Susan Rice and Dr. Evelyn Farkas have so much in common.
Both served in the Barack Obama administration, Rice at State and Farkas at Defense. Both are in the news – Farkas’ remarks about the “alleged” Russian hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers, and Rice’s unmasking of private American’s names in government surveillance.
Both have been leaders in the Atlantic Council, which hates Russia almost as much as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Other council honchos include Henry Kissinger, Brent Snowcroft and Madeleine Albright – globalists all. The Council is a big deal in war hawk circles, but there is something peculiar. It is financed not only by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, NATO ACT, it has been funded by the Ploughshares Fund, which has received its money from billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
And both Rice and Farkas have served on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company hired by the DNC and allowed by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Dimitri was named in 2013 as one of Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Leading Global Thinkers, along with other globalists, including Angela Merkel, John Kerry, Ben Bernanke and Jeff Bezos.
In April last year, officials at the DNC noticed that their dossiers on Donald Trump had been hacked, along with other material, and they first went to the lawyers for advice. The next day, they called on CrowdStrike, which put together a document released in June that asserted there was some Russian hacking attacks on the servers, not necessarily resulting in the loss of particular data. It is not clear if they investigated the more logical conclusion that spies inside the DNC stole the thousands of documents.
When Wikileaks began publishing the damning material about how the DNC colluded with media and worked against Sen. Bernie Sanders, Dem leaders asserted that Russians stole the data and gave it to Julian Assange to influence the Presidential election in favor of Trump. That drumbeat has continued , despite the history of Wikileaks receiving its leaks directly from undercover sources like Edward Snowden and the late male, Bradley Manning, and not from many hours-long downloads from hacked systems.
But, both some Republicans and most Democrats still maintain publicly that the Russians interfered with the election by stealing information from the DNC. The only proof of that claim is the assertion that hackers, who might be associated with Russia, attacked the servers.
Indeed, we are told that 17 intelligence agencies share that conclusion.
But who checked the findings of CrowdStrike?
The answer is – Nobody.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey said that his agency, never had direct access to the DNC servers to confirm the hacking.
Well, we never got direct access to the machines themselves… the DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm (CrowdStrike) that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.”
Comey said the bureau asked for access, but it was never allowed.
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also said the NSA didn’t even ask for access to the DNC hardware:
The NSA didn’t ask for access. That’s not in our job.
The joint conclusion of the “17 agencies” is solely the result of the findings of the NSA and FBI, and neither of them touched the DNC servers, and instead relied only on the firm hired by the DNC and headed by an official of the Atlantic Council.
How convenient that the damning material released on the DNC was hacked by a foreign enemy, not a disgruntled staffer. If it had been an inside job all the focus would have been on the obvious corruption, not how it was exposed.
If you consider the possibility that the DNC hacking was an inside job, here’s a Daily Caller report from February:
Three brothers who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission.
Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.
Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.
Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.
Top staffers for lawmakers impacted by the scam were briefed and the Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed the U.S. Capitol Police is conducting an active criminal investigation, but said no arrests have been made.
Imran Awan was first employed on Capitol Hill by former Rep. Robert Wexler in 2004 as an “information technology director.” Awan has worked for at least 25 other House Democrats since then as a shared employee providing tech support including to previous House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, currently the California attorney general.
Jamal Awan worked as a House IT staffer for more than half-dozen House Democrats since 2014, according to LegiStorm, a website that tracks congressional employment. Abid Awan worked for more than a dozen House Democrats as a systems administrator since 2005, according to congressional records.Another House staff with connections to Imran Awan is also under investigation, according to a senior House official.
Frontpage Magazine reported the brothers are Muslims from Pakistan, but I have not been able to confirm that. How they infiltrated the Democrat Party long before “Russiongate” would make interesting news, and some strong IT investigation is needed. Could this be another job for CrowdStrike (no need for FBI or NSA)?
YouTube has a policy to protect you from hateful videos
Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don’t support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line. Learn more
Unfortunately, it is not enforced when it pertains to Jews