of U.S. energy use, which is not electricity. Transportation by air, land, and sea is overwhelmingly powered by hydrocarbons. What would it take to transition to 100% electric surface transportation? And would this even be technically possible for air and water transportation?

The worldwide costs for the less ambitious goals put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are absolutely mind-blowing. Their Special Report “Global Warming of 1.5°C” claims that in order to prevent a temperature rise beyond 1.5°C, CO₂ emissions must be brought down to net zero by 2050. Point D.5.3 of the summary for policymakers gives an estimate of the cost: “Global model pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C are projected to involve the annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035.”

This absurd goal is belied by the world's rapidly increasing use of fossil fuel energy to eliminate poverty and provide high living standards. China's CO₂ emissions tripled from 2000 to 2012. During that period, poverty in China decreased from 40.5% in 1999 to 6.5% in 2012, according to the World Bank. Even under the Paris Agreement, Chinese CO₂ emissions are expected to double by 2030, while those from India are expected to triple. Reliable and affordable energy means electricity in schools, fuel for agricultural equipment, transportation of crops to market, high-value-added manufacturing, top-tier research facilities, and efficient movement of people and goods; this brings higher life expectancies, lower disease rates, improved nutrition and education.

Simply put, the green agenda means a reduction of human life and of human living standards. In a recent interview, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore was very direct:

I suppose my main objection is the effective elimination of 80 percent of the world's energy would likely eliminate 80 percent of the world's people in the end. I mean, just growing food, for example — how would we grow food for the world's people without tractors and trucks, and all of the other machinery that is required to deliver food, especially to the inner cities of large centers like Moscow, Shanghai and New York City? How would we get the food to the stores? It's symptomatic of the fact that people who live in cities just take it for granted that this food appears there for them in supermarkets in great variety, healthy food to keep them alive when they couldn't possibly grow it for themselves with such dense populations. And if, in fact, fossil fuels were banned, agricultural productivity would fall dramatically and people would starve by the millions. So, that is just a little bit of why I think it's a ridiculous proposal.

The costs for implementing a Green New Deal or comparable policy are enormous, and every dollar spent on such projects is a dollar unavailable for other uses, such as education, research, or eliminating poverty through bringing online much-needed efficient power.

Given the enormous, real costs of any plan to reduce CO₂ emissions or to mitigate against purported climate catastrophe, wouldn't it be remarkably irresponsible to future generations, if we were not absolutely certain about the science and models behind climate predictions, and of the costs (and benefits) of changing CO₂ levels?

Where Did This Come From?

In a recent article, Megan Beets reports that

The modern environmentalist movement, to which so many deluded people in the West today pay obeisance, was never a grassroots movement of concerned youth, and never had anything to do with saving the Earth. It was created and promoted from the beginning by the British Empire to stop development: as a depopulation policy.
Emerging out of the eugenics movement, which became somewhat unpopular in the wake of Hitler’s genocide, the re-branded “ecology” or “conservation” movement continued the goal of maintaining the pre-war colonial system in the post-WWII world.
In 1968, money from some of the biggest oligarchical families in the West was deployed to found the Club of Rome, which declared,

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill….But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes…. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

In parallel the United Nations sponsored a series of conferences on population in the mid-1970s to promote the idea that human population growth is a cancer on the planet, and launched the hoax of “sustainable development.”

A cultural paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, transforming the understanding of the relation of human beings to nature, and transforming the meaning of “progressive” from supporting progress to preventing it!

Beets argues: Out of this process—not honest scientific work—came the formation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, with a goal of inducing nations into signing binding agreements to limit their own development and industrialization based on lies of the dangers of CO₂ and a coming climate apocalypse.

Unstated Assumptions

From this paradigm shift arise the unstated assumptions that underlie the emotional response that many people have to these issues. One is a definition of “natural” that excludes human activity, implicitly creating the goal that humans should simply not exist. This goes along with the shift from global warming (which is a specific change that could cause problems) to climate change, taking the assumption that any change to the climate would be bad, simply by virtue of its being change. Is this true? For example, using desalinated ocean water to transform a desert with a remarkably low level of biological activity into a lush garden would be a good change!

The results of the Presidential Committee on Climate Science could challenge these assumptions, and could have cultural effects extending beyond the debate over this single issue.

Review Needed

The climate narrative has largely been controlled by climate alarmists. Now it's time to give other experts a change to weigh in, to have an open, sound, honest scientific discussion.

Mr. President, for economic, scientific, and even cultural reasons, we call on you to move forward and appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science!

SUPPORT TRUMP'S CLIMATE COMMITTEE


Bill Binney and Larry Johnson Shred Robert Mueller’s Russian Hack Fable

Bill Binney, the former Technical Director of the NSA, and Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA, wrote the article reprinted below. In a sane nation, it would have been published widely in prominent media, discussed, and debated. Binney and Johnson would have been immediately contacted by Special Counsel Mueller, because what they have written destroys the entire narrative of Russian cyberwar to swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump. Congress would be beating down their doors to learn more. In a sane nation, people would be pursuing truth based on scientific proofs. That is not the nation of the present. In our view, to reassert its sanity, the nation must now demand that Robert Mueller refute, beyond a reasonable doubt, what is presented by Binney and Johnson. That is the resounding demand which must meet the specious fake report he is about to present to the Attorney General.

Bill Binney and members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity published a study back in 2017 showing that Guccifer 2.0, the online persona who first claimed responsibility for the DNC hack, was a fabrication. Their study was based on a metadata analysis of the documents released by Guccifer 2.0. The metadata gave evidence that the files were downloaded at speeds consistent with, and in a manner consistent with copying to a thumb drive or a storage device, rather than through an internet hack. As a result, the President or someone close to him asked Mike Pompeo, at that time the head of the CIA, to meet with Binney. Binney demonstrated to Pompeo that the President was being systematically lied to by the intelligence agencies about the Russian cyberwar, election-meddling fable, which has now been used to cripple the Trump Presidency for over two years. Binney offered to assist in an investigation to unearth the truth as to the perpetrators of the lie, but he never heard a word back thereafter. When Patrick Lawrence reported on the VIPS study in The Nation (which has since prepended a long editorial note), his journalistic career came under sustained attack, as did the VIPS study more generally.

Now Binney has examined the metadata of the actual DNC files published by WikiLeaks and demonstrated that they are also consistent with transfer to a thumb drive or a storage device rather than a Russian internet-based hack. Although this story has received some attention (as on the Gateway Pundit and ZeroHedge), it must receive the broadest possible circulation.

Unlike the claims by the intelligence community and Mueller, this analysis by Binney and Johnson is a public, verifiable forensic analysis of the Wikileaks releases, which established that Hillary Clinton was attempting to rig the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders and that Hillary Clinton was a craven pawn of Wall Street. Both the Obama Administration's January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for perpetrating the hacks of the DNC and John Podesta, rely on findings (lacking available supporting data) reported by CrowdStrike, a private firm, heavily linked to the war hawks in the Atlantic Council and the Democratic National Committee. As is well known, the FBI never examined the DNC computers or the computer of John Podesta and instead adopted the analysis of the DNC vendor, CrowdStrike, to make claims of the highest possible impact on the national security of the citizens of the United States. As former NSA Technical Director Binney knows and states publicly, if the Russian hack occurred as the intelligence community assessments and Robert Mueller claim, the NSA would have been able to trace it and attribute it specifically as to times and places. This has never happened, simply because the hacking scenario advocated by Mueller and the Obama intelligence community never happened.

Please read and circulate this article and demand its publication in your local newspaper and on social media. If properly followed up, it can upend the coup and send to jail those responsible for attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States, the one the voters elected in 2016. And this is a matter of war and peace, because the Russian hack false narrative is a central element in fomenting a new and very dangerous Cold War between the United States and Russia. This article must achieve the widest circulation possible prior to Mueller delivering his fictional report.


“Why the DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians”

By William Binney, former Technical Director, NSA and Larry Johnson, former State CT and CIA. Original publication here.

The FBI, CIA and NSA claim that the DNC emails published by WIKILEAKS on July 26, 2016 were obtained via a Russian hack, but more than three years after the alleged “hack” no forensic evidence has been produced to support that claim. In fact, the available forensic evidence contradicts the official account that blames the leak of the DNC emails on a Russian internet “intrusion”. The existing evidence supports an alternative explanation—the files taken from the DNC between 23 and 25May 2016 and were copied onto a file storage device, such as a thumb drive.

If the Russians actually had conducted an internet based hack of the DNC computer network then the evidence of such an attack would have been collected and stored by the National Security Agency. The technical systems to accomplish this task have been in place since 2002. The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for “we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet. This kind of data would allow the NSA to declare without reservation or caveat that the Russians were guilty. The NSA could admit to such a fact in an unclassified assessment without compromising sources and methods. Instead, the NSA only claimed to have moderate confidence in the judgement regarding Russian meddling. If the NSA had hard intelligence to support the judgement the conclusion would have been stated as “full confidence.”

We believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller faces major embarrassment if he decides to pursue the indictment he filed—which accuses 12 Russian GRU military personnel and an entity identified as, Guccifer 2.0, for the DNC hack—because the available forensic evidence indicates the emails were copied onto a storage device.

According to a DOJ press release on the indictment of the Russians, Mueller declares that the emails were obtained via a “spearphising” attack:

In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through these spearphishing techniques to steal emails and documents, covertly monitor the computer activity of dozens of employees, and implant hundreds of files of malicious computer code to steal passwords and maintain access to these networks.

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.

Notwithstanding the DOJ press release, an examination of the Wikileaks DNC files do not support the claim that the emails were obtained via spearphising. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that the emails posted on the Wikileaks site were copied onto an electronic media, such as a CD-ROM or thumbdrive before they were posted at Wikileaks. The emails posted on Wikileaks were saved using the File Allocation Table (aka FAT) computer file system architecture.

An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.

How do we know? The truth lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not familiar with the FAT file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under this system the data rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.

We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and all 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there would have been an equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is not the case with the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.

The DNC emails are in 3 batches (times are GMT).

Date Count Min Time Max Time FAT Min Id Max Id
2016-05-23 10520 02:12:38 02:45:42 x 3800 14319
2016-05-25 11936 05:21:30 06:04:36 x 1 22456
2016-08-26 13357 14:11:36 20:06:04 x 22457 44053

The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power or approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 150th power - in other words, an infinitely high order.

This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

This fact alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts about Mueller’s indictment accusing 12 Russian soldiers as the culprits for the leak of the DNC emails to Wikileaks. A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (Eg., USB thumb drive) and transferred that to Wikileaks.

We also tested the hypothesis that Wikileaks could have manipulated the files to produce the FAT result by comparing the DNC email files with the Podesta emails (aka Larter file) that was released on 21 September 2016. The FAT file format is NOT present in the Podesta files. If Wikileaks employed a standard protocol for handling data/emails received from unknown sources we should expect the File structure of the DNC emails to match the file structure of the Podesta emails. The evidence shows otherwise.

There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. Bill Binney, a former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined emails posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those emails could not have been downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphising attack. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.

Shortly after Wikileaks announced it had the DNC emails, Guccifer 2.0 emerged on the public stage, claimimg that “he” hacked the DNC and that he had the DNC emails. Guccifer 2.0 began in late June 2016 to publish documents as proof that “he” had hacked from the DNC.

Taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value—i.e., that his documents were obtained via an internet attack—Bill Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents based on internet connection speeds in the United States. This analysis showed that the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincides with the download rate for a thumb drive.

Binney, assisted by other colleagues with technical expertise, extended the examination and ran various tests forensic from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest rate obtained—from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK—was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was listed from Guccifer 2.

The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the Wikileaks data does not prove who copied the information to a thumbdrive, but it does provide and empirical alternative explanation that undermines the Special Counsel’s claim that the DNC was hacked. According to the forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data, the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphising attack. The data breach was local. It was copied from the network.

There is other circumstantial evidence that buttresses the conclusion that the data breach was a local effort that copied data.

First there is the Top Secret information leaked by Edward Snowden. If the DNC emails had been hacked via spearphising (as alleged by Mueller) then the data would have been captured by the NSA by means of the Upstream program (Fairview, Stormbrew, Blarney, Oakstar) and the forensic evidence would not modify times - the data would be presented as sent.

Second, we have the public reporting on the DNC and Crowdstrike, which provide a bizarre timeline for the alleged Russian hacking.

It was 29 April 2016, when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.

According to CrowdStrike founder, Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that

Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.

And what did CrowdStrike do about this? Nothing. According to Michael Isikoff, CrowdStrike claimed their inactivity was a deliberate plan to avoid alerting the Russians that they had been “discovered.” This is nonsense. If a security company detected a thief breaking into a house and stealing its contents, what sane company would counsel the client to do nothing in order to avoid alerting the thief?

We know from examining the Wikileaks data that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35. No DNC emails were taken and released to Wikileaks after that date.

CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire’s Vicky Ward that:

Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.

Why does a cyber security company wait 45 days after allegedly uncovering a massive Russian attack on the DNC server to take concrete steps to safeguard the integrity of the information held on the server? This makes no sense.

A more plausible explanation is that it was discovered that emails had been downloaded from the server and copied onto a device like a thumdrive. But the culprit had not yet been identified. We know one thing for certain—CrowdStrike did not take steps to shutdown and repair the DNC network until 18 days after the last email was copied from the server.

The final curiosity is that the DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination. If this had been a genuine internet hack, it would be very easy for the NSA to identify when the information was taken and the route it moved after being hacked from the server. The NSA had the technical collection systems in place to enable analysts to know the date and time of the messages. But that has not been done.

Taken together, these disparate data points combine to paint a picture that exonerates alleged Russian hackers and implicates persons within our law enforcement and intelligence community taking part in a campaign of misinformation, deceit and incompetence. It is not a pretty picture.


Interview with Bill Binney: Mr. President, Russiagate is a Worse Hoax than You Think

Our interview with Bill Binney, March 1, 2019.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Related