A former NSA official has claimed that the CIA’s allegations of Russia hacking the Democratic Party are in fact untrue.
The former National Security Agency official, whistleblower William Binney, claims that the leaked emails were actually the work of an insider, similar to the case of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, who purposefully leaked the information.
The Russia specialist and cryptanalyst-mathematician, who has spent 30 years with the NSA, has signed an open letter from six retired intelligence officials, who call themselves the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity”, and believes that the allegations which state that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have no grounds for truth.
The letter stated, “The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.”
In an interview on Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear, Binney said, “In order to get to the servers, they [hackers] would have to come across the network and go into the servers, penetrate them, and then extract data out of the servers and bring it back across the network. If it were the Russians, it would then go to Russia, and it would have to go from there across the network again to get to WikiLeaks.”
He continued, “Anything doing that would be picked up by the NSA’s vast surveillance system, both in terms of collecting the data as it transits the fiber optics inside the US, as well as internationally.”
He also noted that emails are easily traced, saying, “With all the billions of dollars we spend on this collection access system that the NSA has, there’s no way that could have missed all the packets being transferred from those servers to the Russians. I mean, they should know exactly how and when those packets left those servers and went to the Russians, and where specifically in Russia it went. There’s no excuse for not knowing that.”
Binney stated that if it was a hack, the NSA would know the identity of the sender, as well as the recipients of the data, claiming that the intelligence apparatus that is in use does not depend on “circumstantial evidence,” which is what has previously been reported.
Binney went on to explain, “My point is really pretty simple. There should be no guessing here at all, they should be able to show the traceroutes of all the packets, or some of them anyways, going to the Russians and then from the Russians to WikiLeaks. There is no excuse for not being able to do that — and that would be the basic evidence to prove it. Otherwise, it could be any hacker in the world, or any other government in the world, who knows.”
Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, also voiced his views to the radio show, claiming, “Today they are talking about having ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence.’ Now we have overwhelming technical evidence. We have the former technical director of the National Security Agency that tells us that this is really just drivel. This is really just an operation to blacken the Russians and to blame the defeat of Hillary Clinton on the Russians.”
It has since been announced that another former CIA officer, and the current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Gerald, agrees with Binney and McGovern that it was in fact an inside leak as opposed to Russian hacking.
He said, “If the intelligence community is nevertheless claiming that they know enough to conclude that it was directed from the top levels of the Russian government, then they should be able to produce documentary or other evidence of officials’ ordering the operation to take place. Do they have that kind of information? It is clear that they do not, in spite of their assertion of ‘high confidence,’ and there is a suggestion by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, a persistent critic of Russian spying who is on the House Intelligence Committee, that the information they do have consists of innuendo and is largely circumstantial.”
IMAGE CREDIT:budastock / 123RF Stock Photo
About The Author
Jess Murray is a wildlife filmmaker and conservation blogger, having recently returned from studying wildlife and conservation in South Africa, she is now striving to spread awareness about the truth behind faux conservation facilities throughout the world. You can follow Jess on Facebook Here
Would you like to create dream like states of relaxation on demand by tuning into the natural laws of nature? Join me and 500 other like minded individuals for a free online sound healing training which you can access instantly here…..