Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Retaliation directed against General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra on the Intercept website


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM
Subject: defamatory material against me posted on the Intercept website
To: Travis Mannon <travis.mannon@theintercept.com>, Charlotte Greensit <charlotte.greensit@theintercept.com>, laura.poitras@theintercept.com, jeremy.scahill@theintercept.com, roger.hodge@theintercept.com, betsy.reed@theintercept.com, sam.biddle@theintercept.com, matthew.cole@theintercept.com, alleen.brown@theintercept.com, cora.currier@theintercept.com, ryan.devereaux@theintercept.com, alex.emmons@theintercept.com, lee.fang@theintercept.com, dan.froomkin@theintercept.com, ryan.gallagher@theintercept.com, murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com, zaid.jilani@theintercept.com, andrea.jones@theintercept.com, peter.maass@theintercept.com, robert.mackey@theintercept.com, morgan@firstlook.org, jenna.mclaughlin@theintercept.com, sheelagh.mcneill@theintercept.com, mattathias.schwartz@theintercept.com, liliana.segura@theintercept.com, jon.schwarz@theintercept.com, alice.speri@theintercept.com, jordan.smith@theintercept.com, ryan.tate@theintercept.com, moiz.syed@theintercept.com, sharon.weinberger@theintercept.com, margot.williams@theintercept.com, glenn.greenwald@theintercept.com
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, ashish.sawkar@ic.fbi.gov, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "chairmanoffice@sec.gov" <chairmanoffice@sec.gov>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, CP Delhi <cp.alokkumarverma@delhipolice.gov.in>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, sg.rmaithani@sci.nic.in


I am emailing the Intercept editorial team because this issue needs their attention.

I reproduce below some defamatory comments posted against me at the intercept by two persons commenting as Mona and as rrheard. 

Very surprisingly, two of my responses appear to have been deleted by the Intercept staff overnight almost as if to allow me to be targeted in this manner. 


Seema Sapra 
General Electric Company whistleblower 


Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 10:08 a.m.
You have repeatedly targeted me, lied about me and defamed me in your comment. I am a GE whistleblower in India and your conduct which appears to be procured retaliation against a whistleblower amounts to a criminal offence which I will be reporting to US authorities. I also intend to initiate legal action against you in a court of law in Delhi and mention you in my legal case against GE in the Supreme Court of India.

By the way, my complaints against whistleblower retaliation by the troll Mona Holland were emailed to the US authorities by me and are available on my blog under posts dated 15 November and 8 December 2016.

What is your full name. Are you a lawyer? Which Bar are you registered with?

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 14 2016, 9:50 a.m.
Can someone inform this vicious lying abusive troll Mona that engaging with her or responding to her is beneath me and she should stop addressing me on this website.

I don't read her comments. And I will never respond to her.

She is full of hate and bitterness. And she has viciously targeted and defamed me in the past because I am a whistleblower against GE in India. Targeting a whistleblower is a criminal offence and I have complained about her to the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ. If she targets me again, I will complain again. I intend to name her in my Supreme Court petition against GE to establish how I am being targeted on the internet by GE sponsored trolls.

My complaints about Mona being used to retaliate against me as a whistleblower have been emailed to the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ and can be viewed at
and at

rrheard has also targeted and defamed me below. I will also complain against him to the FBI.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 9:27 a.m.
rrheard – what is your real name. You appear to be a lawyer. Which Bar are you registered with?

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 14 2016, 9:21 a.m.
This is what the Mona enabler rrheard who is also targeting me below stated about me at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/06/disinformation-not-fake-news-got-trump-elected/?comments=1#comments

"rrheard ? Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 8 2016, 1:18 a.m.
My advice isn't malicious. I also already conceded that pleadings may work differently than in America or UK. But reading your pleading I'll stick to my honest assessment of it–it's a mess.

Believe what you like. If and when you "beat GE" on your own, you make sure and let us all know. We will all be rightfully impressed, and I will apologize for criticizing your pleadings.

But I guess, in true Catch-22 fashion, if you don't beat GE, it will just mean to you that there was a successful conspiracy against your legal claims by both GE and the system of justice in India, and all the judges who evaluated your pleadings and the merits of your claims, and that you were ultimately unable to overcome on your own. And maybe that will be true, but the practical outcome of not being able to overcome it, assuming you don't, is that you'll not to receive the relief you seek.

Guess we'll see. I guess that's why they say "justice is imperfect"."

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Galactus-36215
December 14 2016, 9:15 a.m.
If you abuse and denigrate me, you are abusive trash and I do not respond to abusive trash.

↪ Reply

craigsummers ↪ K.Wesa
December 14 2016, 8:46 a.m.
"……..Crowdstrike's own assessment throws out a lot of technical detail for the average joe. What it essentially states is any guy and his cousin with a professional skillset in cyber security could have perpetrated this. Which once again, tells us nothing……"

Totally unpersuasive. No links, nothing of value. Just a bunch of denials on behalf of the Russian government. The intrusion was so simple, even a caveman could do it. Right and Geico can save you 20% on your car insurance……

Thanks.

↪ Reply

craigsummers ↪ Jose
December 14 2016, 8:25 a.m.
I doubt this can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so there is no reason to accept that Russia is behind the hack if you choose not to.

Thanks.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ nuf said
December 14 2016, 8:05 a.m.
Reply.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 8:03 a.m.
rr, we had agreed not to engage one another.

Why you chose to break that agreement, I do not know. You frequently mischaracterize others' statements , and have done so here, repeatedly, where I am concerned.

I have clearly stated my positions regarding anyone here reporting another commenter to the FBI. You repeatedly restate them erroneously. I am not arguing any longer against your gross distortions that are neither what I said or meant.

We reached our agreement not to engage one another by email. Anything further I have to say to you — about this matter or anything else — would also be by that medium.

But I will not be discontinuing my objections to Seema's filing a complaint with the FBI, when and as she makes that relevant. If you dislike that, it is simply too bad.

↪ Reply

K.Wesa ↪ craigsummers
December 14 2016, 6:29 a.m.
It's a subjective article. Both cozy bear group and fancy bear group have been involved in a lot of intrusions. Many of these intrusions are not aligned with russian interests or would be deemed against russian interests.

While this particular breach may have served russian interests to disrupt our electoral process, their is once again, no smoking gun that indicates Russian state involvement.

With all the evidence that's been provided, you could say lizard squad who is famous for it's DDOS attacks has been acting at russias behest.

Crowdstrike's own assessment throws out a lot of technical detail for the average joe. What it essentially states is any guy and his cousin with a professional skillset in cyber security could have perpetrated this. Which once again, tells us nothing.

If nothing else, the russian government really stopped giving a shit in 2014. Meaning, their intelligence sources changed the way they engaged in their cyber proliferation. Prior to 2014, once these people were discovered, they disappeared and engaged in counter forensic's. Post 2014, no fucks are given. They get discovered, they literally do not care, and do not disappear. This is a noticed behavior by every single cyber security firm.

I'm a firm believer in common sense, but no the shoe doesn't fit.

The real tragedy in all of this and what should scare people the most is that no one seems to really care about the political corruption. Moreover, that revealing it, no matter who did it, is considered a disruption to our electoral process.

↪ Reply

barabbas ↪ Jose
December 14 2016, 6:24 a.m.
it seems like the persons behind the Hillary effort are concerned that President Trump will discover who killed Seth Rich and why.

↪ Reply

barabbas
December 14 2016, 6:21 a.m.
LEAKS! NOT HACKED

Wouldn't you know it? Lots of subcontractors lied and propagandised to influence the election.
Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources | Reuters
Who killed Seth Rich?

Way too many premature deaths in the Clintons rise to be just a co-incidence.
Somebodies working behind the scenes and probably still are.

↪ Reply

Jose ↪ craigsummers
December 14 2016, 6:13 a.m.
I think FancyBear is Guccifer 2.0, and Guccifer 2.0 is probably just some guy (perhaps Russian) seeking attention. Again, there's nothing to suggest much sophistication as CrowdStrike suggests. We're talking about simple methods of attack (e.g. phishing). Beyond that, it seems to me that Wikileaks got material that didn't come from Guccifer 2.0.

Why create this Guccifer 2.0 persona at all and these silly websites? What is there to gain from that? It feels like a very amateurish operation.

↪ Reply

craigsummers ↪ Jose
December 14 2016, 5:52 a.m.
Jose

"……..Again, no. First, there's no evidence linking FancyBear to the Russian government. That link appears to be a guess……"

In fact, Crowdstrike has a lot of experience with Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear (http://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/):

"………CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR. We've had lots of experience with both of these actors attempting to target our customers in the past and know them well. In fact, our team considers them some of the best adversaries out of all the numerous nation-state, criminal and hacktivist/terrorist groups we encounter on a daily basis. Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of 'living-off-the-land' techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and 'access management' tradecraft – both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected. Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government's powerful and highly capable intelligence services……."

There is nothing set in concrete, but the independent identification of Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear strongly implicates the Russian government. Is this really so surprising?

↪ Reply

Jose ↪ craigsummers
December 14 2016, 5:21 a.m.
Again, no. First, there's no evidence linking FancyBear to the Russian government. That link appears to be a guess. Second, the material Wikileaks released was much more interesting and comprehensive than anything released by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks. It seems quite plausible that it didn't come from Guccifer 2.0. It might have not come from a leak at all. The article admits the source of Wikileaks material is unknown. Third, there are indications that Guccifer 2.0 is fairly naive about covering his tracks.

↪ Reply

Jose ↪ Daniel
December 14 2016, 5:11 a.m.
What are you babbling about exactly? The Mitrokhin Archive is a collection of hand written notes made by a KGB archivist prior to 1992. Propornot.com is a site that pretends to blacklist non-centrist media outlets as "Russian propaganda mouthpieces" based on nothing, and which further tells us:

Obtain news from actual reporters, who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!

What does one have to do with the other?

↪ Reply

craigsummers
December 14 2016, 5:01 a.m.
The state-operated New York Times is reporting today that what crowdstrike found on the DNC computer did indeed link to the Russian government (Following the Links From Russian Hackers to the U.S. Election http://nyti.ms/2a0zep8}:

"……..The Central Intelligence Agency concluded that the Russian government deployed computer hackers to help elect Donald J. Trump……."

July 2015
Federal Security Service
"……..A hacking group possibly linked to the agency, the main successor to the K.G.B., entered Democratic National Committee servers undetected for nearly a year, security researchers said. The group was nicknamed Cozy Bear, the Dukes or A.P.T. 29 for "advanced persistent threat."……" – reported by NYT

March 2016
G.R.U.: Military Intelligence
"………Investigators believe that the G.R.U., or a hacking group known as Fancy Bear or A.P.T. 28, was the second group to break into the D.N.C., but it has played a bigger role in releasing the committee's emails…..".- reported by NYT

WikiLeaks
"…….The website released about 50,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee's computer servers. It is unclear how WikiLeaks obtained the emails. But Russian intelligence agencies are prime suspects, researchers said….." reported by NYT

In my honest (and neutral) opinion, there is little doubt that the Russian intelligence services worked with Assange to release the information (probably through a third party). The political motivation for Assange makes this accusation reasonable considering his anti-American view point. He almost certainly knew the emails came from Russian intelligence services. Assange is a really a scumbag (in my neutral opinion).

↪ Reply

Jose ↪ Daniel
December 14 2016, 5:00 a.m.
If you don't understand something as basic as the difference between an anonymous leaker and an anonymous government official, you have no business trying to start an argument here.

↪ Reply

barabbas ↪ Daniel
December 14 2016, 3:11 a.m.
you need to be careful reading yahoo headlines….
what matters is that Hillary lost
the Dems were crushed
The Russia-did-it scam is being exposed for the garbage it is.
The conflict in Syria is OVER and Russia did that!
US intervention in the middle east is criminal
the CIA lies most of the time
president obama despises whistleblowers and loves corruption
the YINON PLAN is washed up

↪ Reply

Sour Dove ↪ Anon
December 14 2016, 2:47 a.m.
So, who was McCarthy right about? I thought the VENONA material used code names.

↪ Reply

nuf said ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 2:14 a.m.
"or painting yourself [-Mona-] out as being victimized by this particular commenter's ravings"

Indeed, Mona warped Pizzagate into real harm like witch burning or some bullshit.
She edits a blog that warns everyone of what crazy folks are capable of. She has a long history of warning the board who is too crazy to respond to … as if we can't figure that out.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 1:53 a.m.
Reporting a political activist in an FBI filing is serious. Period. Whatever her issues notwithstanding.

And no reasonable person can think I take her ravings seriously. (Yes, she is convinced Hillary, John Podesta and the pizza joint guy are running a pedophile ring. Because of masking tape. And the Trumpers here think that's just awesome.)

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ -Mona-
December 14 2016, 1:43 a.m.
Please identify "real people" who have been "harmed" by Seema's purported actions. And please describe what real world "harm" could or has resulted. We'll wait.

Reporting political activists to the FBI is a serious matter.

Do you think the FBI needs Seema's helping in identifying "political activists" in this country?

Moreover, and given the many many many articles posted here by various writers detailing the activities of myriad law enforcement agencies including the FBI and DHS, do you honestly believe that any of the federal ones aren't already aware of your "openly admitted" activities on behalf of Occupy or BLM?

You seriously need to get a grip if you think Seema's purported rantings to any federal agency is causing anyone, much less you, any actual "harm" in the real world.

Your identity is well known and you don't hide it. Your political viewpoints and affiliations, self-admitted going on years in multiple venues and Twitter, whether as a "political activist" or concerned citizen, are well-known buy any local or federal agency that cares to take an interest in either (and there presumably are and you know that full well in openly holding viewpoints and taking actions on behalf of any organization with which you are ideologically aligned.)

So if you believe Seema, some loopy person from India, is telling US law enforcement anything they don't already know in 2016, then I'd suggest you aren't reading The Intercept's journalism for comprehension since its inception.

Seriously Mona, allowing yourself, or painting yourself out as being victimized by this particular commenter's ravings or "reports" or "filings" to the SEC, DOJ or FBI is silly.

But now I'm starting to think you either enjoy taking the position(s) you are, or you've lost your ability to objectively evaluate the meaning and/or effect of your online opinions and musings, (and those of anyone you interact with on the internet) much less your work in the real world as a "political activist". I mean you, and your family have purportedly dealt with the real deal–the non-loony Israel uber alles adversaries who try and destroy the reputations or lives of anti-Zionists activists like yourself.

You think Seema is in that category? Do you think Deray McKesson worries what some loopy goofball in India says to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency in America about him, or on the internet to him? I seriously doubt it. And as far as I can tell he's well aware that his work draws both the attention and documentation of certain law enforcement agencies in America. Probably multiple agencies federal, state and local.

Now we can all agitate and organize for that to change (i.e. stop US law enforcement agencies from have the (un)lawful ability to build and maintain files strictly on the basis of an Americans "political activities", which most activists and the lawyers who support them have been doing for decades–without much apparent success), or we can get on without and face that reality with courage. Directly.

If you are honestly worried about what's in your FBI file, or whether the FBI is documenting the loony ravings of some woman in India about you, as a former lawyer, make an FOIA request or bring a pro se suit to obtain your file.

Short of that you're whining into the wind by legitimizing her ravings by treating them as serious. So, seriously, get a grip. Ignore or mock her, but you aren't helping yourself by taking her seriously.

↪ Reply

James Edwards ↪ Daniel
December 14 2016, 1:11 a.m.
as the article says, that anonymous leaker turned over *documents*, rather than saying the CIA *believes* such-and-such happened even though it has no smoking gun.

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ -Mona-
December 14 2016, 12:47 a.m.
The only remedy I intend to employ is to advertise — when she is participating and making outrageous and bizarre claims — that she has done that.

How's that working out for you so far?

Have you called the agencies she has purportedly "reported you" to in such an "unspeakably vile manner" and asked them if she actually has, or the status of those reports? If not why not? That would seem more productive than engaging her here or legitimizing her lunacy by suggesting how horrible horrible horrible and vile and abominable all those purported actions are by some poor impoverished woman in India who appears to be struggling with some serious issues?

I mean just a tip from someone who loves a good internet dustup as much as the next guy, but it is a lot more fun for the reader when you find clever ways to mock and deride a loony interlocutor (assuming you feel so compelled other than to just ignore him/her) than actually treating his/her claims as serious or legitimate, which you do using the rhetoric of how "vile", "abominable", "outrageous" and "bizarre" et al such purported actions said interlocutor has taken against you are, instead of appearing like you are being victimized by them in the real world.

Now outrageous and bizarre aren't half bad, but how about "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" or "nuttier than squirrel shit" or "batshit insane" or maybe even try to throw in some good descriptors like birdbrained, brainless, boobish, preposterous, buffoonish, clownish, empty-headed, witless, mindless, daft, dippy, half-baked, . . . .

Just sayin.

Seriously, just my $0.02, but you really aren't doing yourself any favors other than to mock or ignore here, because you just appear to legitimize her ravings by responding to them as if they were serious.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 12:31 a.m.
You are operating under a mistaken assumption that I have any intention of trying to sue her. As I made quite clear, her many victims of things like doctored Youtube videos could not obtain any satisfaction from a woman who has no means to pay any judgment. A lawsuit cannot be a deterrent.

MY sole objection, where I am directly concerned, is her filing complaints against me to the FBI and other federal agencies. The only remedy I intend to employ is to advertise — when she is participating and making outrageous and bizarre claims — that she has done that.

End of.

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ rrheard
December 14 2016, 12:29 a.m.
If I had a blog, there would be nothing at the top claiming I am a "human rights activist". I'm not. I post at the Intercept, Guardian and elsewhere because I am a political hack. — Craig Summers

Sorry about typo not ending that blockquote.

I really think you should append the above to every comment you post. It's about the most honest thing you've ever posted in these threads, and just about says it all about who you are and how you think about the world.

Or you could simply say "I'm a political know-nothing hack who posts on the Internet, who recently learned like 6th graders the world over how to link to a source on the Internet and then talk out my ass about it, just like a 6th graders the world over."

That would be pretty accurate as well, and not to malign the intellectual or moral integrity of the average global 6th graders, as by all appearances they are more advanced in both categories than you are.

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ craigsummers
December 14 2016, 12:22 a.m.
Craig Murray is simply an anti-American, self flattering (i.e. a liar) political hack who has zero credibility when it comes to Russian hackers and human rights activism.

Nice name calling. You forgot "radical leftist" though, which really detracts from the overall tenor of your comment.

And why exactly do you have "credibility" to opine on Mr. Murray's "credibility" in the arenas of Russian hackers and human rights activism?

<blockquote
If I had a blog, there would be nothing at the top claiming I am a "human rights activist". I'm not. I post at the Intercept, Guardian and elsewhere because I am a political hack.

So your opinion is that you are "political hack" and Craig Murray is a "political hack" as well.

Does that mean that you share this same bio of life's work and achievements:

Murray had a number of overseas postings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to Africa and to Europe. In London, he was appointed to the FCO's Southern European Department, as Cyprus desk officer, and later became head of the Maritime Section. In August 1991 he worked in the Embargo Surveillance Centre as the head of the FCO section. This job entailed monitoring the Iraqi government's attempts at smuggling weapons and circumventing sanctions. His group gave daily reports to Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
[snip]
Murray was appointed as the British ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2002, at the age of 43, . . . .
[snip]
The FCO exonerated him of all 18 charges in January 2004 after a four-month investigation but reprimanded him for speaking about them.
[snip]
In recognition of his campaigning work on torture and human rights he was awarded the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence in January 2006.[53] In November 2006, he was awarded the Premio Alta Qualità della Città di Bologna.[54] Murray turned down three honours from the Queen as titles are "not his thing".


Say what you want about the Murray's private life, but every time he's been threatened with a lawsuit, the plaintiffs have all given up trying to advance his/her/their claims against him. It appears he's quite confident, and can prove any allegations he makes, particularly of the type of allegations he made against the Uzbekistan government, its oligarchs, and various UK and US officials or agencies on the subject of torture.

Now of course someone like you might refer to someone who put their professional livelihood and career on the line to actually speak out, or speak truth to power, on the topic of human rights violations and/or complicity in same by his own government, to be a "political hack". But that's because you are about as far from a defender of "human rights" or willing to speak truth to power as just about anybody who has ever posted in these threads. In fact, quite the opposite, you are a defender of human rights abuses and their abusers.

So I guess we can all judge for ourselves who is closer to being a "human rights activist" in the world and who isn't, and who is a "political hack" and who isn't. IMHO, Craig Murray is the former based on his life and work, whereas you are the latter based on, well, the apparent fact that you comment on the internet about shit until recently you didn't even understand how to link to (unlike Craig Murray).

↪ Reply

Wolf J. Flywheel ↪ Dux D
December 14 2016, 12:03 a.m.
That, and it's not like *nobody* is seeing the evidence–they're sharing it with Congress, and even the GOP leadership appears to be taking notice. Glenn is a great investigative voice, but he's glibly trotting past that little point.

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 11:56 p.m.
So you are choosing to take seriously the rantings and purported "filings" of a crazy, impoverished and/or homeless person from India?

Here's a newsflash, it would be almost impossible for you or her to obtain federal jurisdiction over the other, based on the amount of controversy alone, much less her inability to find a lawyer in America to take her case against you, and/or her inability to actually travel here. And if she's impoverished or homeless, pretty sure she can't come up with the filing fee on any sort of meritless lawsuit against you or anyone.

Hell, here I'll save you all the trouble–Dear @ Seema Sampra
I invite you to sue me on any legal theory you like in any court in America where you think you can obtain jurisdiction over me. I am quite easy to find in the real world (I live in Hillsboro, Oregon USA), and will not thwart your attempts to serve me with legal process. If you would please focus your legal efforts and attention on me rather than Mona, it would be a great service to everyone here in America who is of the opinion you are a stark raving loony. Best regards, rrheard
Moreover, even assuming in the statistically astronomically unlikely event that she would or could cause you any sort of legal trouble other than a pure nuisance, you know full well how easy that would be to blow out on her pleadings (presumably you've seen horrible examples of her pathetically bad "legal product"). Similarly, please explain to me how treating her apparent lunacy (in my non-professional non-diagnostic opinion) with any sort of seriousness or legitimacy will actually function to stop her from posting her nonsense on these threads. Now there is someone or some entity who could, and that is The Intercept staff. But they don't seem to care nor do they appear concerned with her irrational ravings on their website, which is probably prima facie evidence of how seriously they take some crank blabbering on daily about nonsensical shit she is imagining in her head.

But nevertheless, you and unnamed "dozens of others" are going to choose to take the rantings of some loon from halfway across the planet seriously?

Okey dokey, feel free, but you are wasting your time. And in my humble opinion lending her unearned legitimacy by even taking her rantings seriously, much less her "complaints" or "filings" knowing full well that can't amount to anything.

So go right on ahead wrestling that pig on the interwebs if it makes you feel better or you believe it is going to accomplish something meaningful in meat space, rather than just fuel her irrational fire against you.

↪ Reply

David O. ↪ barabbas
December 13 2016, 11:43 p.m.
I assume that US is actively hacking Russian systems—we're not very successful, and/or the Russians keep their mouths shut about it.

And the word is that yes, both DNC and RNC servers were absurdly easy to hack, and lacked basic security. Astounding.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 11:36 p.m.
rr, I don't care who she is or what her problems are. A commenter at a political site who reports non-anonymous other commenters to the FBI is doing something vile and wrong. Moreover, she didn't say she "called." She said she "filed" a complaint with the FBI as well as with other federal agencies.

This woman files tons and tons of agency and court complaints, mostly in India, but elsewhere as well. She also does shit like this:

(c) Do not engage in telephone conversations, since she records every phone conversation she has, selectively edits the conversations and places them on YouTube.

And suing her would do no one any good, because by many reports she is impoverished and even homeless. No damages award could serve as a deterrent.

Peruse that site. If I'm displeased at her serious behavior, I am very much not alone. You do not have to be concerned or care. But I have every right to as do many dozens of others.

↪ Reply

rrheard ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 11:16 p.m.
@ Mona

You know what they say about wrestling pigs?

More importantly, if you believe your political activism has drawn the attention of the FBI, and there is no reason to believe it hasn't given their history in America in that regard, and you know full well that the FBI isn't involved in civil defamation claims, why sweat Seema in any way at all with words like "outrageous" or "abominable"?

Seriously, you know who else has a history of using words like "abusive", "vicious", "nefarious" and "vile" . . . ?

More importantly, you know you didn't defame her, you know the none of the agencies she purportedly called don't handle civil defamation cases. Not the "SEC" (which is silly and just shows she's a loon), FBI or DOJ and assuming Seema actually did call the FBI or SEC or DOJ, who cares? You know calls to those agencies can't even theoretically amount to anything as a legal matter, even if she did call any of them, which I doubt.

Moreover, even if she did call any of them, I'm sure whoever took those calls either politely informed her of the type of jurisdiction those agencies possess or don't, and/or treated her like a crank before getting off the call.

So it isn't abominable or outrageous, it is stupid and silly (on her part) and on your part for taking her seriously.

Seriously Mona, let it go. Letting someone who doesn't appear to be operating on all cylinders, posting from India, get under your skin–is beneath you.

Mock or ignore her, but for heaven's sake don't take her seriously.

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 11:15 p.m.
"abusive trash like you"

This is exactly my point Seema. Each new post actually is an opportunity to NOT make these sort of inflammatory statements.

Both you and Mona carry grudges just a little too far.

If you want to be ignored, then don't post. Calling someone 'abusive trash' will get you a response. So, No, I won't simply let you have your way and just call me trash without responding.

Grow up.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ DocHollywood
December 13 2016, 11:04 p.m.
If there's something called "Doc Bollywood" posting here, I haven't noticed it.

↪ Reply

Nate ↪ Jose
December 13 2016, 11:00 p.m.
That's a contribution of common sense. My expectations are higher than that.

↪ Reply

-Mona-
December 13 2016, 10:54 p.m.
America's hacking panic

America is getting a little taste of the paranoia other nations know. And it isn't pleasant.

…

…we can't indulge hysteria for too long. If Russia has a hostile aim to weaken the U.S., creating the widespread belief that half the political class is actually the craven pawn of the Kremlin is almost as useful as actually subverting our democracy. America's institutions work, in part, because America's political class is able to assume the good faith and patriotism even of their partisan opponents. When deep disagreement over foreign policy priorities becomes the occasion for calling each other traitors, we are rapidly heading toward real political dysfunction.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:49 p.m.
That is unspeakably vile. Reporting political activists to the **FBI**. Whatever mental health issues you may have are sad, but at some point they cannot be the excuse for harming real people.

Reporting political activists to the FBI is a serious matter. You deserve shunning and denunciation.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 10:45 p.m.
Galactus, she reported me to the FBI. Or at least she says she did. (The FBI doesn't even have fucking jurisdiction over defamation claims, even if I had libeled her, which I did not do.)

That is abominable. I've been active in Occupy, and more recently in Black Lives Matter. The FBI is inclined already to have files on people like me. What she says she's done is outrageous.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:32 p.m.
Can someone inform this vicious lying abusive troll Mona that engaging with her or responding to her is beneath me and she should stop addressing me on this website.

I don't read her comments. And I will never respond to her.

She is full of hate and bitterness. And she has viciously targeted and defamed me in the past because I am a whistleblower against GE in India. Targeting a whistleblower is a criminal offence and I have complained about her to the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ. If she targets me again, I will complain again. I intend to name her in my Supreme Court petition against GE to establish how I am being targeted on the internet by GE sponsored trolls.

↪ Reply

Daniel
December 13 2016, 10:22 p.m.
Hey Glenn, do you care to tell your readers why you used an anonymous second leaker in the Snowden affair. Why should we believe what you say? Or does that inconvenient truth violate your comment policy? https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-identify-suspected–second-leaker–for-snowden-reporters-165741571.html?ref=gs

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:21 p.m.
"she should stop addressing me on this website"

Then you should stop posting all together or at least change your style by providing some evidence or better logic for your inflammatory statements.

This is an interactive site. Albeit, Mona is a rather zealous personality, she has every right to post here, just as you do.

You can't really believe that you just post stuff and expect someone not challenge it, do you? Really?

I would also like to say, that I believe you have every right to post your ideas or opinions, (even if I disagree with them) but then Mona or anyone else also has the right to challenge your opinions and positions.

Also, starting off a new post with terms like "vicious", "lying", "abusive" and "troll" aren't going to draw you any positive comments from her.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 10:17 p.m.
as i said spare me your comments. Ignore me.
I do not respond to abusive trash like you.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:16 p.m.
Well, that is rich. *I* am "lying" and "abusive," after you have repeatedly declared that YOU reported me — a political activist who is almost certainly already on "The List" — to the FBI. (Among other federal agencies.)

You have repeatedly written this:

She has defamed me on other threads and I complained about her to US authorities including the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ. If she does it again I will complain again.

That is utterly vile, and you ought to be deeply, deeply ashamed. Moreover, others here — especially those who, like me, are not anonymous — need to be warned about you. You are a self-styled FBI informant. That is unspeakably disgusting.

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:10 p.m.
"Spare me your wisdom"

Sure, just spare us the horsesh*t comments you spew that are just looney and stoopid.

I encourage you to offer some proof and better analysis along with some reasonable logic….not circular gibberish.

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ BigSky1970
December 13 2016, 10:08 p.m.
"Why is that? What is it they're hiding?"

I suspect that Assange/Murray are correct. The leaker is an "insider" That would mean someone either on the Clinton Campaign team or someone inside the DNC.

They (the CIA) would not want to disclose this for the following reason(s):

1. It could be an admission of spying on US citizens
2. It would mean they are conducting investigations on US citizens

Both, I believe, are against US law.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:00 p.m.
Can someone inform this vicious lying abusive troll Mona that engaging with her or responding to her is beneath me and she should stop addressing me on this website.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 9:56 p.m.
Mona the lying, abusive, vicious troll is at it again.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 9:55 p.m.
Spare me your wisdom. I can do without it, considering you make no valid points.
Feel feel to ignore me. In fact, I would encourage you to ignore me.

I don't respond to persons who attack commenters personally. That is what you are doing. Another Mona enabler I might add.

↪ Reply

Daniel
December 13 2016, 9:55 p.m.
Information Glenn Greenwald and his idol Vladimir Putin don't want you to see: The Mitrokhin Archive and propornot.com Mitrokhin was the Soviet version of Snowden. Except when Russians do it it's called being a traitor, not a whistle blower.

↪ Reply

Daniel ↪ JoeBOB UtahMan
December 13 2016, 9:53 p.m.
Hacking the democrats is a public service. Failing to release Republican emails is an even BIGGER public service. Thank you Russia!

↪ Reply

harrylaw
December 13 2016, 9:37 p.m.
Trump has as well as admitted doing the hacking himself "Trump said US cyber attacks could have been committed by a 400-pound person "sitting on a bed" http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/19/world/giggles-fly-till-union-squares-nude-emperor-donald-statue-yanked/#.WFAbin3xJqo

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 9:26 p.m.
I'll give you a hint. It's Greenwald's 3rd bolded bullet in this article.

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ J. Spicoli
December 13 2016, 9:22 p.m.
"The same kind of 'hoopla' that was raised after structure-fires reduced 3 buildings to rubble in a matter of mere seconds"

Exactly.

So, here's the $64,000 question for you:

Which USG agency would be most offended (ie…cause a 'riff') if this scenario were true?….ie,….inter-agency dispute or disagreement.

↪ Reply

JoeBOB UtahMan
December 13 2016, 9:02 p.m.
Still no proof. All the CIA has said this entire time is, "The Russian did it. The Russians hacked us, and it affected the way people voted." Really? So, you are saying that a corrupt organization was revealed to the public as being corrupt (DNC) and we are supposed to be mad at Russia? No. The CIA is scapegoating because their candidate did not win. End of story. Also, this shows how stupid the CIA and the Media thinks American citizens actually are. "You were all persuaded by the release of all those emails!" Or maybe us Americans were fed up with the lies disseminated by the CIA. If the Russians really did hack the DNC they did the American public a HUGE service. We should be focused on the authors of those emails, and the intent of the DNC to rig the election; an election the DNC LOST. Toddler Tantrum Triggered! HAhahahaha

↪ Reply

bahhummingbug ↪ craigsummers
December 13 2016, 8:54 p.m.
The Nerve >…"claiming I am a "human rights activist". I'm not. I post at the Intercept, Guardian and elsewhere because I am a political hack."

"Ready", "Fire", "Aim" . h/t Maisie

↪ Reply

L Garou
December 13 2016, 8:54 p.m.
Brought to us all live from The Yehuda Triangle..
(New York – London – Tel Aviv)

↪ Reply

craigsummers ↪ Chirpy
December 13 2016, 8:41 p.m.
I have no access to the threads so I can't prevent you from posting whatever you want. It won't change a thing for me. Russia (likely) hacked the DNC, and the US should probably drop some more economic sanctions on Russia in response.

↪ Reply

DocHollywood ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 8:30 p.m.
Thanks; I've been on vacation.
I haven't seen Doc Bollywood's work yet, but another editor for the hypocrite is always welcome.

↪ Reply

bahhummingbug ↪ J. Spicoli
December 13 2016, 8:09 p.m.
Good to see you back, 'donger … back, back in the U.S.S.R.

*i'll show you around the smokey mountains way down south, take you to my daddy's farm. You don't know how lucky you are boy … back, back in the U.S.S.R.

↪ Reply

craigsummers ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 7:48 p.m.
DocHollywood missed the point (albeit purposely). If I had a blog, there would be nothing at the top claiming I am a "human rights activist". I'm not. I post at the Intercept, Guardian and elsewhere because I am a political hack. Craig Murray isn't a human rights activist either – nor is anyone else that sweeps the war crimes and atrocities committed by the Assad regime under the carpet. The four year agony of people in East Aleppo isn't nearly over, and even if it was, Assad caused it in the first place. That is lost on DocHollywood who seems to believe that the US planned to start the war in Syria in 1998 at a PNAC conference. You simply lose all ability to reason when you are that driven by opposition to American policies. This happens to people like Doug Salzmann who believes that the 2014 elections in Syria were "valid".

Craig Murray is simply an anti-American, self flattering (i.e. a liar) political hack who has zero credibility when it comes to Russian hackers and human rights activism. DocHollywood misused my post to apply the same arbitrary criticisms and conspiracy theories about US foreign policy that he has been pressing for years.

Thanks.

↪ Reply

BigSky1970 ↪ Galactus-36215
December 13 2016, 7:14 p.m.
They issued an assessment but they haven't released it for public consumption. Why is that? What is it they're hiding?

The CIA has a penchant for lying this country in to wars and chaos. They are literally the tip of the spear of the war machine. I suspect that's what they're doing now.

↪ Reply

Bill Bucolo ↪ WindHarps
December 13 2016, 7:07 p.m.
Nailed it

↪ Reply

Ricardo Camilo López ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 7:06 p.m.
Our darling Mona sounds like USG when they say "they don't like dictators, love freedom" . . .

What they actually mean is that they don't like dictators who opose them and that they love freedom as long as it is aligned with their interests, they can benefits from it . . .

By the way in that post they are talking about one of your fave topics, namely: Seth Farber (sethhfarber.com/works.htm)'s view on:



RCL

↪ Reply

Dux D
December 13 2016, 6:49 p.m.
There is 1 huge problem with your analysis: by definition spy agencies cannot present the evidence they acquired because it would reveal their sources and tactics. So this can never be discussed openly in the public domain. If you claim that makes it impossible to say anything about these Russian hacks, you're basically agreeing to roll over and die to the Russians.

↪ Reply

Bill Bucolo ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 6:44 p.m.
rr- Now throw into your model the FACTS that in several key state elections (MI, PA & WI) the margins of victory determining electoral vote are so thin that a few questionable and illegal factors likely changed the outcome of the vote… documented malfunctioning voting machines which are not allowed to be examined (PA), laws prohibiting recount in precincts where any irregularities appear (MI) and a plethora of blocks to monitoring and recounting in WI… Wouldn't the Trumpsters be justified in raising hell and calling for monitored revotes with transparent tallying?
If that were the case we all know, based on what has been threatened by Trump and his supporters, that they'd be in the streets calling for civil war and insurrection.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 5:38 p.m.
She has defamed me on other threads and I complained about her to US authorities including the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ. If she does it again I will complain again.

Let's just let that sit there.

Seema, please, oh absolutely, show all the nice people what you filed with the SEC (!!) about a person quoting your own court documents in a comments section on an Internet site. Oh yes, let's see THAT, Seema.

Then, they should go to your website: http://seemasapra.blogspot.com/ With special reference to paragraph 8.

Would you care to explain your view of the courts, the police, and even your family regarding the plots you allege they are all carrying out against you? (I didn't think so. You do actually grasp what those….theories do to your credibility.)

Really, Seema, you claim to be filing complaints about me with the FBI. The FBI. How many other innocent citizens are you reporting to that dangerous and horrible agency, Seema?

What kind of "whistleblower" reports political activists to the *FBI*?!

If I thought you were anything other than a crank, it is *I* who would be complaining — about a vicious authoritarian asshole reporting citizens to the FBI. But you didn't really do that, or if you did, nothing you'd "report" is other than manifest crankery. Even the clowns at that agency would see that.

↪ Reply

Presumptuous Insect ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 3:54 p.m.
I think martial law is more than just a possibility here. The police are already militarized, and the oil barons and others would welcome the ability to crush dissent surrounding pipelines and the environment.

↪ Reply

ZackSelzman
December 13 2016, 3:28 p.m.
This is either an attempted coup by the Democrats in an attempt to strip away electoral College voters or the worlds biggest temper tantrum. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that shows why the Obama intelligence agency believes this other than motive. Intelligence agencies work with who and how and do not rely on why. Conjuring up a motive and drawing a conclusion based off of that is the exact opposite of what intelligence agencies do. So there are reports of who and why that say nothing about how. That is bogus politicized intelligence. Valid intelligence always focuses on how first.

↪ Reply

Presumptuous Insect ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 3:03 p.m.
rr, what you said was perfect. What will happen in future elections? The oligarchy will get to determine(even more than they already do) who wins, because the votes of the citizens will have become essentially meaningless. If the party elites somehow come up with someone who is not acceptable to the banks and the war profiteers, and that person wins, there are seventeen fucking intelligence agencies in the US who can come up with some bullshit reason to throw aside the vote for the sake of the oligarchs.

↪ Reply

J. Spicoli
December 13 2016, 2:29 p.m.
"Tell me, what kind of hoopla will Greenwald and the public raise if they do find out it's a leaker (US Citizen) and that it actually WAS the CIA who determined it? ie….a Domestic issue..". -Galactus

The same kind of 'hoopla' that was raised after structure-fires reduced 3 buildings to rubble in a matter of mere seconds..

The fuk`all kind of hoopla..

next

↪ Reply

Jeff D ↪ Scott
December 13 2016, 2:18 p.m.
By using the term "Russian expansionism" you show that you are either clueless or a lying propagandist. It is in fact NATO and the U.S. that are expanding toward Russia, and Russia is basically trying to defend itself. NATO and the U.S. broke their promise to to not expand almost as soon as they made them. I'm not saying that Russia and Putin are good guys, but it's not them that's expanding.

↪ Reply

milton wiltmellow ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 2:05 p.m.
And I've never tried to argue against your opinion that Trump is unfit. Hell I agree with it. But, hey, beautiful strawman, which seems to be your stock in trade since the election. Oh yeah and your opinion that Trump is "unfit".

If this is a true statement (I think it is) and not some sort of evasion designed to gallop to whatever you want to say, then I commend you for it.

Trump is unfit to be president.

Repeat it. Adopt it. Nurture it. Hold it to your heart like a pain that still hurts after decades.

Here in America, besides packaging and poisons, propaganda and sales pitches, we produce very little of real value. Here in America there are more lies than landfills to store them in, more lies than words to hide them. More lies than flies on a corpse.

So it seems to me important — of utmost importance — to tell a truth.

The barista at your expensive coffee place says to you, "Hi rr. How are you?" You can give the greasy answer everyone expects … a lie.

"I'm fine Marcy. How are you?"

Instead imagine yourself saying, "Donald Trump is unfit to be president. So I'm not fine because I don't know what to do about it."

Marcy may give you a funny look. She may yell, "GET THE HELL OUT." She may whisper, "I agree … but my boyfriend starts yelling at me if I say it." Probably she'll say, "grande or lenti, light or dark roast, room for cream?"

And yes, a tininess nested in a smallness, hidden by nonsense, covered by futility, like nested dolls at the center of which is absolutely nothing. The sun still rises in the east.

But I say you've changed the world — even in such a tiny way. You've said something true.

Wouldn't you feel better?

You don't have to waste your time arguing with presumable allies over actual strawmen arguments like "WP is the new McCarthyism" or "Clinton lost because …" or "Evidence, dammit, EVIDENCE! …" or anything except that which you hold to be true.

Some people think truth should be painted gold and slapped on buildings or uttered in front of cameras or written in a bestselling memoir.

I think not.

I think truth like a candle that wards off the darkness. Humble, yes. Insufficient, maybe. Forgetable, definitely. Still there's lots to complain about, but at least it's something — and that is far better than nothing.

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ DocHollywood
December 13 2016, 2:00 p.m.
Hey, better late than never. Nice post.

Seems you have a doppelganger mimicking you calling himself/herself Doc Bollywood.

Not quite the same flare as you, but fun nonetheless.

Cheers

↪ Reply

Galactus-36215 ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 1:41 p.m.
"Fake news is news that is fake."

Circular

"Unless the CIA or Whitehouse issue a statement, the Wapo story is fake news."

The CIA HAS ISSUED AN ASSESSMENT. This IS a statement.

"There is a coup in the US"

This statement is just deranged, nutty and completely baseless as well as no one is attempting any control of the government.

How you ever became a lawyer is completely stunning. Your inability to simply read stories and analyze facts is laughable.

You should simply read more and post less.

↪ Reply

DocHollywood
December 13 2016, 12:57 p.m.
No, it was actually the statement by Murray in the link from the galactus post which bothered me.

"……..As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on……."

He clearly gives the Assad regime a free ride when it comes to barrel bombs, chemical weapons, the death of 25000-50000 people in Assad detention facilities, targeting of hospitals and civilians – and even the start of the war by Assad who used a military style crackdown on a democracy movement associated with the Arab Spring.
– craigsummers

The reply lightly [edited] for accuracy:

"No, it was actually the [truth] which bothered me:

". . .As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on. . ."

[I would prefer to ignore reality and instead] give the A[merican and Saudi] regime[s] a free ride when it comes to [cluster] bombs, [supplying money, logistical support, and] weapons [to ISIS], the death[s] of 25000-50000 [hundreds of thousands of innocent] people in [wars of aggression], targeting of hospitals[, markets, schools, weddings, funerals] and civilians – and even the start of the war[s] by [the US which planned "to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran," according to General (retired) Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

When not bombing and invading their countries, the US has consistently thwarted] democracy [for] the Arab[s in the ME by giving 'free rides' to many brutal dictators from Egypt to Iran to Saudi Arabia; it even supported Saddam Hussein at the time he was carrying-out some of his worst atrocities, going so far as to supply him with the necessary components to make the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds.

I would really just like to be left to my hypocrisy]."

↪ Reply

Pvt. Not Sure
December 13 2016, 11:51 a.m.
Definition of propaganda, webster's college, 2nd ed.

* Information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause.

Propaganda, that's what this is..and no, I don't mean this fine article, I mean what our government and "media" is now peddling big-time.

Propaganda regarding "evidence" they have that Russia influenced the election..

Propaganda surrounding so-called fake news..

Propaganda that is leading to very real censorship.

The House and Senate just recently passed "anti propaganda" legislation, seeking to be given the authority to blacklist, even ban websites that they deem a threat. How presumptious of them!
The "House" vote, because that's exactly what it is, was around 390-10 for Censorship. .yay..

It seems that Government is on trial right now…a public trial, you might say, as many people are paying attention attentively.

Are they gonna fess up that evidence that they've been claiming they have,, on and off and then on again, for the past six months?

No "well, we've GOT the damning evidence, but we'd be endangering national security if we let you proles see it"..that shit doesn't fly any longer..

We want the evidence..and it has to be PUBLIC with FULL DISCLOSURE.

I mean, not only are these claims damning and inflammatory to Russia, which ultimately puts my ass in more jeopardy, and even more damning and inflammatory towards the President-elect Donald Trump..but the biggest travesty is how they are trying to subvert our basic human rights by imposing Censorship on us all, because of their very own propaganda that they peddle!(psst,; I'm talking to you too EU, didn't you just pass some Draconian censorship "legislation" as well?)…

Freedom of speech? They are legislating away our freedom of speech, and if you get right down to it, our freedom of "thought", right before our very eyes..

We're getting into uncharted territories here, as this very public trial continues..

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 11:14 a.m.
liar

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 11:11 a.m.

is when and where Mona the paid troll first started targeting me. And if you go through it you will see why.

I am a GE whistleblower in India. Why is Mona the paid troll so interested in denying this truth and in spreading disinformation about me.

She has defamed me on other threads and I complained about her to US authorities including the FBI, the SEC and the DOJ. If she does it again I will complain again.

The Intercept deleted her defamatory comments against me after I complained. She then threatened not to comment on this website. Now she is back, as vicious a lair as always.

↪ Reply

W Stodden
December 13 2016, 11:07 a.m.
In the words of the Great Obfuscater Donald Rumsfeld, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:57 a.m.
It is hard to fathom how you passed a bar exam, unless defamation law in India is very different from common law countries such as the U.S. Here, I have posted not a thing defamatory.

But it is right and proper that you and Mudbone should give each other aid and succor. You are very, very similar in your irrational styles, granting that s/he is generally more shrill.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 10:48 a.m.
And Mona yet again establishes that she is a vicious, vapid, mindless troll who targets and defames other commenters.
She will do it again, just wait and watch.

↪ Reply

Hillfarmer
December 13 2016, 10:36 a.m.
Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources | Reuters


↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 10:34 a.m.
Ok, yeah, I forgot — you are an irrational crank.

Newsflash: Joseph Stalin also was not shorted in the IQ department. To understand that monsters can reason is not to be a "sociopath." Altho at some point he likely crossed over into clinical paranoia (and was not wholly rational), when he distorted words and employed euphemism, he generally understood what he was doing.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:29 a.m.
because I am a GE whistleblower in India.

No you're not. The enormous pile of court papers at your web site demonstrate something quite different.

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 10:22 a.m.
Yeah Mudbone, I don't reply to Mona either. I stopped replying to her once it became clear that her only agenda was to target me because I am a GE whistleblower in India.

She is a vapid, paid troll who crap floods here with inanities so that the serious hard-hitting comments gets submerged. She is a liar who claims false proximity to the editors of this site including Glenn Greenwald. She falsely holds herself out as some un-official moderator of this site when she has no right to claim this. In fact her comments are often intended to bully and defame others.

She tries to control the narrative here and tell us what we should think. There are some others here who enable her or are her sock puppets. Its best to ignore them.

↪ Reply

Mudbone ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 10:19 a.m.
His a murderer !! Of Women and children !!
And you Mona need to look in a MIRROR !!

This is the most ludicrous ,, the most sociopathtic reply I have ever seen .

↪ Reply

barabbas ↪ David O.
December 13 2016, 10:13 a.m.
interesting that we dont hear anything about the US hacking Russian systems. Also could be that American systems, some of them, are utter crap and easy to hack. Gee, i wonder which ones that might be….

↪ Reply

Mudbone ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 10:13 a.m.
Yeah Seema ,

You got it because I promised Mona no more replies .
S-I-G-H ~~~

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 10:11 a.m.
I have no wish to engage with the likes of Mona. She is beneath even my contempt. She keeps obsessively targeting me here because I am a GE whistleblower in India. Her hypocrisy on whistleblowers is outstanding.

Meanwhile you can tell her what fake means and what news means and therefore what fake news means. Maybe she will stop hounding me.

↪ Reply

barabbas ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 10:08 a.m.
see what i mean?
the plan B has to be prescribed and in place prior to events that would take America into a darker place.
Call the convention. Re-declare independence. Upgrade the constitution. Implement it. And change the currency system. Until then, everything else is just a patch on a mummified system.

↪ Reply

Mudbone ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 10:02 a.m.
You two " Gals" must stop this nonsense . Your audience is entitled to more than a " Hissy Fit " ! We expect good reporting .
I suggest a Liverwurst Sandwich , on Rye , with mustard , and a pickle on the side .

Wadda ya'll think ,,,huh ?

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Mudbone
December 13 2016, 9:56 a.m.
Well, that's euphemism. To avoid the clear meaning of the proper term. Dick Cheney is many things, but intellectually impaired is not one of them. He can reason, and understands perfectly well why "enhanced interrogation" was the "necessary" phrase.

↪ Reply

Mudbone
December 13 2016, 9:53 a.m.
It's really a spot upon my soul to have visited this of-no-consequence circle jerk . But ,, Alas ,, I'm part of it ,, the Human Species !!
May the FORCE HELP US !!

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 9:52 a.m.
Well god knows, you haven't been able to tell me, or anyone else here. Because you can't. But then, your skillset is not suited to this sort of inquiry.

And, Glenn isn't going to be telling me, either. Because as he is one of the first to point out, the term has no definition.

↪ Reply

Mudbone ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 9:45 a.m.
"Enhanced Interrogation" , said Dick Cheney to George W. Bush

↪ Reply

Mudbone ↪ -Mona-
December 13 2016, 9:42 a.m.
Is there an " ONGOING INVESTIGATION " or might I reply ?
My reply is simple :
The peasants will revolt upon starvation and thirst .
The Status Quo will respond accordingly :
1—- Hire COPS
2—- Hire MORE COPS
3—- KIll the Mother Fu-kers
4—- Wadda ya mean ,, TREES ,, ? Forget about TREES ,,, KILLL !!!!
5—- But the 'INTELLIGENTSIA" says " It's all just WORDS "
6 — Here's the word " NUKE IT !!! "

Go JETS !!!

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 9:38 a.m.
Can someone tell Mona the troll what fake news means. She's waiting for Glenn Greenwald to tell her.

Nasty piece of work she is.

↪ Reply

-Mona-
December 13 2016, 9:34 a.m.
A number of commenters here "reason" à la Humpty Dumpty:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Seema, hillfarmer, quite a few others.

↪ Reply

-Mona- ↪ Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 9:14 a.m.
And yet, you offer no definition of "fake news." It has no ascertainable meaning distinct from other perfectly conventional terms, e.g., "propaganda." None. And you cannot and have not given one.

Assertions do not become fact via repetition, so this that you keep spewing remains meaningless and undemonstrated: "The Russian hacking story is fake news."

↪ Reply

-Mona-
December 13 2016, 9:08 a.m.
Lee Fang pointed out on Twitter that when US officials discovered Chinese state-sponsored hacking into the U.S., they named names & issued an indictment.

↪ Reply

Bill Bucolo
December 13 2016, 9:04 a.m.
Glenn, or somebody… I wish you'd explain how leaks should work in modern news media. Is it better not to say anything even though the info is highly relevant and individuals with the info are willing to share anonymously. But if the story is vital and evidence is presented, couldn't it compromise intel gathering ability and possibly put lives at risk?
What should news provider do?

And while thinking of evidence, where's the evidence that the WikiLeaks disclosures about the DNC and Clinton weren't partly ginned up before they were given to WikiLeaks?
L

↪ Reply

Communete ↪ thomas paine
December 13 2016, 8:56 a.m.
You'd have to get vocabularies first. Racist and sexist and 1% aren't enough.

↪ Reply

Gert ↪ rrheard
December 13 2016, 8:45 a.m.
Amen.

↪ Reply

Communete ↪ pretzelattack
December 13 2016, 8:32 a.m.
pretzelattack, your predecessors used the same playbook, chapter and verse, as they later used with the public on a progressive Obama that the public also came to dislike–as they did earlier in trying to redefine the founder of the National (as in NPR) Socialist Workers Party in new terms convenient for a progressive left with egg on their faces after Nuremberg.

↪ Reply

Hillfarmer
December 13 2016, 8:31 a.m.
Now, the left-wing media is passing out tin foil hats to everyone in sight and telling them to start hyperventilating about the "Russians defeated Hillary" narrative until a "consensus" is reached among them all. When a sufficient number of delusional leftists achieve a uniform hallucination that blames Hillary Clinton's defeat on someone other than Hillary Clinton, the shared hallucination is then deemed a "fact." The fact is this is just another Clinton OP gone belly up!

↪ Reply

Seema Sapra @SeemaSapraLaw
December 13 2016, 8:04 a.m.
All we have is a WaPo story telling us what some unknown people said to them. Why should we believe WaPo?

Unless the CIA or the White House issues an official statement, the WaPo story is fake news. It cannot even be called government propaganda. As the US Government has not issued a proper statement or any statement claiming Russian hacking.

The "news" of the alleged Russia hacking is properly described as fake news and there is a coup in the USA.

It is fake news because it is full of false, discredited, and discreditable statements and claims based upon alleged anonymous sources whose credibility is un-established as no one knows who they are or what their agenda is. The story is also fake news as it has an agenda to further a coup by certain CIA factions against the President Elect.

Mona the paid and obsessive troll who crap floods threads with vapid and disruptive comments to prevent any hard-hitting discussion here has this to say about fake news.
"First, as Greenwald and many other reasonable others have observed, there is no definition of "fake news."
and
"No one has offered a sensible explanation of what this new thing — "fake news" — supposedly is."

These statements expose Mona and her complete lack of intelligence like nothing else. She merely touts talking points fed to her as a troll.

As most of us know – Fake news is simply fake news. Its been around for ever. We don't need a new definition/ explanation of this alleged "new thing" fake news. There is nothing new about fake news. Fake news is news that is fake.

The Russian hacking story is fake news. Until the US Government makes this claim officially.

↪ Reply

Baldur Dasche
December 13 2016, 8:00 a.m.

↪ Reply

Baldur Dasche
December 13 2016, 7:57 a.m.
There is only one 'source' behind all the election hacking hulabaloo,it's Crowd Strike; America's premium cyber attack specialists. The rest of it is repeating the story to develop credibility.

They been in on all the biggies if not preventing very much they are johnnies on the spot for applying their patented software and finding out f there is anybody on your network who shouldn't be on your network. They claim not only to find the ratholes in software and design where the rodents crept in . the claim to be able to tell the network owners where the rodents crapped and, creeping back out, where they took their looted files.

These were the yobbos who tagged the Norks for splurging Sony prawduct all over the internet or free. They helped the Germans find out what was wrong with the Bundestag site – it had been hacked!. They pegged the Russians mooching around the servers of some of Americas top enterprises and they've identified the same family of 'bears' fouling the DNC server. In fact they've even traced them back to the identical same server in Russia – the same one they used for their 2015 campaign. Imagine that: a 'cutting-edge' highly technical and sophisticated spy agency that doesn't know spot one about internet anonymity! It's good that these 'spy agencies' make it so easy from the bozos at Crowd Strike. They are so busy chasing them down they just have to be worth every dollar they charge.

Too bad they can't prevent anything. Yet – maybe just a few more millions for the breakthrough?

↪ Reply

Maisie ↪ Communete
December 13 2016, 7:54 a.m.
Dude, I think we're done here. I showed you by his own words that Mussolini was no socialist after he initiated what he called fascism, and really that was the point I was making in response to your claim (that he was still a socialist). You don't have to be pissy about it.

But continue to talk to yourself if you want to. After all, you're the only one who speaks your language.

↪ Reply

Quintin Chisolm
December 13 2016, 7:50 a.m.
Then, there's this
....

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)