Tag Archives: Julian Assange

Trump makes 180° reversal on WikiLeaks, now called ‘a hostile agent’ in collusion with Russia

Donald Trump owes WikiLeaks no small amount for his winning the 2016 presidential election.

Were it not for WikiLeaks‘ publishing of Democrat emails — those of Hillary Clinton, Democratic National Committee (DNC), and John Podesta — the voter would not have known the corrupt pay-to-play Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s illegal private email server, the DNC’s corruption and betrayal of Hillary’s primary rival Bernie Sanders, and the satanic practices of Podesta and Pizzagate.

Throughout, Trump had been supportive and never critical of WikiLeaks. As an example, on January 4, 2017, Trump tweeted this:

In a speech on October 10, 2016, Trump declared, “I love WikiLeaks!” (New York Times)

Before he became the Trump administration’s CIA director, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) similarly was approving of the WikiLeaks emails. On July 24, 2016, Pompeo tweeted this:

Then was then, now is now.

Then, Trump needed WikiLeaks. Now that he’s President, WikiLeaks has become “a hostile agent”.

Matthew Rosenberg reports for The New York Times that in his first speech as director of the CIA yesterday, April 13, 2017, Mike Pompeo attacked WikiLeaks as a stateless hostile intelligence unit eager to do the bidding of Russia and other U.S. adversaries. Pompeo said, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

“It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” You would think we’re still in the Obama administration or a Hillary Clinton administration.

To support his assessment, Pompeo cited as evidence of WikiLeaks‘ hostile intent the latter’s release of Democratic Party emails — the exact same emails that Pompeo had promoted in July 2016, but now insists had been stolen by Russian hackers, although both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and hacker Guccifer 2.0 maintain the leaker was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, 27.

On early Sunday morning, July 10, 2016, Seth was shot dead in the streets of Washington, DC. His assassination remains unsolved.

Pompeo also cited how WikiLeaks encouraged followers to join the C.I.A. and steal secrets, and how “it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States while seeking support from antidemocratic countries.”

Pompeo’s harshest words were reserved for Assange, whom Pompeo calls a “narcissist,” “a fraud — a coward hiding behind a screen,” and a “false wizard”.

There goes our hope and expectation that a President Trump would commend Assange and provide him political asylum and a safe refuge in America.

The 180° reversal is because the Trump administration now finds itself on the receiving end of WikiLeaks disclosures. Last month, the group released thousands of pages of documents describing sophisticated software tools and techniques used by the C.I.A. to break into the American people’s smartphones, computers and even internet-connected televisions.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: Hillary Clinton pushing for VP Pence to take over the White House

Early this morning, WikiLeaks‘ founder Julian Assange sent two alarming tweets:

One, that Hillary Clinton is “quietly pushing” for VP Mike Pence to take over the Trump administration because, unlike President Trump, “Pence is predictable” and therefore “defeatable”.

Two, that two officials in the U.S. intelligence community (IC) who are close to Pence said “they are planning on a Pence takeover”.

Here are screenshot of the two tweets:

The tweets are alarming, to say the least.

A Pence takeover would mean one of four scenarios:

  1. President Trump voluntarily steps down.
  2. President Trump is impeached.
  3. President Trump is overthrown in a coup.
  4. President Trump is assassinated.

About 6 hours after Assange’s first tweet, in a tweet, CNN quotes VP Pence that Assange’s assertion about a “Pence takeover” of the White House is “absurd” and “frankly offensive”:

By this time, Assange probably realized that people may have interpreted his first tweet as implying a Trump assassination. So he sent out another tweet that Hillary Clinton and the two intelligence officials had meant impeachment:

Notwithstanding Assange’s reassurance, there have been so many death threats (see below) made against President Trump, the matter certainly is not out of the realm of possibility or probability. See:

I have seen rumors of assassination, but have refrained posting those rumors because of what they are — rumors. But of late, my “spider sense” is astir: there is something ominous in the air . . . .

It doesn’t help that tomorrow, March 15, is the infamous Ides of March when Julius Caesar was assassinated. The Left are calling on their demonic hordes to mail attack postcards to President Trump; our side has a counter Operation Postcard campaign, wherein we are sending President Trump postcards of thanks and support. Click here for President Trump’s address and a template for your postcard.

Tomorrow, March 15, is also when America’s debt ceiling, once again, is reached.

Debt ceiling refers to a legislative limit on the amount of national debt that can be issued by the US Treasury, thus limiting how much money the federal government may borrow. Tomorrow, when the debt ceiling is reached but Congress does not increase the debt limit, Treasury will need to resort to “extraordinary measures” to temporarily finance government expenditures and obligations until a resolution can be reached. If a legislative impasse continues, the Treasury will default — which has never happened. A protracted default could trigger a variety of economic problems including a financial crisis, and a decline in output that would put the country into an economic recession.

Please pray for President Trump.

Please pray for America.

And don’t forget to mail your postcard of support tomorrow!

H/t Will Shanley

~Eowyn

FAKE NEWS: ‘The Underground Report’ on Obama running pedophile ring from White House

the-underground-report

A post today by trollsmasher5388 on The Underground Report blog made a bombshell of a claim — that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Obama had run a pedophile ring out of the White House. The post begins with this paragraph:

Julian Assange unveiled another bombshell Sunday evening, alleging that wikileaks now has hard proof that former President, Barack Hussein Obama, operated and participated in a pedophile ring based in the white house.

But trollsmasher5388 does not say on what medium or on what date Assange “unveiled” that bombshell “Sunday evening”. Since an image of Sean Hannity and Julian Assange on Fox News is above the paragraph that begins “Julian Assange unveiled . . . ,” the reader is left with the impression that Assange had “unveiled” that bombshell  on the Hannity Show last night (“Sunday evening”), except trollsmasher5388 doesn’t actually say that.

Trollsmasher5388 then proceeds to assert that:

A leaked email released today read,

“A young boy the age of 5. He will make the perfect catamite for the president. He will arrive from Romania on Tuesday. I’m sure the president will be pleased.”

But trollsmasher5388 does not say where that email was “leaked,” nor does he identify his source, nor does he provide readers with a link to the email. In fact, in trollsmasher5388’s entire post, there is not even one source link, embedded or otherwise. All of which means the reader cannot verify any of the sensational claims made by trollsmasher5388, which is irresponsible journalism at best, and just plain “fake news” at worst.

The Underground Report‘s readers swallowed trollsmasher5388’s fake news hook, line and sinker. The post has 8K+ links on Facebook, and readers posted 105 comments and counting. Curiously, The Underground Report has chosen not to publish a comment I had written 6 hours ago this morning, politely asking what trollsmaser5388’s source(s) are and where the video of Assange’s interview with Hannity is.

I also failed to find trollsmasher5388’s claims on the following sites, which you can verify for yourself:

  • WikiLeaks’ Twitter feed @wikileaks: No mention of Julian Assange saying that Obama ran a pedophile network
  • Sean Hannity’s TV show, Hannity, on Fox News: The most recent interview Hannity conducted was not yesterday, Feb. 19, but Friday, Feb. 17, with Jay Sekulowe on Trump administration’s leaks.
  • Sean Hannity’s radio talk show, The Sean Hannity Show: Nothing on Julian Assange
  • Sean Hannity’s Twitter feed @seanhannity: Nothing, nada, zilch.
  • YouTube: The most recent video of a Julian Assange interview on Hannity is the one more than a month ago on January 3, 2017.

Conclusion: trollsmasher5388’s post on The Underground Post blog is rank fake news.

It’s fake stuff like this that provides ammunition to the MSM and the Left to discredit the Alternative Media.

Shame on The Underground Post!

And shame on the indiscriminate readers of The Underground Post who swallowed and further propagate its lies via Facebook links and email, which is how I found out about it, from an email. The sender of the email knows who she is.

The following Pizzagate-related posts on Fellowship of the Minds are sourced and verified:

UPDATE (Feb. 21, 2017):

Adding to the suspicious nature of this fake news is that according to Thought Crime Radio, the website The Underground Report was created only a day before, as evidenced by WHOIS records.

~Eowyn

23 intelligence-military veterans demand Obama release proof of Russian hacking or admit it’s a lie

23 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans have written an extraordinary letter calling on Obama to release the evidence that Russia had hacked the 2016 presidential election in order to elect Donald Trump, or admit that there is no proof.

You don’t and won’t see this letter on the MSM.

The 23 former officials are members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

In their letter, the former federal government officials:

  1. Point out that the Obama administration’s published intelligence report — on Russia’s alleged hacking of the election and transmittal of hacked Democrat emails to WikiLeaks to publish — lacks evidence and is unconvincing.
  2. Assert that, if Russia indeed had transmitted hacked emails to WikiLeaks, the NSA should — but does not — have the incriminating  electronic communications between the Kremlin and Wikileaks.
  3. Assert that the Democrat emails obtained by WikiLeaks were leaked, not hacked, which would explain why there are no electronic traces. By “leaked” is meant that someone(s) handed to WikiLeaks the actual physical hardcopies of the emails. (Note: That is what WikiLeaks has maintained all along. Julian Assange had implied that the source of the leak was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, 27, who was shot and killed in a D.C. street on July 10, 2016. His murder is still unsolved. We want Justice for Seth Rich!)
  4. Convey their dismay that James Clapper, who oversees the entire U.S. intelligence system as Director of National Intelligence, is still in office despite him having lied under oath to Congress and made outright erroneous claims.

Below is their letter. You can read it in PDF format here. I supplied the red color for certain sentences and paragraphs that I believe particularly merit your attention.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

MEMORANDUM FOR: President Barack Obama
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: A Key Issue That Still Needs to be Resolved

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office Friday, a pall hangs over his upcoming presidency amid an unprecedentedly concerted campaign to delegitimize it. Unconfirmed accusations continue to swirl alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized “Russian hacking” that helped put Mr. Trump in the White House.

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks. We urge you to authorize public release of any tangible evidence that takes us beyond the unsubstantiated, “we-assess” judgments by the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, we – as well as other skeptical Americans – will be left with the corrosive suspicion that the intense campaign of accusations is part of a wider attempt to discredit the Russians and those – like Mr. Trump – who wish to deal constructively with them.

Remember the Maine?

Alleged Russian interference has been labeled “an act of war” and Mr. Trump a “traitor.” But the “intelligence” served up to support those charges does not pass the smell test. Your press conference on Wednesday will give you a chance to respond more persuasively to NBC’s Peter Alexander’s challenge at the last one (on Dec. 16) “to show the proof [and], as they say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence. …” You told Alexander you were reluctant to “compromise sources and methods.” We can understand that concern better than most Americans. We would remind you, though, that at critical junctures in the past, your predecessors made judicious decisions to give higher priority to buttressing the credibility of U.S. intelligence-based policy than to protecting sources and methods. With the Kremlin widely accused by politicians and pundits of “an act of war,” this is the kind of textbook case in which you might seriously consider taking special pains to substantiate serious allegations with hard intelligence – if there is any.

During the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, President Kennedy ordered us to show highly classified photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and on ships en route, even though this blew sensitive detail regarding the imagery intelligence capabilities of the cameras on our U-2 aircraft.

President Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the Libyan terrorist bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin on April 5, 1986, that killed two and injured 79 other U.S. servicemen is another case in point. We had intercepted a Libyan message that morning: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.” (We should add here that NSA’s dragnet SIGINT capability 30 years later renders it virtually impossible to avoid “leaving a trace behind” once a message is put on the network.)

President Reagan ordered the U.S. Air Force to bomb Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s palace compound to smithereens, killing several civilians. Amid widespread international consternation and demands for proof that Libya was responsible for the Berlin attack, President Reagan ordered us to make public the encrypted Libyan message, thereby sacrificing a collection/decryption capability unknown to the Libyans – until then.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more
damage is done by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them.

Where’s the Beef?

We find the New York Times– and Washington Post-led media Blitz against Trump and Putin truly extraordinary, despite our long experience with intelligence/media related issues. On Jan. 6, the day after your top intelligence officials published what we found to be an embarrassingly shoddy report purporting to prove Russian hacking in support of Trump’s candidacy, the Times banner headline across all six columns on page 1 read: “PUTIN LED SCHEME TO AID TRUMP, REPORT SAYS.

The lead article began: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.” Eschewing all subtlety, the Times added that the revelations in “this damning report … undermined the legitimacy” of the President-elect, and “made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.”

On page A10, however, Times investigative reporter Scott Shane pointed out: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission.” Shane continued, “Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’ There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.

Shane added that the intelligence report “offers an obvious reason for leaving out the details, declaring that including ‘the precise bases for its assessments’ would ‘reveal sensitive sources and methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.’”

Shane added a quote from former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” Ms. Hennessey served as an attorney in NSA’s Office of General Counsel and is now a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law.

Everyone Hacks

There is a lot of ambiguity – whether calculated or not – about “Russian hacking.” “Everyone knows that everyone hacks,” says everyone: Russia hacks; China hacks; every nation that can hacks. So do individuals of various nationalities. This is not the question.

You said at your press conference on Dec. 16 “the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their [U.S. intelligence agencies’] assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.” “Which hack?” you were asked. “The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta,” you answered.

Earlier during the press conference you alluded to the fact that “the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” The key question is how the material from “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks, because it was WikiLeaks that published the DNC and Podesta emails.

Our VIPS colleague William Binney, who was Technical Director of NSA and created many of the collection systems still in use, assures us that NSA’s “cast-iron” coverage – particularly surrounding Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks – would almost certainly have yielded a record of any electronic transfer from Russia to WikiLeaks. Binney has used some of the highly classified slides released by Edward Snowden to demonstrate precisely how NSA accomplishes this using trace mechanisms embedded throughout the network. [See: “U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims,” Dec. 12, 2016.]

NSA Must Come Clean

We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA can produce such evidence, you may wish to order whatever declassification may be needed and then release the evidence. This would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that no evidence exists. If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.

In all candor, the checkered record of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for trustworthiness makes us much less confident that anyone should take it on faith that he is more “trustworthy than the Russians,” as you suggested on Dec. 16. You will probably recall that Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, about NSA dragnet activities; later apologizing for testimony he admitted had been “clearly erroneous.” In our Memorandum for you on Dec. 11, 2013, we cited chapter and verse as to why Clapper should have been fired for saying things he knew to be “clearly erroneous.”

In that Memorandum, we endorsed the demand by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Clapper be removed. “Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” said Sensenbrenner in an interview with The Hill. “The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced.” Actually, we have had trouble understanding why, almost four years after he deliberately misled the Senate, Clapper remains Director of National Intelligence – overseeing the entire intelligence community.

Hacks or Leaks?

Not mentioned until now is our conclusion that leaks are the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures in question – not hacking. Leaks normally leave no electronic trace. William Binney has been emphasizing this for several months and suggesting strongly that the disclosures were from a leaker with physical access to the information – not a hacker with only remote access. This, of course, makes it even harder to pin the blame on President Putin, or anyone else. And we suspect that this explains why NSA demurred when asked to join the CIA and FBI in expressing “high confidence” in this key judgment of the report put out under Clapper’s auspices on Jan. 6, yielding this curious formulation:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.” (Emphasis [bold], and lack of emphasis, in original)

In addition, former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray has said publicly he has first-
hand information on the provenance of the leaks, and has expressed surprise that no one from the New York Times or the Washington Post has tried to get in touch with him. We would be interested in knowing whether anyone from your administration, including the intelligence community, has made any effort to contact Ambassador Murray.

What to Do

President-elect Trump said a few days ago that his team will have a “full report on hacking within 90 days.” Whatever the findings of the Trump team turn out to be, they will no doubt be greeted with due skepticism, since Mr. Trump is in no way a disinterested party.

You, on the other hand, enjoy far more credibility – AND power – for the next few days. And we assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny. We suggest you order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and ask them to lay all their cards on the table. They need to show you why you should continue to place credence in what, a month ago, you described as “uniform intelligence assessments” about Russian hacking.

At that point, if the intelligence heads have credible evidence, you have the option of ordering it released – even at the risk of damage to sources and methods. For what it may be worth, we will not be shocked if it turns out that they can do no better than the evidence-deprived assessments they have served up in recent weeks. In that case, we would urge you, in all fairness, to let the American people in on the dearth of convincing evidence before you leave office. As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Obama’s Legacy

Mr. President, there is much talk in your final days in office about your legacy. Will part of that legacy be that you stood by while flames of illegitimacy rose willy-nilly around your successor? Or will you use your power to reveal the information – or the fact that there are merely unsupported allegations – that would enable us to deal with them responsibly?

In the immediate wake of the holiday on which we mark the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to make reference to his legacy, calling to mind the graphic words in his “Letter From the Birmingham City Jail,” with which he reminds us of our common duty to expose lies and injustice:

“Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

-End of Memo-

The above memorandum to Barack Obama is signed by the following 23 former U.S. officials who represent the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

  1. William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military  Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  2. Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
  3. Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA
  4. Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  5. Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
  6. Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
  7. Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
  8. Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, ret.
  9. Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
  10. Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS)
  11. John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  12. Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
  13. Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
  14. David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
  15. Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
  16. Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
  17. Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
  18. Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
  19. Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
  20. Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  21. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
  22. Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
  23. Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

See also “Trump’s war with the CIA”.

~Eowyn

Former UK ambassador: Democrat whistleblowers leaked emails, not Russia

The “Russia intervened in 2016 election to favor Trump” conspiracy theory is the Democrats’ last-ditch effort to subvert the election by convincing the Electoral College to vote for Hillary next Monday. There’s even talk of redoing the presidential election itself.

Thus far, all we’ve heard and read is hearsay — by the Washington Post, by Obama, by this or that senator or congressman — that there is a secret CIA report on Russia’s nefarious role in the election in:

  1. Hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton, and her close associate, the very creepy John Podesta.
  2. Giving the hacked emails to unnamed “agents” who then supplied the emails to WikiLeaks to publish.

What the American people have not seen is the actual CIA report.

Stranger still is the fact that although several congressional committees are looking into the suspected Russian interference, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, refused a request to brief the House intelligence committee last Thursday (Dec. 15) on the cyber-attacks.

The legal dictionary defineshearsay” as “A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The dictionary further explains that:

the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.”

And yet we are to accept that on the basis of hearsay about some secret CIA report, which no court would consider as evidence, the Electoral College should overturn the results of the 2016 election by voting for Hillary Clinton as president, despite Donald Trump having attained a majority of Electoral votes of 306 vs. Hillary’s 232.

But we do have a first-person testimony that is not hearsay — from former British ambassador Craig Murray, who claims he had received Hillary Clinton campaign emails, not from Russia, but from “disgusted” Democrat whistleblowers.

craig-murray

Alana Goodman reports for the Daily Mail that in an interview with Dailymail.com on Dec. 13, 2016, Craig Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, said he had flown to Washington, D.C. in September 2016 for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources. Murray retrieved the package during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. The individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Murray said:

“Neither of [the email leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from [Democrat Party] inside leaks, not hacks.”

Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.” Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. He said that Podesta’s emails might be “of legitimate interest to the security services” in the U.S. due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from CIA officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Trump win the U.S. presidential election:

“I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true. Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.”

Murray’s account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks:

seth-rich

  • In August 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange intimated that DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails. At about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, 27 year-old Rich was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. His murder remains unsolved to this day.
  • More recently in November in an interview with John Pilger, Assange said, “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.”

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office. Murray was cleared of charges of misconduct, but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believes Russia had hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

See also:

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dead? – the connection with Pamela Anderson

WikiLeaks and its co-founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange are the unsung heroes of the 2016 Revolt of the Deplorables — the overthrow of Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency.

If it were not for WikiLeaks‘ publishing of the hacked emails of Hillary, the DNC, and her campaign chair John Podesta, we would never know about their machinations, deceit, corruption, media collusion, lawlessness, and satanism. See, for example:

On the evening of Oct. 16, 2016, the Alternative Media was alit with rumors that Julian Assange had died.

What triggered the rumor was WikiLeaks‘ activation of its “dead man switch” — decryption keys (like passwords) for its files. WikiLeaks quickly put the rumors to rest with a tweet that they had activated the “dead man switch” contingency plan after Assange’s Internet service was intentionally cut off by a state actor. The internet is one of the few, if not the only, available ways for Assange to maintain contact with the outside world because he has been locked up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than four years, after he sought political asylum in 2012.

Two days later in a tweet, WikiLeaks identified the Obama administration — specifically Secretary of State John Kerry — as the “state actor” behind the severing of Assange’s Internet connection. (For more, see “The Evil Empire strikes back: WikiLeaks’ Internet connection severed; RT’s bank accounts frozen”)

Although since then Assange’s voice was heard in a telephone call, freelance journalist Jim Stone maintains Assange has been assassinated. The notion of assassination is not far-fetched given Democratic Party operative Bob Beckel’s call to assassinate Assange as far back as 5 years ago in December 2011, as well as then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton once asking, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”.

Stone writes:

“Wikileaks confirmed gone, I believe this is 100 percent real

15 of the top people at Wikileaks were nailed at the same time Julian Assange had his ‘internet cut’. I watched the live cam all night and they took Assange away in a black armored van. If he was still at the embassy, he’d have appeared at the window and has not. Now it appears one of the top wikileaks staff has spoken out, and I believe this is 100 percent accurate because it matches my own observations PERFECTLY

Stone refers his readers to a curious exchange on November 17 on the internet forum 8chan, in which someone with the alias wikileaks!/VUsDxRzwY who claims to be a WikiLeaks employee wrote:

“I’m one of the 15 WikiLeaks personnel that were raided at the same time Julian’s intemet was cut at the Ecuadorian embassy. I was issued a national security letter and a gag order, and all my computer equipment was seized. We had several contingency communication plans in place, and I have been unable to contact Julian or any WikiLeaks personnel except for one through our alternative communication channels. Julian is missing as are most of the WikiLeaks personnel that I had regular communications with. WikiLeaks personnel are NOT in control of the official Tvvitter account. The WikiLeaks IAMA on Reddit was NOT conducted by WikiLeaks personnel….

There has been an incredible charade to keep up the appearance that Julian is fine. Several trusted people are obviously under duress as I cannot imagine any reason why they would promote the charade.

I want to stress that we are no longer in control of WikiLeaks. I advise whistleblowers to NOT SUBMIT LEAKS since we are not in control of our infrastructure. The people in control of our infrastructure WILL use it to IDENTIFY and PROSECUTE whistleblowers.”

That 8chan page has since been deleted, but not before someone captured a screenshot (click to enlarge):

wikileaks-staffer-on-8chan

The next day, Nov. 18, WikiLeaks tweeted that the WikiLeaks staffer on 8chan is a fraud:

“Black-PR campaign posts going around recently trying to suppress submissions to WikiLeaks. False, but who benefits?”

To which twitterer Johan asks:

“Why haven’t we seen the video proof of life that you promised for Assange? Is WikiLeaks compromised?”

Another twitterer named Yor writes:

“Their [WikiLeaks’] Twitter, reddits, failed AMA [ask me anything]. The concern is real and we get radio silence.”

The Dark Canuck writes on Godlike Productions, Nov. 18:

“It is too bizarre. The other day a cat appeared at the window of the embassy wearing a collar and tie. To me this is pure mockery.

We haven’t seen Julian so much as peak his head around the curtain in over a month. The first face we see at the window is this cheshire cat.”

Another poster Emmc2 writes on Godlike Productions:

“It’s all too weird:
1) Wikileaks tweets photo of armed police outside the embassy.
2) Internet gets cut
3) Massive DDoS attack [referring to the DDoS cyber attack on the U.S. east coast and across Europe on Oct. 21, 2016]
4) Strange, out of character, misspelled tweets from Wikileaks.
5) Missing letters in tweets spell out “help him”.
6) No proof of life for Assange
7) Wikileaks tweets an odd questionnaire asking what we would like as proof of life.
8) Pamela Anderson visits Assange (wtf)
9) Podesta email leaks continue.
10) Assange ‘appears’ by phone for some conference. Not a valid proof of life.
11) Pamela Anderson visits Assange a second time!

Wikileaks suffered a massive DDoS attack and there has been NO credible proof of life ever since…. The US Govt had a history of using celebrities for espionage. Pamela Anderson is a decoy. They knew that she would generate news stories and photos with her visits and therefore perpetuate The LIE that Assange is still in the embassy and well. Why didn’t Pamela tweet any selfies with Assange?? That’s certainly within reason to expect. Why would a liberal go out of her way to visit the man who was actively working on taking down the most prominent liberal candidate in history [Hillary Clinton]? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Then the anonymous Wikileaks employee posts those messages. Everything that person said makes perfect sense. Especially with what we’ve uncovered regarding ‘Pizza Gate’ [a reference to Comet Ping Pong, a pedophile pizza restaurant in D.C. linked to John Podesta’s brother, Tony]. This is huge. A real life Bourne Identity/Homeland unfolded in real time before our very eyes. And it’s still going on. Be smart. Be careful. Don’t stop. Let the light in.”

All of which brings us to Pamela Anderson, 49, the aging actress whose air-brushed naked image adorned the cover and centerfold of pornographic Playboy magazine 15 times, and who recently co-authored an op/ed with a “celebrity” rabbi decrying pornography and porn addiction. Notwithstanding her op/ed, Anderson continues to be photographed scantily clad, with her silicone-inflated breasts bulging over her low-cut tops.

Indeed, Anderson did visit Assange on the same day that his Internet connection was severed. As reported by Time:

pamela-anderson-visits-julian-assange-oct-17-2016As WikiLeaks continues to publish emails apparently obtained from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the website’s founder Julian Assange received an unlikely visitor over the weekend.

Pamela Anderson, the Canadian-American actress best known for her work on the 1990s TV series Baywatch, visited Assange at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The Associated Press reports that the 49-year-old actress, who says she supports Assange and has concerns for his family and well-being, came bearing gifts. Among them was a vegan lunch.

Think Pamela Anderson as honeypot is farfetched?

Remember my post “Evidence that Hillary Clinton and her associates are satanists” — on the association of Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and the Podesta brothers with a satanic “performance artist” named Marina Abramovic?

marina-abramovic-holding-baphomet-head

Abramovic is known for her “spirit cookinga “sacrament” in Thelema, a religion founded by British occultist-satanist Aleister Crowley whose motto was “Do As Thou Wilt,” in which menstrual blood, breast milk, urine and sperm are mixed to create a “painting.” Mike Cernovich identifies spirit cooking as an “occult practice used during sex cult rituals, as explained in the book Spirit cooking with essential aphrodisiac recipes.”

Abramovic is also known for a so-called performance art event of the simulated dismemberment and cannibalism of two human females, at the Annual Gala of the Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA) on Nov. 12, 2011. The females were lifesize cakes — a blonde and a brunette who were the representations of, respectively, Debbie Harry (of the rock band Blondie), and Abramovic herself.

Here are some images from the simulated cannibalism art event:

cannibalism-art-gala-abramovic-harrycanniablism-art-gala-bloody-carcass
Among the “celebrity” attendees at the simulated cannibalism was none other than Pamela Anderson, as seen in a photo gallery of the MoCA occult gala on Imgur:

cannibalism-art-gala-pamela-anderson

Other “celebrities” in attendance included Hollyweirdos Minnie Driver, Kirsten Dunst, Lisa Edelstein, Will Ferrell, Jamie King, Johnny Lee Miller, Nicole Richie, and Angelina Jolie’s brother James Haven, as well as others whom I don’t recognize.

Admittedly, all of this is bizarre. On the other hand, this election has been stranger than fiction.

In the end, there’s a very simple way for WikiLeaks to prove that Assange is alive:

Have him appear at a window of the Ecuador Embassy and wave to us.

H/t MoxXV at Reddit

See also “5 Signs Julian Assange Is Missing Or Dead” and this video, especially the weird thing that happened to Assange’s shirt collar at the 3:19 mark:

UPDATE (Jan. 11, 2017):

Yesterday, Jan. 10, 2017, Assange demonstrated he’s alive!

julian-assagne-proves-hes-aliveUPDATE (Feb. 7, 2016):

Is Pamela Anderson banging Assange?

The blonde bimbo has visited Assange four times in the past three months at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. One political activist observes, “She seems to be wearing sexier outfits every time she visits.” (Page Six)

~Eowyn

Who really hacked the WikiLeaks emails? – Russia, Romania or the CIA?

Calling it “a direct assault on our democracy,” Hillary and the Obama administration are pointing their finger at the Russian government as the hacker of the never-ending stream of embarrassing and damaging Democrat emails published by WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks groups those emails into three data bases:

  1. DNC (Democratic National Committee) emails
  2. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails
  3. John Podesta emails (Podesta is the longtime Democrat apparatchik who is currently the chairman of Hillary’s presidential campaign).

Based on that accusation, Obama recently instructed the CIA to prep for a cyber attack on Russia. On NBC’s Meet the Press on Oct. 16, Vice President Joe Biden spoke ominously that U.S. retaliation “will be proportional in what we do” “at a time of our choosing and in circumstances that have the greatest impact.”

Hillary was equally bombastic. On August 31, 2016, she vowed that when she is President, she will treat Russia’s alleged “cyber attacks just like any other attack . . . with serious political, economic, and military responses.”

In effect, Hillary threatens to unleash what can become World War III in retaliation for Russia’s alleged hacking of emails.

But we are not told or shown the actual evidence that points to Russia as the hacker. So why should we believe it?

What we do have are evidence and testimonies that a Romanian hacker and perhaps the CIA are the hackers.

(1) FBI: No hack of Hillary’s email server

To begin, the whole question of who the hacker(s) is, is itself in question because none other than the FBI had said there’s no evidence that then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server had even been hacked in the first place. In his press release of July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey said:

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.

(2) FBI: Hillary’s email hacked by Romania

That’s what FBI director James Comey publicly said. Privately, however, in FBI’s transcription of witness interviews, the FBI said a different story.

The latest Hillary Clinton document release by the FBI includes a 100-page document identified as FD-302a — summaries from FBI interviews conducted with employees of and various parties associated with Platt River Networks (PRN), the Denver-based IT (information technology) firm that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hired to manage her email system.

Until 2013, Hillary’s private, unsecured email server was located in her home in Chappaqua, New York. In early 2013, PRN won the bid for a contract to be the email server of not only Hillary Clinton, but also email domains associated with Bill Clinton and Clinton aides, e.g., Sidney Blumenthal, a close confidante of Hillary who was Bill Clinton’s White House aide and a major proponent of the “Arab Spring” rebellion in Libya that ousted Muammar Qaddafi and plunged Libya into a blood-soaked civil war. PRN’s account with the Clintons was under the name CESC.

According to an FBI interview conducted on June 6, 2016 with an unnamed employee working for a US defense contractor in “missile, space and intelligence,” while trying to determine if Hillary’s private server had been breached from the outside by “a foreign power,” the defense contractor employee found files from the server of Sidney Blumenthal residing on a server in Romania. The Romanian server contained approximately 200 Microsoft Word, Excel, and other file types belonging to Blumenthal. “Upon viewing this file”, the unnamed witness “became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project.”

(3) Guccifer

Guccifer Lehel

In an NBC interview in May 2016, Romanian hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel, aka Guccifer, claimed that in addition to hacking Sidney Blumenthal, he had also gained access to Hillary’s “completely unsecured” server. Referring to Hillary’s emails, Guccifer said, “It was like an open orchid on the Internet. There were hundreds of folders.”

It was in 2013 that Guccifer breached Blumenthal’s inbox and exposed Hillary’s private email address, which forced her to change her username.

In subsequent questioning by the FBI, however, Guccifer recanted and said he had lied about hacking Hillary’s server. But according to independent investigative reporter Wayne Madsen, Lehel/Guccifer was arrested by Romanian authorities for publicizing Hillary’s private emails that he had hacked during the time frame surrounding the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Romania then very obligingly extradicted Lehel to the U.S., where he was prosecuted in the court of the U.S. Eastern District of Virginia, described by Madsen as “the U.S. military-intelligence community’s ‘rocket docket’ for quick prosecutions without the worry of classified information being disclosed during a trial.”

Last week, Guccifer was quietly sent back to Romania where he will remain for the duration of his 52 month sentence.

(4) Guccifer 2.0

“Guccifer 2.0” is a person or persons claiming to have hacked into the DNC computer network and then leaked its documents to WikiLeaks. In August 2016, Guccifer 2.0 posted an excel spreadsheet on his blog which includes the personal cell phone number, physical and email address, as well as full personal information of some 200 Congressional Democrats. (See “Nancy Pelosi had to change phone number after receiving scores of obscene and sick calls“)

According to Wikipedia, some of the documents released by Guccifer 2.0 “appear to be forgeries cobbled together from public information and previous hacks, which they then salted with disinformation.” The Obama administration’s intelligence community and cybersecurity experts and firms say that some of the genuine leaks claimed by Guccifer 2.0 are part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC by two Russian intelligence groups. But the Russian government claims it had no involvement in the theft.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also said there’s no proof that Russia was behind the attack. In an interview on Dutch television on August 9, 2016, Assange implied that the source of the leaked DNC emails was a 27-year-old DNC staffer named Seth Conrad Rich who, at about 4:19 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016, was shot and killed in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW in Washington, DC. The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department posted its customary reward of $25,000 for information about Rich’s death; WikiLeaks has a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction. Rich’s murder remains unsolved. (See “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails”)

(5) The CIA

In a for-subscribers-only post on October 17, 2016, Wayne Madsen — author of the recently-published book, The Almost Classified Guide to CIA Front Companies, Proprietaries & Contractors — claims that he was told by “top Republican Party sources not connected with the Donald Trump presidential campaign” that the CIA, not Russia, “has been conducting unprecedented interference in the 2016 campaigns for the presidency and Congress,” which Madsen calls “unparalleled in U.S. electoral history.”

The CIA’s code name for its clandestine interference in the 2016 election is “The Wave” — meaning “a wave” of Democrat victories on November 8.

To support his claim, Madsen makes the following points:

  1. The CIA favors Hillary Clinton, who has the endorsement of top retired CIA officials — former acting CIA director Mike Morrel; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden (who said Hillary would be a better president than the “incoherent” Trump); former CIA director David Petraeus (who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last May that condemned Trump’s rhetoric without mentioning Trump’s name: “inflammatory political discourse . . . has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.”); and former CIA director Robert Gates. The only former CIA director who has publicly endorsed Trump is James Woolsey, who describes himself as a life-long Democrat. Woolsey was Bill Clinton’s first CIA director. Bill fired Woolsey in December 1994 after CIA officer Aldrich Ames was revealed to be a Soviet spy.
  2. But the CIA wants Trump as the GOP presidential candidate because Trump, whose “embarrassing skeletons are well known to the CIA,” is “the best opportunity for the Democrats to retain the White House and decisively win back control of the U.S. Senate and, quite possibly, the House of Representatives.”
  3. Ohio was the one state where CIA operatives were unsuccessful in ensuring a Trump victory in the GOP primaries. Kasich won his home state’s primary and the state capital of Columbus serves as a GOP bulwark against Trump forces — comprised of Kasich, Ohio Republican chairman Matt Borges, Senator Rob Portman who is running for re-election, and state auditor Dave Yost. It was the CIA’s interference in Ohio that “showed its hand in the state,” which “became known to an inner circle of Republicans, both current and former office holders.” Presumably, those Republicans are Madsen’s informants.
  4. To ensure Trump’s defeat on November 8, a former CIA clandestine services officer, Evan McMullin, is running as an independent spoiler in normally solid-Republican Utah to siphon votes away from Trump. McMullin, a Mormon and a former banking executive for Goldman Sachs, is making a difference in Utah, which many polls now rate as a toss-up state between Trump and Clinton.
  5. Madsen: “Underlying the CIA subterfuge directed against the Ohio Republican Party are some recent suspicious and untimely deaths, including one individual who revealed the existence of ‘The Wave’ operation and two former Republican congressmen who may have been briefed on ‘The Wave.'” The suspicious deaths include:
    • A female CIA officer, who retired to her native Ohio and first spoke to a select audience about the CIA’s involvement in the 2016 election, contracted a fatal form of cancer and died soon thereafter.
    • Michael Oxley, a former Congressman (Ohio) who had served as an FBI agent and was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and House sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that regulated Wall Street after the collapse of the CIA-linked Enron, died of lung cancer in McLean, Virginia, on January 1, 2016, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Oxley never smoked.
    • Steve LaTourette, a 9-term Congressman (Ohio) and a close confidante of House Speaker John Boehner, died of pancreatic cancer at his home also in McLean, VA, on August 4, 2016. McLean is adjacent to CIA headquarters in Langley. In May 2015, LaTourette sued the federal government over a misdiagnosis of his cancer by U.S. Capitol doctors in 2012.

Madsen then makes the bold assertion that the CIA is “at the forefront of proffering intelligence” that Russia has been leaking hacked Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. All of this is actually “a ruse by the CIA to cover the tracks on its own interference in the election by running interference for Trump throughout the primaries” so as “to hand Hillary Clinton the White House and the Democrats the Congress with the gift-wrapping and ribbons supplied by the CIA.”

H/t Will Shanley and ZeroHedge

UPDATE:

Interestingly, a new Rasmussen Reports poll found that most voters aren’t buying the story that the Russians are trying to manipulate the election for Donald Trump. Instead, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s more likely that many in the media are working to get Clinton elected president. Only 26% believe Hillary-Obama’s accusation that the Russian government is working to get Trump elected; 18% are not sure.

~Eowyn