Alleged OPSEC brief lists Democrat nominee a “insider threat”

Joe Biggs | – AUGUST 22, 2016

An alleged U.S. Army training slide is circulating online with an image of Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus listed as “Insider Security Threats” along with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

According to the “U.S. Army W.T.F! moments” Facebook page, who posted a photo of the slide Sunday, the image originally came from a servicemember stationed at Missouri’s Fort Leonard Wood.

Admins for the page told the Daily Caller that they have now received two photographs of the slide in the last 6 months.

The images bares resemblance to a 2015 Justice Department slide thatsimilarly listed Snowden and fellow NSA whistleblower Thomas Drank as “those that have done us harm.”

The Army has thus far not responded to questions concerning the slide’s legitimacy.

ABC: Yes, Possible to Hack Election… Swing precinct slight alterations could make BIG difference…

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 6.53.33 PM


After reports of alleged Russian hacking into Democratic Party computer networks, some commentators have suggested that the Russians could hack the results of the U.S. elections. Other analysts have, well before this year’s campaign, suggested that election results in the U.S. could be electronically manipulated, including by our fellow Americans. So could an American election’s outcome be altered by a malicious actor on a computer keyboard?

I have had three jobs that, together, taught me at least one thing: If it’s a computer, it can be hacked. For Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, I served as the White House senior cybersecurity policy adviser. For President Barack Obama, I served on his five-person post–Edward Snowden investigative group on the National Security Agency, intelligence and technology. And for over a decade I have advised American corporations on cybersecurity.

Those experiences confirm my belief that if sophisticated hackers want to get into any computer or electronic device, even one that is not connected to the internet, they can do so.

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 6.56.26 PM

The U.S., according to media reports, hacked in to the Iranian nuclear centrifuge control system even though the entire system was air-gapped from the internet. The Russians, according to authoritative accounts, hacked into the Pentagon’s SIPRNet, a secret-level system separate from the internet. North Koreans, computer forensics experts have told me, penetrated SWIFT, the international banking exchange system. Iranians allegedly wiped clean all software on over 30,000 devices in the Aramco oil company. The White House, the State Department and your local fast food joint have all been hacked. Need I go on?

Now consider that a majority of states use some kind of combination of electronic voting and a type of paper trail, but there is no standard nationwide. In most states the data that are used to determine who won an election are processed by networked, computerized devices. There are almost no locations that exclusively use paper ballots. Some states allow direct from home voting over the internet. Others employ electronic voting machines that produce no paper trail, therefore there is nothing to count or recount and no way to ensure that what a voter intended is what was recorded and transmitted.

Some systems produce a paper ballot of record, but that paper is kept only for a recount; votes are recorded by a machine such as an optical scanner and then stored as electronic digits. The counting of the paper ballots of record — when there are such things — is exceedingly rare and is almost never done for verification in the absence of a recount demand.

The verification systems in place in most states can check only two things well. First, they can provide a basis for comparing the number of people who showed up and were allowed to vote at a location with the voter total reported at the end of the day by that precinct. Second, they can compare the total votes for a candidate reported by each precinct to the state capital against the number that the capital says it received from each location.

What they cannot verify without counting paper ballots (if they exist at all) is that your vote for Candidate A showed up in the electronic device tabulating the totals as a vote for Candidate A. The process of recording which person got your vote can — almost always — be hacked.

The ways to hack the election are straightforward and are only slight variants of computer system attacks that we see every day in the private sector and on government networks in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Malware can be implanted on voting machines. Almost none of these machines have any kind of malware detection software like those used at major corporations and government agencies. Even if they did, many of those cybersecurity tools are regularly defeated by today’s sophisticated hackers.

At this year’s Black Hat cybersecurity conference, the cybersecurity firm Symtantec had a voting booth to demonstrate the various ways to trick the system.

In America’s often close elections, a little manipulation could go a long way.

In 2000 and 2004, there were only a handful of battleground states that determined which presidential candidate had enough Electoral College votes to win. A slight alteration of the vote in some swing precincts in swing states might not raise suspicion. Smart malware can be programmed to switch only a small percentage of votes from what the voters intended. That may be all that is needed, and that malware can also be programmed to erase itself after it does its job, so there might be no trace it ever happened.

I have to emphasize that we have no evidence that such hacking has ever taken place in the U.S. or that it is about to occur. What we do know is that it could happen. There is nothing to stop it from happening in many parts of the country, and there is not even an effort to see if it is happening.

It does not have to be this way. Congress could create voting security standards for the election of its members and of the president. It has not done so, leaving it instead to the states to protect the integrity of the democratic process.

Minimal election security standards could be simply stated: 1) No vote recording machine shall be connected electronically to any network — including but not limited to local area networks (LANs), Wi-Fi, the internet and virtual private networks (VPNs). 2) Every voting machine must create a paper copy of each vote recorded, and those paper copies must be kept secured for at least a year. 3) A verification audit by sampling shall be conducted within 90 days on a statistically significant level by professional auditors to compare the paper ballots of record with the results recorded and reported.

There are other things that would be nice to have to provide additional levels of assurance. One of the best ideas is that the software used to run voting machines be restricted to open source applications, whose code could be publicly examined. Another proposal that makes sense is that voting machines be required to run a certified malware detection software application before, during and after the voting process.

Some states will, of course, say that there is no risk justifying these proposals. (Many of the states that will claim this will be the same states that passed voter ID fraud laws although there was no evidence of any significant voter fraud.) They will claim that it is not the federal government’s job to regulate the democratic election of federal officials. Finally, many states will protest that verifying our democratic processes would be too expensive for them. That last complaint could be answered by Congress’ paying for its own elections and for the president’s.

If someone makes the charge after this election that the results were altered by hackers, our country has almost no way of credibly refuting that claim. Thus American voters will have no way to know if they can trust the results of the election, unless it is a landslide, so large that it seems unlikely that the winning margin was purely the result of malicious activity.

In any close election, because we have not done the simple things that could protect the integrity of our democratic process, there will be room for doubt.

Glenn Greenwald: The U.S. Media Is Essentially 100 Percent United Against Donald Trump



Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, formerly of The Guardian newspaper, laid out in an interview with Slate magazine that the media in the United States has decided to band together in a last-ditch effort to stop the rise of 2016 GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Greenwald, the progressive journalist who broke the  mass government surveillance storyline, was asked what he thought about Donald Trump’s press conference recently in which Trump joked that Russia should release any emails it has from 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s illicit private home-brew email server from her time as President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State.

“What did you think of Trump’s press conference? You’ve gone after people who you thought were smearing those denying a Trump-Russia connection, and you’ve used the word McCarthyite to describe them. But now Trump has encouraged the Russians to find or release more Hillary Clinton emails,” Slate asked Greenwald.

In his response, Greenwald detailed how the media in the United States has decided to bloc together against Trump’s candidacy for the presidency:

OK, so, I am glad you asked about that because this is the conflict that I am currently having: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers. But that doesn’t mean that as a journalist, or even just as a citizen, that I am willing to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down.

Greenwald bashed the New York Times for pushing, in his words, “unmitigated bullsh*t.” He went on to say:

So, literally, the lead story in the New York Times today suggests, and other people have similarly suggested it, that Trump was literally putting in a request to Putin for the Russians to cyberattack the FBI, the United States government, or get Hillary Clinton’s emails. That is such unmitigated bullsh*t. What that was was an offhanded, trolling comment designed to make some kind of snide reference to the need to find Hillary’s emails. He wasn’t directing the Russians, in some genuine, literal way, to go on some cybermission to find Hillary’s emails. If he wanted to request the Russians to do that, why would he do it in some offhanded way in a press conference? It was a stupid, reckless comment that he made elevated into treason.

But then Greenwald questioned whether, ultimately, the media’s tactics against Trump would be successful. He compared them to the media’s and establishment’s tactics against the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, which obviously failed as Brits voted overwhelmingly to “Leave” the European Union. He continued:

You interviewed Chris [Hayes] about Brexit and I just want to submit to you that the mistake the U.K. media and U.K. elites made with Brexit is the exact same one that the U.S. media and U.S. elites are making about Trump. U.K. elites were uniform, uniform, in their contempt for the Brexit case, other than the right-wing Murdochian tabloids. They all sat on Twitter all day long, from the left to the right, and all reinforced each other about how smart and how sophisticated they were in scorning and [being snide] about UKIP and Boris Johnson and all of the Brexit leaders, and they were convinced that they had made their case. Everyone they were talking to—which is themselves—agreed with them. It was constant reinforcement, and anyone who raised even a peep of dissent or questioned the claims they were making was instantly castigated as somebody who was endangering the future of the U.K. because they were endorsing—or at least impeding—the effort to stop Brexit. This is what’s happening now.

Greenwald said most people supporting Donald Trump for president won’t care about the media spin against him on this front.

“Do you think the people voting for Donald Trump because they feel their economic future has been destroyed, or because they are racist, or because they feel fear of immigrants and hate the U.S. elite structure and want Trump to go and blow it up, give the slightest sh*t about Ukraine, that Trump is some kind of agent of Putin?” Greenwald said. “They don’t! Just like the Brexit supporters. The U.K. media tried the same thing, telling the Brexit advocates that they were playing into Putin’s hands, that Putin wanted the U.K. out of the EU to weaken both. They didn’t care about that. That didn’t drive them. Nobody who listened to Trump could think that was genuinely a treasonous request for the Russians to go and cyberattack the U.S. government.”

Snowden: NSA Can Tell ‘Life Patterns,’ ‘Get Inside Your Thought Process’


So-called whistleblower Edward Snowden stated in an interview with “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams that aired on NBC on Wednesday that an intelligence service in the National Security Agency with “significant funding and a real technological research team can tell someone’s “life patterns,” including locations, voice recordings, and pictures from their cell phone and that this process is “unregulated and uncontrolled.”

Snowden expanded on this point by stating that private contractors could take information from the NSA without them knowing.  He added that NSA programs he had access to as an analyst allowed him to see the “thought process” of an individual as they drafted online correspondence, including words in an e-mail that an individual wrote and erased before the message was sent, which Snowden said allowed the government to see “the way you think.”

Snowden said he takes the danger terrorism poses “very seriously,” and told Williams that his grandfather was in the Pentagon on 9/11, but believed that “too much faith” was placed in intelligence sources, and cited the “false premises” he said were used to justify the Iraq War.  He did have high praise for the US military who he described as “better men” than himself.  Snowden also responded to criticism that he should not have leaked the information about the NSA, but should have gone through “proper channels” by saying he did raise concerns to NSA employees, but was told to keep them quiet.


Former NSA & CIA Director vs Trump & CTO

Published on Aug 15, 2016

Former NSA & CIA director Michael Hayden said Trumps 2nd Amendment people comment could get him interrogated by the Secret Service. I am happy to inform Michael Hayden that the US Military & US citizens have signed off on the CFR’s execution for treason !

Counter Tyranny Ops

Former NSA & CIA director Michael Hayden said Trumps 2nd Amendment people comment could get him interrogated by the Secret Service. I am happy to inform Michael Hayden that the US Military & US citizens have signed off on the CFR’s execution for treason !

wouldn’t everyone like to see that little pencil neck Nazi geeks head on a pike?
Mike Kretmar

thank you that was a very nice thing to say,I appreciate it and I wish you the best in 2nd amendment rights recently have been trampled upon so please say a,prayer in my behalf that all goes well.that would be great appreciated
Kenneth Yu

In the beginning of the video, did this director of NSA said kill everyone? That sound like genocide of 90% of depopulation.
Deanna Cherry



Julian Assange Special: Do Wikileaks have the email that’ll put Clinton in Prison? (EP 376)

Afshin Rattansi goes underground with Julian Assange. We talk to the founder of Wikileaks about how his recent DNC leaks have no connection to Russia. Plus what are Hillary Clinton’s connections to ISIS and Russia.


What Mr. Assange hasn’t touched on is the fact that the AG Lynch meets with the husband of the FBI target just before the results of that 11/2 year long investigation on a tarmac in Phoenix and knew what the outcome was going to be. That’s why she said she would accept whatever recommendation was made by the FBI. Wonder what Slick Willy threatened her with??? There was more to it than a job offer, I’d bet my life on jt. FYI anyone not aware of it, Comey and Lynch worked at the same lawfirm together. The same lawfirm responsible for doing the Clinton’s taxes. Also, this is not the first time James Comey has run interference for the Clintons. It’s a pattern that has been repeated numerous times over the years. CORRUPTION HERE GOES DEEPER THAN ONE COULD EVER IMAGINE.

so, he can’t leave the embassy at all?
Come Visit Waikiki

the only way she wins is if it’s rigged.
David D

I don’t have complete trust in Assange but he does come off as very smart and thorough. He gives lots of examples and makes lots of sense. Wasserman Schultz and the DNC CFO and COO quit because of him. Of course Crooked Hillary hired Wasserman Schultz on immediately. Massive voter fraud is Hillary’s only chance.
The Artificial Society

Destroying Qaddafi was a total disaster, Hillary is incompetent and dangerous. Voting for her is stupid. She does not deserve it.
Michael Johnson

It comes to light now that Clinton DELIBERATELY left our ambassador to Libya to die! Why? Because he, among others, found out that ISIS was given stinger missiles. He told the state department that he could buy some of them back, and was awaiting a reply, not knowing that she was the one who authorized it in the first place

‘Absurd’ election rhetoric: Kremlin, Assange slam Clinton for blaming DNC leaks on Russia

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (L) resigned as chair of the Democratic National Committee after the leak, while Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (R) accused Russia of hacking the DNC © Scott Audette / Reuters

While US media and politicians keep crying ‘wolf’ – or Russia – over the DNC email hack without providing any proof, Moscow called the accusations ‘absurd’. WikiLeaks refused to reveal its sources and promised new leaks before the November vote.

Some 20,000 DNC emails were made public by WikiLeaks on July 22, revealing a close working relationship between the party and some mainstream media figures, as well as collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign to sideline Bernie Sanders, her challenger for the presidential nomination.

The DNC replaced Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the party’s convention in Philadelphia – she immediately got a post with the Clinton campaign – and fired back with accusations that Russia was behind the hack and the leaks, accusing Moscow of backing Republican nominee Donald Trump.


US media picked up the accusations, reporting them under headlines such as “Russian Intelligence Hacked DNC Emails”(NBC), “Suspected Russian hack of DNC widens” (Yahoo News),“All Signs Point to Russia Being Behind the DNC Hack,”(Motherboard), “Evidence mounts linking DNC email hacker to Russia” (The Hill) and “What we know about Russia’s role in the DNC hack” (Politifact).

Actual evidence, however, was nowhere to be found. Instead, reporters relied on insinuations such as, “there seems to be widespread agreement among cybersecurity experts and professionals” (Politifact) that Russia was somehow responsible.

Other experts cited as “evidence” of Russian involvement the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hosted a show on RT – but without noting that the 11-episode run aired in 2012.

“I’m somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation on this,” US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said last week.

Claims of Russian involvement actually go back to mid-June, when the first DNC documents appeared on the blog of Guccifer 2.0, a hacker who claimed responsibility for the breach. CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC to investigate the breach, pointed the finger at Moscow – again, without any proof. CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer Dmitri Alperovitch, who publicized the claims, is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative.

The Kremlin dismissed the charges that Russia was behind DNC hack as “quite absurd,” with presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov pointing out what he called the “American style” of casting blame first, then investigating afterwards.

“We in Russia are used to investigating first, before accusing anyone of anything. We believe it is more logical and more correct,” Peskov said.

“Such statements by Ms. Clinton are typical pre-election rhetoric,” Peskov told reporters Monday. “There is nothing tangible in her accusations, and we believe their character is more emotional.”

“The leaked information is very interesting, indicating specific actions to manipulate public opinion during the election campaign,” the Kremlin spokesman added. In this case, there are attempts to cover up these manipulations by demonizing Russia again, which we feel is improper. Russia does not interfere, and never will interfere, in the internal affairs – especially the elections – of any other countries, including the US.”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has also called DNC accusations an attempt to deflect attention from the contents of the leaked documents. Speaking to CNN from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he sought asylum in June 2012, Assange rejected speculation that Russia was behind the hack.

“Well, what sort of question is that? I am a journalist. We don’t reveal our sources,” Assange told CNN’s ‘New Day’ host Poppy Harlow. “The goal of WikiLeaks as a media organization is to educate the public, to turn a dark world into a lighter world through the process of education, and we’re doing it.”

Screen Shot 2016-08-01 at 6.56.32 PM

Assange also addressed criticism from some quarters – including NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden – that the leaked documents contained private information that should have been redacted to protect the innocent, ruling out any efforts to redact future leaks.

“We are talking about the ruling party of the US and its material, not private information,” he said. “WikiLeaks is not going to be tampering with evidence which will almost certainly be used in several successive court cases.”

Statements from DNC and the Clinton campaign officials painting WikiLeaks and Trump as “Kremlin agents” have been met with derision by the GOP nominee, who called it a “new joke in town.” Others have likewise poked fun at the Cold War-era hysteria, playfully suggesting that “Russian hackers” were behind the color scheme of US athletes’ new Olympic uniforms.

Screen Shot 2016-08-01 at 6.57.35 PM

Although both candidates received a post-convention “bounce” in the polls, a daily survey by the
University of Southern California and Los Angeles Times showed Trump with a four point lead over Clinton at the end of July.