" 18: When political activities increased, the traffic to, and from, the servers in question increased. For example the traffic peaked during both national conventions.
" 19: On September 23, after the New York Times asked Alfa Bank about the server, and said it might expose the connection, the Trump organization shut down the domain. Alfa Bank, which hired Mandiant , a cyber security company, to investigate, denied that it had a relationship with the Trump organization. According to Alfa Bank, Mandiant's "working hypothesis" is that the alleged activity "was caused by email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software." This activity, it stated, "may indeed have been initiated by someone for the purpose of discrediting parties to this traffic."
" 20: However, four days after the Trump organization shut down the domain, a new host name was created which also communicated with Alfa Bank.
" 21: The first traffic to the server, after being given a new host name, came from Alfa Bank. According to Vixie, it is impossible that the traffic randomly found its way to the renamed server unless someone told the bank the address. "That party, said Vixie, "had to have some kind of outbound message through SMS, phone, or some noninternet channel they used to communicate [the new configuration]."
" 22: According to Vixie, the log was authentic. "The data has got the right kind of fuzz growing on it," he said. "It's the interpacket gap, the spacing between the conversations, the total volume. If you look at those time stamps, they are not simulated. This bears every indication that it was collected from a live link." Reports15 through 22, taken together, point to a "communicative" relationship between Trump and/or his associates and the Russian government focused on the election. This can explain Putin's personal interest in Trump. However, only metadata, not actual email messages, were captured, so the political nature of the correspondence can only be inferred from the functional relationship between increased traffic to and from the servers and election activities. But that there has been ongoing communication between the two servers seems highly probable. According to Richard Clayton , a cyber security expert at Cambridge University, any other explanation would be improbable. Add this fact too:
" 23: Richard Burt , a person who allegedly helped Trump write his first foreign policy speech is on Alfa's senior advisory board. Burt was also recruited by Paul Manafort (see Report 3 above) to join Trump's campaign.
This web of connections between the Russian government, Alfa Bank, and at least two people on the Trump team does suggest a political link between the Trump team and the Russian-government-connected bank. But there is more:
" 24: According to Mother Jones' David Corn , a well respected former intelligence officer was told by Russian informants that Trump has, for the past five years, been groomed to work for the Russians, and has been receiving intelligence briefings from the Kremlin. He also said that Trump is being blackmailed by the Russian government. "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."
Indeed, it is a fact that Mother Jones reported that Trump is being groomed (and blackmailed) by the Russians, but this does not mean that what was reported is true. Witnesses can lie and have political interests too. But the probabilities of testimonials are themselves assessed on the basis of the reliability of the informant. Is a skilled intelligence officer prone to use shoddy sources? Can an intelligence officer have political interests of his or her own? It is certainly possible.
According to the New York Times , the FBI has been investigating Trump's alleged connection to Russia, and has, so far, not found any "conclusive or direct link" between Trump and the Russian government. However, the Bureau appears to have considered the evidence piecemeal. For example, according to the Times, it entertained the possibility that there could be an "innocuous" explanation for the apparent connection with Alfa Bank "like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts" as was also the "working hypothesis" of Mandiant. True, this is possible; and the FBI understandably wants the proverbial smoking gun, that single deciding fact, like the content of the email messages themselves, as Exhibit A in creating a legal case. For instance, the National Security Agency (NSA) has powerful technology such as Xkeyscore , a worldwide "deep packet" analysis network that can search and analyze the content of any email message when given an email address. Nevertheless, in the search for a single deciding fact, or set of facts, we can, and often do, lose the forest for the trees; for the "smoking gun" may be the forest itself, and not this or that tree. Outside the legal context inhabited by the FBI, there may be enough facts available to the public through credible media reports for the astute, concerned citizen to put two and two together.
As such, it is important to keep in mind that there is strength in numbers. Like a house of cards, each fact can support the other. This is generally the way facts hang together when a belief is true. It is not one fact alone that builds the case. It is, instead, a consistent body of evidence that consistently points in the same direction. So where do the alleged facts as enshrined in reports 1 through 24 point? Do they point to a dangerous relationship between Trump and the Russian government, which has the capacity to undermine the free and democratic edifice of the United States?
Based on the aforementioned reports, a reasonable case can be made that the Russians may have stolen personally damaging Clinton email messages from the DNC (and nothing from the RNC) utilizing WikiLeaks to leak them; and perhaps they have also launched cyber attacks on more than 20 state voter databases in seeking to bias the election results away from Clinton, and, by default, toward Trump. But despite the fact that Trump has supported policies favorable to Russia, has praised Putin for his leadership, and has even invited the Russians to hack Clinton messages, it does not necessarily follow that there is quid quo pro between Trump and the Kremlin ("You help me to get elected and I will bring U.S. policy into alignment with Russian interests).
Allegedly, the Trump campaign has also been in contact (directly or indirectly) with WikiLeaks about the hacked emails before they were leaked. But are the sources (Roger Stone and his "mutual friend") credible; and does this necessarily mean that Trump knew about it? According to David Corn, based on a source he considers reliable, Trump was being groomed for five years by Putin and the Russians are now blackmailing him. However, while a person who was being blackmailed might behave like Trump--pushing the Russian policy agenda--is it reasonable to rely on a single source?
Clearly, when such questions are raised, there is room for doubt. Keep in mind that we are speaking about probability, not certainty. So how probable does a reasonable person require an explanation to be before being willing to accept it, and do the alleged facts contained in reports 1 through 24 provide enough evidence to warrant belief that Trump is a national security risk?
When the stakes are high, it is reasonable to take even a small probability seriously. If a medical intervention poses a 1 percent risk of a serious complication, such as death, then a reasonable person may indeed take the risk seriously. On the other hand, a 1 percent chance of mild bruising would not ordinarily be reasonably taken as seriously. If Trump truly is working cooperatively with the Kremlin then the stakes are extremely high--the potential loss of our democracy. If there were just a small chance (say between 1 and 10 percent) that Trump has been engaging in quid pro quo with the Russians, is banking on him worth the gamble? What if the risks were much more substantial, such as 80 percent?
Based on the evidence presented here (which is likely only a trifling of what may yet be uncovered), and given what could be at stake, is it probable enough to accept that Trump has been working with and for the Kremlin? If so, then is it probable enough to give pause that now President Elect Trump may still be doing so?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
