Home | About | Donate

Allegedly’ Disappears as Russians Blamed for DNC Hack


#1

Allegedly’ Disappears as Russians Blamed for DNC Hack

Adam Johnson

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday (6/14/16) that Russian intelligence had hacked the DNC servers to steal opposition research on Donald Trump:

Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC, Stole Opposition Research on Trump


#2

Predictive Programming and/or setting the preliminaries into place for another Case Fixed For War...


#3

Meanwhile the Government of Russia has shot down or grounded a number of US Drones that are flying into Russian airspace and spying.

This is a clear act of war under International law and the Russians have launched a number of protests to that same Government which have been dismissed out of hand, Will the Washington Post report on this aggression?

Oh and to add. It was all but admitted to that the US Government hacks foreign powers. They hacked into computers in Iran to plant viruses. They hacked into computers In Germany and Brazil to steal information they wanted to use to advance their trade deals. Lets see the Washington post report on that.


#4

Could this be the reason? Who knows what to believe anymore...

"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds To Attack Russia"

"On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides."

http://www.countercurrents.org/zuesse160616.htm


#5

"Just because those in power are preparing for a “new Cold War” doesn’t mean the media need to play along."

Just how do you distinguish between "those in power" and "the media"?


#6

From this article: " The Atlantic Council is funded by the US State Department,"
I've been hearing some noise that this hack could have 'allegedly' been done by the red queen herself, and this Atlantic Council connection sure adds credence to that theory. However, at this juncture I am holding out hope that Guccifer 2.0 is another freedom fighter doing his/her/ ? their best to guarantee above-referenced red queen doesn't get anywhere near the WH!


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

Next they will be shooting over Russian airspace in Alaska? Or Poland or Finland or Lithuania?


#9

While author is right to be cautious in any accusation he is missing the relevance of the word allegedly , which is a legal term . We are not in court of law and this will yet to apply. Am I surprised Putin can be doing it ? No. can it be someone else ? Yes. Article is about sending doubt by accusing CrowdStrike of interest in the Putin's complicity. Between 150k contract as a hint of corruption vs Putin hiring his KGB buddies I on on the latter claim.