How Obama manipulated CIA sensitive secret intelligence for political gain and domestic DIRTY TRICKS Campaigns




How Obama manipulated sensitive secret intelligence for political gain



Report Accuses Obama of Lying About Bin Laden Killing



By Guy Taylor and Dan Boylan - The Washington Times - Thursday, December 21, 2017

They wanted him dead.

For years, a clandestine U.S. intelligence team had tracked a man they knew was high in the leadership of al Qaeda — an operative some believed had a hand in plotting the gruesome 2009 suicide attack in Afghanistan that killed seven CIA officers.

Their pursuit was personal, and by early 2014, according to a source directly involved in the operation, the agency had the target under tight drone surveillance. “We literally had a bead on this guy’s head and just needed authorization from Washington to pull the trigger,” said the source.

SEE ALSO: Obama protected Hezbollah drug ring to avoid ‘rocking the boat’ on Iran deal: Report

Then something unexpected happened. While agents waited for the green light, the al Qaeda operative’s name, as well as information about the CIA’s classified surveillance and plan to kill him in Pakistan, suddenly appeared in the U.S. press.

Abdullah al-Shami, it turned out, was an American citizen, and President Obama and his national security advisers were torn over whether the benefits of killing him would outweigh the political and civil liberties backlash that was sure to follow.

In interviews with several current and former officials, the al-Shami case was cited as an example of what critics say was the Obama White House’s troublesome tendency to mishandle some of the nation’s most delicate intelligence — especially regarding the Middle East — by leaking classified information in an attempt to sway public opinion on sensitive matters.

SEE ALSO: Obama produced sinister miniseries for Democrats

By the end of Mr. Obama’s second term, according to sources who spoke anonymously with The Washington Times, the practices of leaking, ignoring and twisting intelligence for political gain were ingrained in how the administration conducted national security policy.

Those criticisms have resurfaced in the debate over whether overall intelligence fumbling by the Obama White House in its final months may have amplified the damage wrought by suspected Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election last year.

On repeated occasions during the Obama era, high-level sources and some lawmakers lamented to The Washington Times, the president’s inner circle ignored classified briefings and twisted intelligence to fit political goals. Long before Donald Trump appeared on the White House campaign scene, many pointed to an incident during the 2012 election cycle as the most dramatic evidence of how that approach affected the handling of national security threats.

‘Understating the threat’

On the campaign trail in 2012, Mr. Obama declared that al Qaeda was “on the run,” despite a flow of intelligence showing that the terrorist group was metastasizing — a circumstance that led to the rise of the Islamic State.

Many Americans believed the president was justifiably touting a major success of his first term with the U.S. Special Forces killing of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in 2011. But the gulf between Mr. Obama’s campaign pronouncements and classified briefings provided to Congress touched off a heated debate in intelligence circles over whether the president was twisting the facts for political gain.

“Candidate Obama was understating the threat,” then-House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told The Times in an interview after the 2012 election. “To say the core [was] decimated and therefore we [had] al Qaeda on the run was not consistent with the overall intelligence assessment at the time.”

Reflecting back this month, Mr. Rogers suggested that Mr. Obama — like many presidents before him — had a propensity for pushing certain politically advantageous narratives even if they contradicted classified intelligence.

Indeed, controversy has long swirled around politicized intelligence and leaks. The George W. Bush administration was accused of “stovepiping” intelligence it needed for its case to invade Iraq in 2003 while ignoring bits that may have undercut the rationale for war.

That case blossomed into a major scandal known as the “Plame affair.” White House staffer Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to investigators about the leak of the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose husband had challenged the administration’s claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. President Bush later commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence.

With regard to the Obama White House, Mr. Rogers told The Times, the circumstances were different but no less disturbing. “Over the course of their time in office, the Obama administration’s world got smaller and smaller,” said the Michigan Republican, who retired from Congress in 2015. “They listened to fewer and fewer different opinions. When you do that, that is how you miss things.”

‘Heart was never in it’

Chaos and instability in the Middle East factored into one Obama-era intelligence leak that officials now say badly undermined national security.

The CIA’s covert “Train and Equip” program was crafted to aid forces seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad after the 2011 Arab Spring protests exploded into a civil war in Syria.

Train and Equip began with a flow of “nonlethal aid” to certain Syrian rebel groups, but as its budget ballooned to some $1 billion, the program morphed into an unwieldy and ineffective effort to assist an unconventional military campaign.

One former senior intelligence official said the program was badly undermined because the White House was constantly leaking details of efforts to build a Free Syrian Army with cash, weapons and intelligence.

“Obama had drawn a red line on Syria over chemical weapons, but then he didn’t do [expletive],” the former official told The Times. “The White House was facing a lot of political pressure to show they had policy for Syria, so they leaked the CIA’s covert action plan. They leaked it for purely political reasons, so they could say, ‘Look, look, we have a Syria strategy.’”

Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst now with the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington, said other factors also undermined any chance for the program to succeed. Mr. Obama and his top aides were openly wary of being dragged deeper into the Syrian fight while the administration was trying to execute a strategic “pivot to Asia” — away from the heavy U.S. foreign policy focus on the Middle East.

“Obama’s heart was never in it, and the administration wanted nothing to do with it,” Mr. Pollack told The Times. “He mostly did it to avoid domestic political blowback. We could have done so much more, but the way it was run, it killed itself.”

Mr. Pollack, who once worked in the Clinton White House, said the program’s recruitment vetting was ridiculous. “The [Obama] administration more or less insisted, ‘We will only accept applicants … who had never met a jihadist.’ The vetting standards were absurd and excluded almost everyone who had any contact with the opposition in Syria,” Mr. Pollack said.

“It was like they thought we were going to wage a civil war against the Assad government with members of the social pages of The New York Times,” he said. “The Harvard crew team was not going to show up.”

In the long run, the policy’s failure provided a clear window for Iran and Russia to expand their military presence and political influence into the power vacuum created by Syria’s war.


And then there was unmasking.

Controversy has swirled for the past year around the Obama administration’s use of a process that allowed high-level White House officials to learn the redacted identities of Americans swept up in classified surveillance against suspected foreign operatives during the months surrounding the presidential election.

For decades, national security officials at the highest level have used their security clearances to engage in the process known as “unmasking” while reading raw intercepts from around the world for better understanding of relationships that might impact America’s safety.

President Carter’s hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was known by America’s spies as one who “loved raw intelligence,” according to Bob Woodward’s book “Veil, The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.”

“Unmasking itself is not nefarious or conspiratorial; it’s done all the time around the world by ambassadors and CIA station chiefs,” said one former CIA clandestine service officer who spoke with The Times. “It’s a standard procedure and involves a rigorous and bureaucratic process … to ensure whoever’s seeking the unmasking of names has a legitimate reason.”

But Republicans believe the process — and the safeguards against abuse — went terribly awry in the final months of the bitter campaign between Mr. Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton and through the transition period between Mr. Trump’s unexpected victory and inauguration.

Remarks by former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, as well as Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former top White House strategist Steve Bannon, were all captured in surveillance of a Trump Tower meeting in December 2016. Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has since acknowledged she asked that the identities of the Americans in the surveillance be revealed, citing what she said were legitimate concerns about the purpose of the group’s meeting with foreigners.

Although the unmasking itself may have been justified, the former CIA clandestine service officer said, what came next was dangerous.

“The issue is when any names that have been unmasked end up getting leaked to the press,” the former officer said. “And that is certainly what looks like happened vis-a-vis the Obama administration’s unmasking of Trump officials who were in meetings with Russians or Turks that were under American intelligence surveillance.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and chairman of the House intelligence committee, has gone further, suggesting that Obama administration officials strategically leaked the names to smear Mr. Trump and fuel a narrative that the Trump campaign was secretly working with foreign forces.

‘Come on, Mr. President’

Suspicion that the Obama White House intentionally leaked the unmasked names has been fueled by what intelligence sources say was the administration track record of other sensitive leaks — which stretched back to the Abdullah al-Shami case in Afghanistan.

CIA agents were shocked when their classified drone surveillance against al-Shami suddenly appeared in 2014 reports by The Associated Press and The New York Times, one intelligence source told The Washington Times. “There’s no question this guy got wind of the reports,” said the source. “The leak gave him a heads-up, and he suddenly disappeared. We lost our bead on him.”

Some at the CIA were outraged. Agents had been tracking the al Qaeda operative since early 2009, believing he had been directly involved in a bomb attack that injured several officials at U.S. Forward Operating Base Chapman in AfghanistanAl-Shami’s fingerprints turned up on packing tape around a second bomb that didn’t explode.

Roughly a year later, there was another attack on Chapman, a key clandestine operations center in Afghanistan, in which seven CIA officers were killed. Some suspected al-Shami played a role in that attack as well.

But as badly as the CIA wanted al-Shami dead, the case carried controversial legal questions.

Abdullah al-Shami — Arabic for “Abdullah the Syrian” — was the nom de guerre of a young man named Muhanad Mahmoud al-Farekh. Although raised in Dubai, al-Farekh was an American citizen because he was born in Texas.

By the time the CIA had him in its crosshairs in 2014, Mr. Obama was reeling from the furor sparked by his authorization of a drone strike in 2011 that killed another American citizen: al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

The American Civil Liberties Union condemned the al-Awlaki strike as a violation of U.S. law because al-Awlaki had “never been charged with any crime” in an American court.

Fearful of a similar reaction, the Obama administration decided the best course of action would be to leak information about the al-Shami case to stir up public awareness of the conundrum facing the president, the former intelligence officials said.

“Look,” said the source, “I actually appreciate that Obama didn’t like the idea of killing another American without due process. But was leaking this stuff really the right way to handle this?

“I mean, come on Mr. President, it’s your finger on the trigger. You’re the one who decides. All we do is aim the gun,” said the source, who said it was fortunate that al-Shami was later captured alive and secretly flown to the United States for trial.

The al Qaeda operative was convicted in September in U.S. federal court in New York on terrorism charges under his birth name, Muhanad Mahmoud al-Farekh.

The 31-year-old is slated to be sentenced next month


Obama's 'foreign-policy guru' Ben Rhodes, turns out to be a lying sociopath

ben rhodesJonathan Ernst/Reuters
Ben Rhodes, the deputy US national security adviser, during the Washington Ideas Forum in Washington, D.C., on September 30.

President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, gave a surprisingly blunt and honest interview to The New York Times Magazineabout how the administration has sought to shape its foreign policy and sell it to the general public.

The interview - published Thursday with the headline "The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama's Foreign-Policy Guru" - received widespread attention for its unusually honest tone and Rhodes' willingness to share details about the meticulous foreign-policy narrative he has helped Obama construct.

There are some fascinating revelations, many of which revolve around Obama's nuclear deal with Iran:

  • The White House consciously created an "echo chamber" of experts and commentators to shape the public's perception of the Iran deal: "We created an echo chamber," Rhodes told The Times' David Samuels. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say ... We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively. So we knew the tactics that worked."
  • Rhodes' "story" of the Iran deal began in 2013, but it was not the full story: As many foreign-policy experts have noted, Obama began negotiating with Iran at least a year before Hassan Rouhani, Iran's new "moderate" president, defeated Iran's hardliners in a landslide 2013 election. Still, Samuels wrote, "The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration."
  • The administration "is not betting on" Iran's moderates being real reformers: "I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and [foreign minister] Zarif are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American," he told Samuels. "But we are not betting on that."
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is not sure Obama is still "serious" about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon: Part of Panetta's job in holding up the nuclear deal was to assure Israel that Obama would not allow Iran to develop an atomic weapon. "Would I make that same assessment now? Probably not," he tells Samuels.

Others provided a glimpse into the administration's perception of political "experts" and the press:

  • Rhodes hates Washington's foreign-policy establishment - and doesn't care if they hate him back: He refers to the foreign-policy elite, which he said includes Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, as "the Blob," and he "gives zero [expletive] about what most people in Washington think," said Jon Favreau, the Obama campaign's former lead speechwriter.
  • The White House relies on "handpicked Beltway insiders" to help the administration spread its message: These apparently include The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen.
  • Rhodes thinks most of the reporters the White House has to deal with "literally know nothing": "They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo," Rhodes told Samuels. "Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
ben rhodesReuters
From left, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Rhodes, and National Security Adviser Susan Rice boarding the Marine One helicopter to depart with President Barack Obama for Camp David from the South Lawn of the White House on May 14.


In his piece, Samuels interviewed multiple administration officials - most did not give their names, except for Panetta and Valerie Jarrett - about what they think has shaped Obama's worldview and, as Samuels put it, the evolution of his ability "to get comfortable with tragedy."

The answer is summed up best by one anonymous official: "Clearly the world has disappointed him."



Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016

Since April of 2016, Obama's campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.

OCTOBER 29, 2017 By Sean Davis

Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.

The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings last April that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.

OFA, Obama’s official campaign arm in 2016, paid nearly $800,000 to Perkins Coie in 2016 alone, according to FEC records. The first 2016 payments to Perkins Coie, classified only as “Legal Services,” were made April 25-26, 2016, and totaled $98,047. A second batch of payments, also classified as “Legal Services,” were disbursed to the law firm on September 29, 2016, and totaled exactly $700,000. Payments from OFA to Perkins Coie in 2017 totaled $174,725 through August 22, 2017.

FEC records as well as federal court records show that Marc Elias, the Perkins Coie lawyer whom the Washington Post reported was responsible for the payments to Fusion GPS on behalf of Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, also previously served as a counsel for OFA. In Shamblin v. Obama for America, a 2013 case in federal court in Florida, federal court records list Elias as simultaneously serving as lead attorney for both OFA and the DNC.

OFA, which managed Obama’s successful re-election campaign in 2012, retooled after that campaign to focus on enacting the president’s agenda during his final term in office. The group reorganized again after the 2016 election and planned to use its staff and resources to oppose President Donald Trump. During the entire 2016 campaign cycle, the group spent only $4.5 million, according to FEC records.

Federal records show that Hillary Clinton’s official campaign organization,Hillary For America, paid just under $5.1 million to Perkins Coie in 2016. TheDNC paid nearly $5.4 million to the law firm in 2016.

The timing and nature of the payments to Perkins Coie by Obama’s official campaign arm raise significant questions about whether OFA was funding Fusion GPS, how much Obama and his team knew about the contents and provenance of the dossier long before its contents were made public, and whether the president or his government lieutenants knowingly used a partisan political document to justify official government actions targeting the president’s political opponents named in the dossier. According to theWashington Post, Fusion GPS was first retained by Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in April of 2016.

At the same time that Hillary’s campaign, Obama’s campaign organization, and the DNC were simultaneously paying Perkins Coie, the spouse of one of Fusion GPS’s key employees was working directly for Obama in the West Wing. Shailagh Murray, a former Washington Post reporter-turned-political operative, was serving as a top communications adviser to Obama while the Obama administration was reportedly using information from the dossier to justify secret surveillance of Trump campaign staff. Murray is married to Neil King, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who was hired by Fusion GPS in December of 2016. While at the Wall Street Journal, King worked alongside Fusion GPS’s core team, even sharing bylines with Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS executive who personally hired Steele to probe Trump’s alleged Russia connections.

The importance of the dossier funded by Democrats, commissioned by Fusion GPS, and compiled by Steele, is difficult to overstate given that its contents were reportedly briefed to both President Obama and then-President-Elect Trump. The dossier was eventually published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10. On January 6, then-FBI Director James Comey had briefed Trump on the allegations in Steele’s dossier. Steele admitted in court filings that he had shopped much of the information in his dossier to numerous media outlets beginning in September of 2016.

Fusion GPS, which has been accused of illegally operating as an undisclosed agent of foreign governments, is currently facing multiple congressional inquiries into its activities and its clients. Bill Browder, whose attorney was allegedly murdered by Russian authorities after publicizing explosive allegations of Russian fraud and money laundering, alleged in congressional testimony last July that Fusion GPS was paid by Russians to undermine U.S. sanctions against the country. Late last week, Fusion GPS reportedly struck a deal with U.S. House investigators regarding a federal subpoena of the firm’s bank records. And in September, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reportedly requested that the U.S. Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit provide his committee with all suspicious activity reports related to Fusion GPS’s bank transactions.

Following reports of Perkins Coie’s role in funneling money to Fusion GPS, the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog, filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the secret funding schemes violated federal campaign disclosure laws.

Fusion GPS is also facing a separate defamation suit in federal court related to claims in the dossier. That case, which was brought by three Russian businessmen who claim to have been libeled in the Steele dossier, was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., in early October. Fusion GPS is yet to respond to those allegations in court.




Panicked ANTIFA Website Deletes Article About Sabotaging Train Tracks in Olympia After Derailment — Read It Here

by Joshua Caplan 146 Comments

On Monday morning, an Amtrak train derailed while crossing an overpass in Dupont, Washington. Law enforcement say at least six people are dead and 78 others were injured. Independent journalist Mike Cernovich tweeted an archived link to a now deleted article from “prominent,” far-left website It’s Going Down, on an ANTIFA group bragging about pouring concrete on train tracks in Olympia, WA.

The story is from April, but a more recent post from another far-left website, published just 9 days ago, is still up.

Olympia is a 20 minute drive from Dupont.

In late November, ANTIFA sabotaged a train in Olympia.

Police raided an ANTIFA encampment in Olympi following a train being sabotaged by anti-fracking activists — but the anarchists claiming credit for the act have vowed to continue until “every officer is down.”

Earlier this year, a prominent  website published an article tacking credit for the sabotage of train tracks in Olympia, WA. In this article they claimed to have poured concrete on the tracks. It has since been deleted,” tweeted Far-Left Watch.

Earlier this year, a prominent #Antifa website published an article tacking credit for the sabotage of train tracks in Olympia, WA. In this article they claimed to have poured concrete on the tracks. It has since been deleted. #Amtrak

— Far Left Watch (@FarLeftWatch) December 18, 2017


“Here is an article from 9 days ago where  extremists claim they sabotaged train tracks. This is the far-left. #Amtrak,” tweeted Far-Left Watch.

Here is an article from 9 days ago where #Antifa extremists claim they sabotaged train tracks. This is the far-left. #Amtrak

— Far Left Watch (@FarLeftWatch) December 18, 2017


The short post via far-left website PUGET SOUND ANARCHISTS:

During this week we attached wire and jumper cables to the main Union Pacific rail line running through the state of Nebraska to disrupt rail signals and delay trains that mainly carry coal from the mountainous west to population centers in the east. Inspiration for us came from the blockade in Olympia, Unist’ot’en camp in unceded Wet’suwet’en territory, and other actions large and small across turtle island. until the complete destruction of time itself, love and rage from the middle of nowhere

Cernovich then tweeted an archived link to the deleted piece from It’s Going Down.

Tweet credit: Mike Cernovich

ANTIFA group boasted about pouring concrete on train tracks.

They deleted the post but URL remains:

You can read the archived post here:

— Mike Cernovich

Obama Spent Thirty Million Dollars, Per Person, Trying To Destroy The Lives Of Taxpaying Citizens Who Questioned His White House


By ProPublica Writers Group

We spoke with numerous U.S. citizens in New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and a host of other major American cities, who had hit-jobs put on them by Barack Obama and his Administration.

The pattern was the same in each case: A taxpayer would file a formal compliant about a criminally corrupt incident undertaken by Obama’s senior staff. No official action would be taken on the complaint but suddenly a series of state-sponsored attacks would happen to each of the taxpayers who reported the incident.

Our investigation sourced hard evidence proving that every victim did, indeed, file a complaint with formal authorities. We found that every agency, under the Obama Administration, took no significant action on these complaints. We found that the series of attacks on each victim did begin immediately after each complaint was filed and that the compensation paid to the operators of 98% of those attacks came from White House financiers of the Obama Administration or, through circuitous routes, from the White House itself.

Why would Obama have turned out to be such a vindictive bully?

In hindsight, it seems that Obama’s presidency was always hanging by a thread of cover-ups. Silicon Valley, Chicago politi-mobsters and main stream news cartels controlled by the DNC had rigged Obama into office based on epic promises of crony payola kick-backs. As Obama’s Solyndra and Afghan profiteering schemes blew up along with his Russian billionaire mining schemes and the Podesta-Wasserman madness, the whole Obama White House realized they could all disappear in one big Watergate-class revelation at any moment. As has now been revealed in other news stories, Obama has been caught following Joe Rhodes advice to engage in the allowance of drug deals and other criminal Middle East activities in order to gain momentary “agreements” on Iran and Syria at the cost of decades-long corruption which followed.

Attorney General Eric Holder was in charge of running cover-ups for Obama and he could barely keep his head above water. Voted the “most corrupt Attorney General in U.S. History” and being the recipient of the biggest Contempt of Congress indictment had put him on the hot seat.

This put Obama in a daily state of fear of being exposed for running a sham Presidency created exclusively to kick cash back to Chicago and Silicon Valley Cartels.

Obama created and ballooned the Washington DC Hit Job Culture of vendetta, Omerta, reprisal, retribution and revenge into the dirtiest business in town.

Thanks to Obama and his friends the services that kill people, or destroy their lives for The White House, have been exposed. They include Fusion GPS, Stratfor, In-Q-Tel, Gawker, David Brock Group, Podesta Group, Black Cube, Wilson Sonsini, Perkins Coie, Think Progress, New America Foundation, Covington and Burling, Media Matters, Mossad, GCQH, and over 40 other entities who broke the laws and the limits of morality in pure revenge operations.

Even Obama’s FBI has now been exposed running cover-ups and attacks on the public.

What did these attacks consist of?

The following incidents are common across the case files of all of the citizen-victims:

- Bribery of contracting officers and agents to damage competitors and only award government contracts, tax waivers, loans and grants to victims competitors while defunding the victims government contracts.

- Internet server manipulation and website spoofing. Manipulation of DNC-controlled PayPal online payment transaction systems to cut off competitors revenue.

- Job database manipulation and slander on Taleo, Axciom and other HR databases to cut off employment options for competitors or witnesses

- Hacking of victims devices

- Theft of patent materials and government financed flooding of the market to kill victims revenue opportunities.

- Threats and possible murders of whistle-blowers

- Ordering crony's and allies to black-list victims in The National Venture Capitol Association and banking groups in order to prevent their further funding.

- Bribery of public officials to direct funds and contracts to victims competitors (which those public officials owned) and away from victims competing products

- Production of media character assassination campaigns in New York Times, Gawker and Gizmodo Media and Media Matters.

- Embezzlement of taxpayer dollars and crony cross-over deals to conduit that cash to Silicon Valley campaign financiers.

- Placement of sabotage moles, working for Obama, in victims companies to sabotage victims plans and report internal data to competitors

- DNC Honey traps on OKCupid, Seeking Arrangements, Tinder, and other dating sites.

- DNS re-routing, spoofing and search dead-ending of all internet connections of victims businesses.

- Deletions of all marketing of victims businesses on DNC-controlled Google, Facebook, and Juniper Networks and Cisco server devices.

- and much more...

In one case, the attackers contracted character assassination articles in the DNC’s Gawker Media tabloids and then called the HR office of the victims employer and said: "hey look at this, this guy works for you" and got them fired the same day without explanation. The attackers then posted negative links in all of the HR database services so the victim would have a hard time getting new work.

In other cases victims were exposed to toxic substances which killed some and permanently disabled others.

Fusion GPS, Stratfor, Sandline, Black Cube and such services quoted us an average fee of $30M to produce these attacks per individual. We pretended to be inquiring for a DNC affiliated entity. They were seemingly matter-of-fact about it.

It was just another job to them.

An “instruction manual” for some of the attacks is shown below. The victims experienced all of these tactics being used against them:















They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL :

This post's comments feed