September 2021: One ping on the IP addresses of war

In an earlier article, after John Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussmann was filed, I noted that the millions of Pentagon-held IP addresses that were turned over in January 2021 to an obscure company in Florida had reverted to Pentagon stewardship the week before news of the indictment came out.

The Sussmann indictment’s filing date with the federal court for the District of Columbia was 16 September 2021.  The true-bill signature date for the grand jury foreman was also 16 September 2021.  DOJ prosecutors would have presented their information to the grand jury on or before that date.  (The 16th was a Thursday.)

On 10 September 2021, the Washington Post reported that the IP addresses had been turned back over to the Department of Defense on 7 September.  That was the Tuesday of the week before the Sussmann indictment.

The Post cited a brief notice from DOD on the matter, which was of interest given that there was no contemporaneous Pentagon announcement back on 20 January 2021, when the IP addresses were transferred to Global Resource Systems, the company (seemingly a sole proprietorship) headquartered in Plantation, Florida.  As a reminder,

Advertisement

Durham’s ‘Clues’: Pentagon contractors, CrowdStrike, Georgia, and the IP addresses

Paul Sperry had an article at Real Clear Investigations on 7 October in which he reported that John Durham’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of “Russiagate” is focusing on Pentagon contractors.  Like the “speaking indictment” of Michael Sussmann, this framing of where Durham’s headed functions to shift perceptions somewhat, shedding new light on old information.

Like so much of the “new light,” the investigative pathways prompted by what has recently come out cause us to look further back and see the fresh likelihood of connections between the familiar events of Spygate/Russiagate and earlier events.

This treatment will not be at all comprehensive.  It’s a collection of such potential links, assembled in the last few weeks and presented in complete sentences as a marker, rather than as a finished analysis or theory.  Basically, these are research notes.  I want to get them out there as a service.

Rather than attempting to weave them as a story, I’m trusting readers to know the basic outline and recognize why dates and events are significant.  There has been prior work on all of the points here:  nothing is entirely new, as I think dedicated followers of the problem set are aware.  Hyperlinks will take you to more extended discussions and analyses.

Here is the grab-bag of interesting points, in no particular order.

Pentagon EO trainers learn of “White Male Club”

Your tax dollars at work for you.  Had to investigate this one for myself, as it seemed too surreal to be, well, real.  But the documentation is preserved online.  Behold, the Soviet-style reeducation project of the United States military, complete with mantras, slogans, and invidious allegations with which to berate and ostracize the enemies of the people.

Fox News’s Todd Starnes broke the story on 31 October.  The training manual used by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), dated April 2012, contains an extensive chapter on “white male privilege,” which makes, among others, the following points:

Dead in the water: Obama’s military and the Iran nuclear threat

Two to three years ago, the United States Department of Defense had enough military forces on station in, or readily deployable to, the Persian Gulf region (the “CENTCOM AOR” – area of responsibility – or Southwest Asia, as it is called in the military) to execute a limited strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities without asking Congress for special funding.  The military could have performed such an operation “out of hide,” as quickly and seamlessly as the president wanted it to.

Four to five years ago, moreover, the U.S. had the regional political capital to use our bases in the local nations (e.g., Qatar and Bahrain) to launch and direct such a strike campaign.

Both of these conditions have now changed.

Benghazi: Panetta stonewalls House committee chairman McKeon

The news keeps getting worse.  The Washington Free Beacon reports today that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has “blocked” four senior military officers from answering questions on the Benghazi attack posed by Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).

McKeon asked the officers to provide answers to questions about security threats by the close of business Friday…

McKeon asked each of the four officers in separate letters whether prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi anyone under their command had notified the State Department or other agencies about growing dangers in Libya. …

He also wants to know if there were any requests to increase security in Libya for U.S. personnel. …