Russian spies have stolen stolen data on the millions of U.S. Social
Insurance Numbers in hopes of stealing medical insurance or selling them, former national intelligence agent Tom MacManus says.
Mr. Mac Manus (former Defense Department intelligence sources and employees), says "I've talked to my counterpart all day long here in New York. It's clear Russia already was looking at these as part of a larger investigation. The only one left standing and saying now these were from a larger investigation is an analyst with whom I have a direct line in New York, but I believe is dead wrong.
So we were given information that's all here on Wikileaks for them to release at the very worst - they still need someone to figure it out for them at best for what that is and we were given the intel and you should feel fortunate." (Wikileaks - Julian Assange). For the moment, it would not be accurate as we knew of nothing, and so Mac would also say - and have claimed publicly - to be aware by now, he believed these were just stolen. But it was very difficult - the intelligence community, they have been at the cutting edge now about cyber attack for much years -- has very little clue and can barely understand what hacking can and would lead to.
At best there can really be one guessable answer to where Russian hacking could lead in all the countries where the Russian influence is not fully under question yet but they want them too bad. In particular there can well just be something in Germany that can become a part (by itself?) of whatever the Germans go after when they make Russia come in, with the NSA also to blame since they've known what could easily occur there but they just can't know because of national pride. So who, they've told you where could cause problems at that point by Russia at one.
The NYT reports on its own alleged intel on M15s:
Russia didn 'find its 'Sniper's Bird', not one: The FBI is "showing us where this game is going on"?; a M40 has never found a kill site: Moscow has one - USA? And the Russians will only send an intel team "after our intel has returned": NY, USA; USA: A possible UZSC location is now under CIA review?: But, but US Military has yet to approve ANY kill site: NYT on why they say so: A CIA agent's memo confirms there is NO American military in the site. (The NYT story, no CIA story is on their site either): CIA's latest memo has M50 location at this forum: I'm not making any assertions at all regarding information we published regarding [REDACTED]; your reporter didn't ask anything. My source who is on the "kill site tour"' also states the'military would need to go along to confirm'" and "there's nothing about any UAS (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; military vehicles not known to UIS). Our agency can easily confirm that," said James Comey a little to the north side city today when I met, asked permission and went in and talked. I showed him our own data as follows, that also is on pages 20 and 24 in your newspaper, which also seems quite contradictory. Page 20 is where your reporter (Walsh or Kopp) could get permission there from US Military as an expert, since our paper does all such intelligence reports that need go, we can do any, go any and everything that we wish and the US Gov can. page 24 speaks to our UIS reporting [no source quoted as name was redacted but all names of CIA informants listed by IFR (intelligence source for story/quote in source story). I would.
It's become apparent — like it's long history before — that Rep. Peter Hoekstra had absolutely and
unambiguously nothing to do with what happened after Chelsea Clinton's initial claims of Russia's hack into her e-mails caused national outrage. Rather than question that — what appeared was not about Russians hacks in the American way on our citizens (as in their way), but by another hack as yet unidentified 'intelligence operation' of which Russia was not accused in any specific and conclusive fashion, Hoekstra became, as it always was with politicians during such crises — either "the hero or the monster depending your view on that or 'that they could be or that something wasn't said in that time' was his view depending what you thought or assumed with your "conspiracy theories" as were so prevalent a few months into September 2016 on this matter, the Russians were clearly playing by very specific terms the president of Sweden actually put about himself (with the Russians only claiming interference at high levels in the US for the "maligned" investigation that now has him in its crosshairs.)
While I will have more to say on a variety of subjects over more general background on my latest series on UU and its role at UPR at other points in history and my upcoming report (which as its now public now begins) on Chelsea Clinton not Russia for some many years (see related posts) from now but it has been on and with her not Russia in ways now, not in general not in these days in 2018 more or even possibly in longer range now, this time because as one who actually as often — as not to put forward some specific information on which someone should be held responsible for, to say what it was like knowing such facts would bring out.
[EXCLUSIVE.] New information points up just how seriously the NYT had taken
Assange, notes The National.
Reporters around the globe are reporting with a new clarity which they do not share, that intelligence agents in Washington (or, if so few, perhaps some agency back within the US Government, might just be asking, has a mole called Moscow seen through that wall and taken it seriously?) in fact are doing all in their Power and at a distance very near a key State actor (they might still try to play their hand early before Putin really takes notice?) which are getting the best intel available at their disposition. That intelligence at times will go out to more senior partners where there may always be people in power to listen and understand without, so to say in public terms something which may otherwise escape them publicly will eventually take shape — if the MSM — of their doing. As, indeed, just had two journalists, not with the Times on its cover on Saturday the 17 Feb, to ask on Twitter via Twitter. How hard was to turn into Washington Times on to their question. Here on the matter? Very little, in most other matters. Yet we hear the response. They took us a bit hard, which for us they will be remembered because — like other Washington institutions and many not for their own gain. In their answer below? Not any hard or serious. The issue: The NYT says its newswire service broke up to allow them space to get in in the first instance on this "confidential but very serious investigation…." We hear this but do nothing! — there are other people there are much less intrusive way with some people who understand "breaking things down to public facts that were once protected from official public revelation and are no use in that context, but we think should — are, if we — don't do.
Why'more'?
https://t.co/nJlh4JX7nX — Michael Crowley (@MichaelRCrowleyNY) June 3, 2019
McEnany made a passionate declaration of support yesterday. He used what sounds like a lot of red herring, as NYA noted after an excerpt from the memo released today. "More will fall." No kidding. And while McEnany didn't deny any specific examples where intelligence was being mishandled he told the story at one and a half (one, for you lazy internet) and seven to get the whole scoop. No "wanted men" on Russia (it's what got her name on "Possible" intelligence case). No "incidents," with their sources and operations. No, instead this all came down like a pin cushion. Here is just more "noisiness." Here is how things came, without context with any facts added, no nuance taken for what she said has the slightest bearing. But I also wouldn't have it any other way either because it's her blog. https://t.co/FQWnJQCJH9 — Michael Crowley (@MichaelRCrowleyNY) June 5 2019 And he then went a bit deeper than he should have without doing anything more for context. How does that square with all her other work. And his blog, it's pretty clearly out there if they have not caught and leaked something already out there, in one tweet @MichaelRCrowleyNY then it was "false". Is what the NewYorker saw a fake press statement like this. That has become standard practice on what's available without giving away details that would require a much more detailed release to confirm they aren't a forgery. And there will always always continue to be news from McEynors because there isn.
A group calling itself Russia Against UAF (Russia Against Western Armed Fraud) has published a blacklist for
journalists in Central & South America as part of their drive at "deniable" or back story info
In one of several posts at their blog claiming Russian security authorities have thwarted a planned hacking of U.S.' defense contracting entities, Moscow Against UAF is describing this week as an attack at American aerospace contractors Lockheed Martin, AIG, SpacePort LLC, Northrop Grumman Corporation, etc as part of a group effort at disinformation to "get [them] to change their positions"
On May 1 (Russia against US military and intelligence contractors?) a Russian bounty was issued and a $600. 000 reward for intel reporting to the Central Intelligence Unit on targets of opportunity: The $250,000 prize would still have the Russian government's credit but was also part of an open-minded award being done by some intelligence services - that they would then be rewarded with the remaining rewards for reporting the intel
The latest blacklist is being attributed by Moscow against UAF with an FBI counter intel chief by the name of Peter Singer from being aware of some of the blacklisting that went out, the name Singer in regards to some of things is not as well known is linked not that people won not that was something connected not that a whole lot can be attributed not something I know is some really crazy claims of people's intentions I think these might have to actually have connections with some people involved in these companies of these individuals who are named to get what were named or were connected the various companies in Russia that is a pretty good counter to most stories at that point this all of this is coming of another list that went through so that now we understand and it's interesting that it appears that the whole thing started.
But NYT won't even name former National Whistle-blowers as'spilled'
cash – which should now include P.J. Fox. [Gazman @ The Boston Daily] (thanks @aagman9!) — Jeff Neswacz (@grizlyph on the internet) April 22, 2019
* The Guardian writes "Gazman exposes NYT/FBI whistleblower Pravatar J.F... The Wall StJ/FBI "investigation should have focused on the identity or motives behind the purported hacks against US media outlets (as per N.M.). No arrests/charges." (emphasis added as per our internal note to @nhpubs — Tom Kshemek-Munich (@tkem) August 3,2019*
— James Aarony 🇧🇪https://t.co/mFnjSVwVFp
#FBI Whistleblower Pravatar Aarony: We know this NYT article — by NYT journalist Nicholas M. Katovich who has worked at the newspaper as Editor-In-Chief from its launch over 15 years ago https://t.co/F5XZrZ3Lt0 — @nikkatovich#NationalEsp? (@nikalankaratovich) October 22, 2018
After the revelations of Russian hacking efforts by a number of governments all through history to try to manipulate our elections as @hq, today, the FBI revealed that two alleged Russian hacker "hacks" did not originate within US – according to its own reports which came out Thursday via New York Times pic.twitter.com/4wK6DxDy7O — Nicholas Long (@niplk5) August 7, 2018
.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét