Assange Expected to confirm Wikileaks source of DNC Emails was Seth Rich not Russians

Source: Exopolitics

The April 11 arrest of Julian Assange has resurrected the narrative that emails stored on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were not hacked by Russia, but leaked by a disenchanted employee, Seth Rich, who wanted to expose how Bernie Sanders was systematically undermined during the 2016 primaries by the DNC. According to this narrative, Rich communicated with Assange and handed over the DNC emails through Wikileaks’ secure online drop box.

Assange first stated in a June 12, 2016, interview that Wikileaks had more of the missing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server during her time as Secretary of State: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct.”

Two days later, the computer security company “Crowdstrike” published a report that the DNC email servers had been hacked by Russia. The mainstream media quickly embraced the Russia hacking narrative to explain why Clinton and DNC emails were in the hands of Wikileaks.

Here’s what the Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima had to say on June 14, 2016:

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

However, multiple sources pointed out major problems with Crowdstrike as a competent and impartial investigator into the alleged Russian hacking:

The Nakamura [Nakashima] piece marked the first salvo in the Russian hacking meme. But the claim was not backed up by independently verified forensic evidence—it rested solely on the conclusions of a computer security company—Crowdstrike. The pro-Ukrainian politics of Crowdstrike’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, and his strident opposition to Russia cast a pall of bias over the findings of Crowdstrike. No U.S. Federal Law Enforcement official or agency was given access to the DNC servers. Neither the FBI nor Homeland Security were permitted to examine the servers and the alleged evidence of a hack. 

In his 2019 best-selling book, Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service officer, detailed the multiple flaws in the Crowdstrike investigation and the puzzling decision to deny the FBI access to the allegedly hacked DNC email server.

Almost a month after Assange’s interview that Wikileaks had more Clinton emails and was vetting them for eventual release, Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, in very strange circumstances. Nearly two weeks later, on July 22, Wikileaks dumped 20,000 DNC emails on its website.

A July 25, 2016, story published in Vox by Timothy Lee covered the Wikileaks DNC dump and found that many showed the DNC favored the Clinton campaign over Bernie Sanders. In November 2017, Donna Brazile, the former chair of the DNC, confirmed that the DNC had systematically supported Clinton over Sanders. Brazile’s admission provides a solid foundation for understanding what motivated Rich to leak to DNC emails to Wikileaks in the first place.  

In an August 2016 Dutch television interview, Assange firmly hinted that Rich’s murder was related to his leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks:

Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often significant risks. There was a 27-year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back… murdered.. for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.

Host: That was just a robbery wasn’t it?

Assange: No. There’s no finding.

Host: What are you suggesting?

Assange: I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.

Wikileaks then offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of those responsible, fueling the rumors that Rich was Wikileaks source. 

Those who claimed that Rich was responsible for the release of the DNC emails were vilified and forced to backtrack on their claims. Here’s how Wikipedia summarized the situation:

Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact.com,[5][8] Snopes.com,[9] and FactCheck.org stated that these theories were false and unfounded.[4] The New York TimesLos Angeles Times, and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news. [10][11][12]

Influential figures such as Fox News and Sean Hannity were forced through litigation to abandon their investigations into Rich’s murder due to his parents leading the charge condemning “conspiracy theories”.

Rich’s parents condemned the conspiracy theorists and said that these individuals were exploiting their son’s death for political gain, and their spokesperson called the conspiracy theorists “disgusting sociopaths”.

A story published by two Fox News reporters, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, in May 2017 was subsequently pulled from the news site and Hannity also stopped covering the story.

Even Bongino’s book, Spygate, failed to mention the Rich connection and what this meant to the whole Russia hacking narrative, which he uncritically endorsed as valid.

After Fox News reporters and Hannity suspended their investigations into Rich leaking the DNC emails, only alternative news sources were willing to investigate the available evidence. Most prominent among them was National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, William Binney, who was among the first to conclude that Rich was responsible for the leaking and that Russia was being framed by the Deep State.

Binney, a former Technical Director at the NSA, together with Ray McGovern, a 27 year CIA analyst, wrote on September 20, 2017:

We stand by our main conclusion that the data from the intrusion of July 5, 2016, into the Democratic National Committee’s computers, an intrusion blamed on “Russian hacking,” was not a hack but rather a download/copy onto an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC.

After Q Anon publicly emerged in late October 2017, Seth Rich was soon mentioned in several posts alluding to his role as the true source for the Wikileaks DNC email leaks, and that he was murdered as a result by hitmen tied to the MS-13 criminal gang and the Clintons.

The alternative news investigation into Rich’s role in leaking the DNC emails subsequently languished but gained renewed life a year later on October 4, 2018, when the NSA responded to a Freedom of Information request that showed Rich had indeed been communicating with Assange. In their response to a FOIA request filed by attorney Ty Clevenger about information concerning Seth Rich and Julian Assange, the NSA wrote:

Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.

Since the FOIA request and the NSA response were not released, the NSA’s startling admission received no attention by the mainstream media, and only a few alternative media sources picked up the story. One of these was an April 19, 2019, article by Mark McCarty who cited a blog post published six months earlier (October 23, 2018) that first discussed the NSA FOIA response.

Read the rest of the article here

Did the USSR destroy a secret US Moon Base in 1977?

Source: Exopolitics

A Wikileaks document that referred to the destruction of a US moon base sometime in the 1970s has recently gained renewed attention. The document is dated January 24, 1979, and is titled “Report that UR Destroyed Secret US Base on Moon.” It was correspondence involving one or more officials from the U.S. State Department to Samuel L. Devine, a Republican member of the US Congress.  

The document has tags “Operations–General | UR – Soviet Union (USSR)” which reveals that “UR” stands for the USSR. The document was marked unclassified, which suggests that the content of the correspondence did not contain classified information, and involved open source material widely available at the time. The fact that officials were discussing such a topic raises the question, did the USSR destroy a secret US moon base sometime before January 1979?

Wikileaks included the document in its dump of State Department diplomatic cables that it began releasing online in November 2010 and ended on September 1, 2011. Julian Assange’s arrest on April 11, 2018, sparked renewed interest in him and Wikileaks document dumps over the years.

Arjun Walla published an article in Collective Evolution that discussed Assange’s arrest and examined the controversial Wikileaks’ Moon base document. Walla discussed it in relation to a host of Moon-related information that has been leaked over the years. This included a Congressional statement on building a permanent Moon base; CIA concern over Soviet plans to build a Moon base; Soviet concerns over the US plans to use the Moon as a military base of operations; and whistleblowers discussing photographic evidence of moon bases. I recommend reading Walla’s article for a succinct overview of this data.

However, to explore the question of whether or not the USSR destroyed a secret Moon base in the 1970’s we need to go back a few years to the remarkable audio letters of Dr. Peter Beter. Beter was the General Counsel of the Export-Import Bank (1961-67) and had high-level sources who confided to him what was happening behind the scenes in space from the 1960s to the early 1980s. In this modern era of whistleblowers, it’s worth emphasizing that Beter was the first genuine insider to come forward with details about secret space programs. 

He described how the US and USSR were fiercely competing both in a race to the Moon and in the development of particle beam weapons that could operate between the Moon and Earth. It was clear that whoever first developed a particle beam weapon that could operate from the Moon would possess an overwhelming strategic advantage.

According to Beter, while the US was forging ahead in the race to the Moon, the Soviets were ahead in developing particle beam weapons. In his Audio Letter 26, released on September 30, 1977, Beter wrote:

By 1972, these experiments still were a long way from a suitable weapon for deployment on the moon. But ominous developments in the Soviet Union led to the decision to cut off the Apollo program prematurely so that the construction of the secret moon base could be rushed ahead.

According to Beter, Diego Garcia was used as a spaceport for building the moon base:

Early in 1973, soon after the supposed end of the American moon program, we began hearing about a place called Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Supposedly we were merely building a communications installation there, yet the drastic step was taken of relocating all the 20,000 or so natives of this little island to other areas. More recently, we have heard about Diego Garcia as the site of a new American naval base; but, my friends, you still haven’t been told the whole story. Diego Garcia, my friends, is the new space-port from which secret missions to the moon have been launched during the building of the moon base.

Diego Garcia was the ideal location for a space launching pad according to Beter:

Unlike Cape Canaveral, where Saturn rocket launches are impossible to hide, Diego Garcia is remote and isolated, and even the natives are no longer there to watch what goes on. What’s more, Diego Garcia is practically the perfect moon-port, located as it is almost on the earth’s equator, and a space vehicle launched eastward into orbit from Diego Garcia passes over a nearly unbroken expanse of water for more than half the circumference of the earth. The only means of monitoring the early flight of a space craft launched from Diego Garcia, therefore, is from ships.

In his 1977 newsletter, Beter wrote about the information he had received from his sources about the US moon base:

I was first alerted to the existence of a secret base on the moon last November 1976–but it has been one of the best kept of all Rockefeller secrets, and it was only a few weeks ago that I was able to confirm its existence and learn the complete story; and since that time, events have…

Read the rest of the article here

Julian Assange: Political Prisoner

Source: Ron Paul Institute

Last week’s arrest of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange by the British government on a US extradition order is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on the US Constitution. It is an attack on the free press. It is an attack on free speech. It is an attack on our right to know what our government is doing with our money in our name. Julian Assange is every bit as much a political prisoner as was Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary or Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

They, and so many more, were imprisoned because they told the truth about their governments.

Repressive governments do not want their citizens to know that they are up to so they insist on controlling the media. We are taught, at the same time, that we have a free press whose job it is to uncover the corruption in our system so that we can demand our political leaders make some changes or face unemployment. That, we are told, is what makes us different from the totalitarian.

The arrest of Assange is a canary in a coal mine to warn us that something is very wrong with our system.

What’s wrong? The US mainstream media always seems to do the bidding of the US government. That is why they rushed to confirm Washington’s claim that the Assange indictment was not in any way about journalism. It was only about hacking government computers!

As the New York Times said in an editorial, sounding like a mouthpiece of the US government, Julian Assange committed “an indisputable crime.” But was it? As actual journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote last week, what Julian Assange did in 2010, for which he is facing extradition to the US, is no different from what New York Times and other journalists do every day! He attempted to help Chelsea Manning shield his identity as he blew the whistle on US government crimes to a publisher. The information in question included a video showing US military personnel participating in and cheering the murder of Iraqi civilians. Why is it criminal for us to know this?

The difference is that what Assange and Manning did embarrassed the US government, which was lying to us that it was “liberating” Iraq and Afghanistan when it was actually doing the opposite. Mainstream journalists publish “leaks” that help bolster the neocon or other vested narratives of the different factions of the US government. That’s why the US media wants to see Assange in prison, or worse: he upset their apple cart.

The lesson is clear: when you bolster the government’s narrative you are a “brave journalist.” When you expose corruption in government you are a criminal. Do we really want to live in a country where it is illegal to learn that our government is engaged in criminal acts? I thought we had an obligation as an engaged citizenry to hold our government accountable!

As long as Julian Assange is in prison, we are all in prison. When the government has the power to tell us what we we allowed to see, hear, and know, we no longer live in a free society. Julian Assange will be extradited to the US and he will have dozens of charges piled on. They want him to disappear so that the next Assange will think twice before informing us of our government’s crimes. Are we going to let them steal our freedom?