Alternative War: Unabridged

by J. J. Patrick

  “We must keep these questions above politics and partisanship. It’s too important to be tainted by anyone trying to score political points,” he added.

  Warner's opening speech pulled no punches either. “It’s not about who won or lost. And it sure as heck is not about Democrats versus Republicans,” he said, before explaining the true nature of a hybrid conflict. “We’re here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple, not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process — our presidential election.”

  “Russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber raids and a broad campaign of disinformation, all ultimately aimed at sowing chaos to us to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership and ultimately in ourselves,” Warner continued, adding “and that’s not just this senator’s opinion, it is the unanimous determination of the entire US intelligence community.” I knew he was right as, through my Byline investigation, I had extensively documented and reported on the open source and declassified materials which confirmed it. Turning to the work yet to do, Warner continued, saying: “So we must find out the full story, what the Russians did, and, candidly, as some other colleagues have mentioned, why they were so successful. And, more importantly, we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they can’t do it again.”

  On the topic of Trump, Warner was scathing. “Recall, we began this entire process with the president and his staff first denying that the Russians were ever involved, and then falsely claiming that no one from his team was never in touch with any Russians,” he said. “We know that’s just not the truth. Numerous Trump associates had undisclosed contacts with Russians before and after the election, including the president’s attorney general, his former national security adviser and his current senior adviser, Mr Kushner.”

  “That doesn’t even begin to count the host of additional campaign associates and advisers who’ve also been caught up in this massive web. We saw Mr Trump’s campaign manager, Mr Manafort, forced to step down over ties to Russian-backed entities. The national security adviser, General Flynn, had to resign over his lies about engagements with the Russians,” he continued, concluding by saying: “And we saw the candidate him — himself, express an odd and unexplained affection for the Russian dictator while calling for the hacking of his opponent. There’s a lot to investigate. Enough, in fact, that then Director Comey publicly acknowledged that he was leading an investigation into those links between Mr Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.”

  Within opening questions, Burr and Comey explicitly confirmed the involvement of Russia in the hybrid assault on the United States. The initial exchange was swift and direct.

  “Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?” Burr asked.

  “None,” Comey replied.

  “Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?” Burr asked.

  “No, no doubt,” Comey replied.

  “Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?” Burr asked.

  “No,” Comey replied.

  “Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?” Burr asked.

  “No doubt,” Comey replied.

  The Republican Senator then raised an issue of criminal behaviour beyond the confirmed espionage, saying to Comey: “Director, is it possible that, as part of this FBI investigation, the FBI could find evidence of criminality that is not tied to — to the 2016 elections — possible collusion or coordination with Russians?”

  “Sure,” was Comey's only response.

  Burr pressed him, asking: “So there could be something that just fits a criminal aspect to this that doesn’t have anything to do with the 2016 election cycle?”

  “Correct,” Comey replied. “In any complex investigation, when you start turning over rocks, sometimes you find things that are unrelated to the primary investigation, that are criminal in nature.”

  It was also clear in the subsequent exchange that Christopher Steele's infamous dossier on Trump contained a deal more than mere speculation. “At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?” Burr asked.

  “Mr Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation,” Comey responded.

  Burr then steered the questioning skilfully towards the recruitment of spies, saying to Comey: “The term we hear most often is “collusion.” When people are describing possible links between Americans and Russian government entities related to the interference in our election, would you say that it’s normal for foreign governments to reach out to members of an incoming administration?”

  “Yes,” Comey answered.

  “At what point does the normal contact cross the line into an attempt to recruit agents or influence or spies?” Burr asked.

  Comey responded, saying: “Difficult to say in the abstract. It depends upon the context, whether there’s an effort to keep it covert, what the nature of the requests made of the American by the foreign government are. It’s a — it’s a judgment call based on a whole lot of facts.”

  Burr was surprisingly direct in response. “At what point would that recruitment become a counterintelligence threat to our country?” he asked.

  “Again, difficult to answer in the abstract,” Comey replied. “But when — when a foreign power is using especially coercion or some sort of pressure to try and co-opt an American, especially a government official, to act on its behalf, that’s a serious concern to the FBI and at the heart of the FBI’s counterintelligence mission.”

  The Republican swiftly reintroduced the Steele dossier, saying: “So if you’ve got a — a — a 36-page document of — of specific claims that are out there, the FBI would have to, for counterintelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there. One, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. Would that be an accurate statement?”

  Responding to the issue of Kompromat material, Comey didn't hesitate. “Yes. If the FBI receives a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employ covertly an American on behalf of the foreign power, that’s the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened,” he told the Committee.

  Burr's questioning then delved into cyber-attacks and hacking efforts which had ultimately caused significant damage to the campaign of Democrat candidate Hilary Clinton. The exchange was brief but confirmed Russian hacking efforts had extended well beyond the DNC alone, mirroring the mass, Russian-led cyber activity in the EU which preceded the world cyber-attack that affected critical infrastructure. “Okay. When did you become aware of the cyber intrusion?” Burr asked.

  “The first cyber — it was all kinds of cyber intrusions going on all the time. The first Russia-connected cyber intrusion, I became aware of in the late summer of 2015,” Comey responded.

  “And in that timeframe,” Burr asked, “there were more than the DNC and the DCCC that were targets?”

  “Correct. There was a massive effort to target government and nongovernmental — near-governmental agencies like non-profits’,” Comey replied.

  “What would be the estimate of how many entities out there the Russians specifically targeted in that timeframe?” Burr asked.

  “It’s hundreds. I suppose it could be more than 1,000, but it’s at least hundreds,” Comey replied.

  “When did you become aware that data had been exfiltrated?” Burr asked.

  “I’m not sure, exactly. I think either late ’15 or early ’16,” Comey responded.

  Comey's testimony was not about whether he personally got along w
ith Trump, or whether the President was “nasty” to him. The former FBI Director stood in front of the committee and cameras to tell the whole world Russia had attacked the US, potentially infiltrated the White House at the highest levels, and, so far, had gotten away with it. For me, having been investigating this without a safety net for months, it was the icing on a very toxic cake.

  Because of the way I had arrived at the same conclusions, effectively the long way round starting with unrelated parties on the other side of the Atlantic, Comey’s testimony wasn’t just a confirmation of Trump’s Russian ties. It was a confirmation of everything, including Brexit. One couldn’t be Russia without the other, which was doubly interesting because the evidence also came on the same day as the snap general election, called by Theresa May. I contacted GCHQ on the 9th of June 2017, as the results were coming in, to ask whether Russia had been caught intervening in the election, and the spooks replied rather blandly with: “We have seen no successful cyber intervention in UK democratic processes. We have systems in place to protect against electoral fraud at all levels. The voting system in the UK uses paper ballots – both in polling stations and for postal voting, and votes cannot be cast electronically. This reduces the risk of interference.” I didn’t have the heart to tell them their measures were meaningless, nor that Russia didn’t need to hack the vote, so to speak, because everything else they’d done had already worked so well. But I suppose that’s what happens when the spies are only looking one way, which is pretty much the whole point of a hybrid war and the reason Russia found it so easy to win. The Westminster email hack followed almost immediately.

  As it happened, May lost her majority in the election and ended up forced into a coalition with the Northern Irish Ulster Unionists, the DUP. This brought Leave.EU front, centre, and straight back into my line of sight – allowing me to tie up some loose ends with them which, confusingly yet unsurprisingly, unleashed a whole new round of open-ended questions263. With rumours rife as to the DUP's six-figure donation during the EU Referendum campaign – over four hundred thousand pounds from shadowy Conservative linked to Saudi Arabian intelligence services, Richard Cook – and arguments over inducements from Arron Banks – which had the end of the same week as the doomed election extended to allegations Banks would use leverage' on May to push Nigel Farage into a Brexit negotiating position with the DUP's blessing – I decided to cut to the chase and ask Leave.EU's Andy Wigmore what exactly was going on. I ended up walking away with more evidence to submit to the ICO and the Electoral Commission.

  At first, Andy replied to me by saying: “You're an ex cooper you work it out dopey,” but, after we concluded I had, in fact, been a police officer and never made barrels, he was more helpful. “Nothing to do with us dear boy,” he told me on the DUP funding, adding: “Ask the Vote Leave lot.”

  I pressed him on who I should be speaking to specifically but he didn't respond so, I had a quick look around myself. It was only in March 2017 Cook was openly looking to spend his money on a unionist campaign in Scotland, with the Telegraph reporting “Cook, who chairs the pro-Union Constitutional Research Council (CRC), said “several” wealthy backers are prepared to hand over major sums to “a new and positive campaign” to keep the UK together.” During the Brexit referendum, Cook's money was used by the DUP to fund a rather excruciatingly expensive cover advert in the Metro, at a cost of over a quarter of a million pounds but it’s incredibly difficult to tell which campaign group this was specifically aligned to, if either. I also found that one of May’s newly appointed senior advisors, Steve Baker, had openly encouraged conservative groups supporting Leave to pool their resources and create an almost unlimited number of minor campaign groups. With each having a maximum budget of seven hundred thousand pounds, like Leave.EU, Baker identified the possibility of investing an unlimited budget in the push for Brexit. Baker was also discovered on a recording, telling a think-tank his objective was not just to leave the EU but to destroy it – the clear Russian narrative used by deniable and detached assets alike.

  Wigmore, however, eventually loosened up during our chat and told me: “All DUP did for Leave.eu was support us by speaking at rally's [sic] full stop.” Of course, having investigated the Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica side of things with both the ICO and the Electoral Commission, and knowing The Guardian's Carole Cadwalladr had established potentially illegal collusion between Leave.EU and Vote Leave, relating to the use of foreign-based data companies, I was quite well versed in the rules by this time. So, when it appeared the DUP efforts may have represented yet more joint campaigning, or another donation in kind, I knew it should have been declared. As such, I referred my findings straight on to the Electoral Commission.

  Still poking around I found that, according to The Times reporting on the 11th of June 2017264, “Theresa May has been warned that she should hand Nigel Farage a peerage and a government job on her Brexit negotiating team or face a relaunch of UKIP that will leach votes from the Tories at the next election.” Quoting from the Times article, Banks said if May turned away from any Brexit pledges he would deploy his mailing list against her, saying: “It will be ding, ding! seconds out, round two!”

  On this alleged issue of Banks using leverage and Farage's insertion into Brexit, Wigmore told me it had: “Not come from me so can't answer you – I'm as intrigued as you.” Of course, others had been asking if the leverage he spoke of might refer to a rumoured two million pound spend on a so-called “Tory/UKIP alliance” and, having seen the popup dark posts myself – including some attached to climate change denial content featuring Conservative politician Jacob Rees-Mogg, saying the only way to get foreigners out of the UK was to vote for the alliance – I put the question to Andy, but he did not reply. Again, such spending should have been declared by both parties.

  Previously, I had stuck my nose into Banks' and Wigmore's links to the small African country of Lesotho, following the trail of company listings from the Panama Papers. Wigmore had, by the election, confirmed to me they were, as a group, supporting the Basotho National Party in the Lesotho elections, though he also clarified the corporations listed in the Panama Papers were just “shell companies.” He added their Lesotho operations include diamond mines, call centre employing 1500 people, and huge charitable donations into Lesotho. Even now, I am struggling to find relevant company records but the Lesotho National Development Corporation had issued a tender265 which states: “Call centre outsourcing is a big business opportunity for developing countries with a huge qualified workforce and high unemployment rates. Many organisations prefer to outsource call centre services as this is a cost saving opportunity for them while being beneficial for the hosting country as well.” Of course, if a group dedicated to a brighter future for Britain outside of the EU, taking a fiercely 'patriotic' line, were also encouraging outsourcing to a foreign country, this might raise some eyebrows among their supporters. I asked Wigmore what the call centre does – if it was outsourced insurance, international or domestic services, what the company was called, that kind of thing – but he didn't reply, other than saying: “What do you think a call centre does.”

  I had also investigated Leave.EU's involvement in the gathering and sharing of big data and the findings of the original investigative work – which raised serious concerns over data laundering – were referred to ICO, helping to spark another inquiry. One of the companies I uncovered in the Leave.EU network was a relatively new outfit called “Big Data Dolphins” and no real records of its function existed. However, Wigmore told me during our conversation the company was working on “Artificial Intelligence,” adding it was: “Already fully functional based out of Bristol and Mississippi for insurance/financial services.” I asked him what the company focused on, if Governor Phil Bryant had been useful, and if they were using any of the databases they had established through other companies. Wigmore didn't reply. In my investigative work, and that statement sent to the FBI and others, I had uncovered those extensive links between F
arage, Leave.EU, and the Mississippi governor, which connected all of them back to Trump's White House and the Russia probe. After the initial Mississippi article was published, Farage had actually hosted Governor Bryant as a guest on his LBC radio show, during which they discussed President Trump's “strong affection” for the UK's departure from the EU and talked about free-trade deals. Big Data Dolphins put not just Farage but the whole of Leave.EU squarely in the Trump-Russia arena in a way the previous connections had not so, as a result of Wigmore's comments regarding the international data company, I referred yet more of my findings to the ICO as there was a clear connection with their ongoing inquiry.

  If Comey was the icing on my cake, this final chat with Leave.EU was a sprinkle of hundreds and thousands. Still, I found myself hunting around for a starting point in all this, the first step taken on the path which led to Capstone and onwards to Trump. Eventually, I discovered a book called “The Foundation of Geopolitics,” which caused me to set down my coffee and whistle through my teeth the first time I saw it. My investigations were done and the original articles published by this point, the CIA and FBI, along with NATO, confirmed what I had dug up, but this was something else.

  To call it by its full name, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia, is a book by Aleksandr Dugin which has had a large and prolonged influence within the Russian military, police, foreign ministries and among the elites – the oligarchs266. It was published in the 1990s and, according to what is almost an urban legend, it is used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of the Russian military – probably because it was co-authored by General Nikolai Klokotov, himself of the academy. Another military official, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, head of the International Department of the Russian Ministry of Defence, apparently advised on the project and Klokotov is quoted as saying the book would “serve as a mighty ideological foundation for preparing a new military command,” in the future. The principal author, Dugin, has also asserted the book has become an official textbook in Russian educational institutions.