Posts Tagged ‘intelligence’

this-week-in-russiagate-2

 

82-mm-M74-HE-KV-Lot-04-2018-1068x601.jpg

 

Islamic State weapons in Yemen traced back to US Government: Serbia files (part 1)

03.06.2019-Mortr-Shells-Al-Houla-Krusik-1068x712.jpg

 

US Task Force Smoking Gun smuggles weapons to Syria: Serbia files (part 2)

 

Mortar-shells-boxes-1068x1424

trump-epstein

 

 

 Whitney Webb in-depth history of Jeffrey Epstein

5d4da3fac697db31fe760818-750-375

 

Unsealed flight logs show that Trump was on Epstein’s private jet in 1997

 

Shit hitting the fan: court now has evidence Trump flew on Epstein’s “Lolita Express.” If this was a MOSSAD entrapment operation, and it’s looking more and more like it was, then Trump may be on the hook to do Israel’s bidding. That could mean a war to kill a billion people.

Twin_Towers-NYC-Treasony

 

With Mueller back in the news, we get some more corroboration that he’s a cover-up tool. It’s pretty early in the video.

 

trump-epstein.jpg

People are jumping to conclusions all over the net. They assume it’s Mossad, but those same people always do, and their speculation is worthless.

Here’s what we have to assess.

The always-compromised “Daily Beast” says:

[Alex Acosta] cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

This comes from a single source called Vicky Ward, and never appeared prior to two days ago. Who is Vicky Ward? How does she come to have this information? And why would she associate with war propaganda mill Daily Beast?

It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose?

What’s not in doubt is that a sex trafficking ring centered on minors, which involved numerous global VIPs in compromising situations, would be of high interest to quite a few intelligence services.

WikiLeaks-Assange-Russia-NOT-Source - Copy

 

Assange is caught up in these games. The government claims “Guccifer 2” was:

  1. A Russian intelligence person
  2. The supplier of the Clinton emails

Both these claims look like nonsense. Guccifer 2 was a fraud created to frame Assange. It’s long and it’s tiresome.

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

 

 

More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian has reported for The New Yorker, the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks. For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, “but which were almost surely not,” Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a “dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC.” The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was “Felix Dzerzhinsky,” the Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.

WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists “to send me their questions via Twitter Direct Messages.” And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer 2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017 interview, Assange said he “didn’t publish” any material from that source because much of it had been published elsewhere and because “we didn’t have the resources to independently verify.”

..

Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these overtures, though it does cite and dismiss “media reports” that “Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”

Mueller does not explain why he included Assange’s comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his “physical proof,” during a two-year investigation.