Newly Discovered Guccifer 2 Chat Shows He Was Wikileaks’ Source

An Associated Press (AP) journalist has released a chat with Guccifer 2.0. 

Raphael Satter released a previously unpublished chat he had with Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 stated, in reply to a question about why Guccifer 2.0 is sending documents directly to a journalist instead of waiting for Wikileaks to publish them, that “I don’t know when or if they gonna publish them.” According to Satter, “@raffiwriter argues @Guccifer _2’s handlers were impatient with @Wikileaks as summer wore on. My 8/22 convo with G2 seems to support that.”  

Satter is referencing an article in the New Yorker magazine by journalist Raffi Khatchadourian, which was reviewed extensively by RightSideNews in the article, Did Wikileaks Directly Receive Information from Guccifer 2.0? The New Yorker article lists three important interactions that display Guccifer 2.0 being impatient with Wikileaks, including:

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” An article by Joe Uchill from July 13 quotes Guccifer 2.0: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) On July 17, Assange “originally planned” to publish the files, but did not. Instead, Guccifer 2.0 leaked a batch of documents to Uchill on that very day.

4) On July 22nd, Wikileaks published the documents, and on that same day Guccifer 2.0 wrote, “At last!”

5) On August 22nd, exactly one month later, Guccifer 2.0 in his chat with the AP’s Raphael Satter expresses impatience with Wikileaks’ release of files.

According to Uchill’s July 22 article, “The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack.”

The implication of Guccifer 2.0 directly working together with Wikileaks is that Guccifer 2.0 had in his possession the documents that Wikileaks later leaked, which contradicts the narrative put forward on the Guccifer 2.0 research website, G-2.space, that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source for Wikileaks. Raphael Satter is encouraged to release screenshots of his entire chat with Guccifer 2.0.

BREAKING: New Report Suggests DNC Hacker Was Collecting Opposition Research on Donald Trump

A newly discovered report from the firm that was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC breach says that the hackers were looking for information that would hurt Donald Trump and other GOP candidates. The report says

“Based on the data exfiltrated from the DNC, one of FANCY BEAR’s goals appears to have been to collect opposition research the DNC’s research staff had gathered on President Elect (then Republican primary candidate) Donald Trump and other Republican (GOP) presidential candidates.” (page 11). 

According to the Crowdstrike, Fancy Bear is the alleged hacking entity that stole data from the DNC and leaked it to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike’s findings have been used by the DNC and the US Intelligence Community to claim that Russian was involved in the election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The newly revealed information appears to contradict that narrative by showing Fancy Bear was allegedly helping Clinton by hurting Trump and the GOP. 

According to Palo Alto Networks, a spear fishing attack on May 26, 2016 “to a U.S. government entity” was successful, while Crowdstrike says the virus was in the DNC system in April 2016. The attack was allegedly passed on to targets through infected RTF files. Crowdstrike appears to contradict the report of Palo Alto Networks on the timeline of when the DNC was breached.

Contact: [email protected]

Roger Stone: Schiff and Speier Say that DNC Handed Over Their Server

 

Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26, is claiming that Congressman Schiff and Speier told him at the hearing that the DNC did, in fact, give over its server to the FBI. This contradicts James Comey’s testimony, when he stated that the DNC never handed over the server for investigation.

Answering the questions of Infowars as he apparently was leaving the hearing, Stone said: “The FBI Director… testified before this committee that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine their servers. Mr. Schiff intimated today that that was not the case and claimed that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI.”

In another interview, this time with the The Gateway Pundit, Stone was quoted as saying:

“The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC. When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’ Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”

The question is, did the DNC turn over its server during the summer recess?

Questions the DNC Don’t Want Asked on Guccifer 2.0 And Their Claim He Took Only Two Files

The Washington Post article, National Security Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump” from June 14, 2016, states that the hacking group known as Fancy Bear “broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said.” The article then states that “The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.” The article continues, quoting DNC lawyer Michael Sussman of the Perkins Coie firm: “But at this time, it appears that no financial information or sensitive employee, donor or voter information was accessed by the Russian attackers,” he said.

However, in the subsequent article the following day, June 15, entitled “Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack“, the Washington Post reports that Guccifer 2.0 posted to a website some of the allegedly stolen documents. They included a file titled “Donald Trump Report,” dated Dec. 19, 2015, and a list of what was purported to be million-dollar-plus donors to the Democratic Party.”

Questions the DNC must answer are, 1) Why did the DNC say that only two opposition research files were taken, and not donor information, when Guccifer 2.0 did indeed take both the opposition files and the donor files? 2) Why did Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research files, when those files could prove to be harmful to Donald Trump, if he was indeed a hacker on a mission to elect Donald Trump? 3) Did the DNC collude with Guccifer 2.0 in directing him to release the opposition research files? 4) Why did Guccifer 2.0 continue to release opposition research files, when he later released an archive of Sarah Palin’s Twitter messages on July 14, and the first page of the Trump Foundation’s income tax form and the Trump financial report on October 18, if he had already proven that he had hacked the DNC? and 5) What specific part of the software Crowdstrike used to analyze the DNC server would show that only two files were taken, when presumably hackers were in the DNC system for weeks on end?

If the answer is that the DNC or Crowdstrike did not have full visibility into the scale of intrusions on their security infrastructure, is it a coincidence that the only files the DNC or Crowdstrike thought were missing at the time were the two opposition research files, which if released would be damaging only to Trump and not Clinton, and that Guccifer the next day did indeed release those two opposition research files that are harmful to Trump but not Clinton? Those two files were entitled “Donald Trump Report” and “2016 GOP presidential candidates” in the releases. Are these opposition files that Guccifer 2.0 released the same ones that the DNC is referring to, or was Guccifer 2.0 holding on to even more harmful information, and released the Trump report and GOP report to deflect from it? All of the information from the Trump report comes from public sources. On the other hand, why would Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research if he was supposed to be helping Donald Trump, if he could prove that he has hacked the DNC by sharing any of the 38 other files he subsequently leaked in later months?  

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Did Wikileaks directly receive information from Guccifer 2.0?

Regarding the DNC’s secrets being spilled in the last election, the question is, as the American Thinker’s Mike Razar has put it, whether Wikileaks “received the information from the Russian government or from some non-Russian hacker source or even an inside leak rather than a hacker.” The question has become, did Guccifer 2.0 directly leak information to Wikileaks?

In order to assess this, we need to look at all of the facts. A recent front cover article of the New Yorker magazine, entitled Julian Assange, a Man Without a Country, reveals some previously unknown, unreported or unpublished interactions of Guccifer 2.0 with others, and other new information that does not even appear on the timeline of Guccifer 2.0 interactions on the “Guccifer 2.0: Game Over” website. One set of information, as extracted from the aforementioned New Yorker article, relates to how Guccifer 2.0 apparently knew that Wikileaks is delayed in releasing the files that Guccifer 2.0 allegedly sent them, and that this knowledge shows that Guccifer 2.0 is supplying Wikileaks with information, or simply colluding with Wikileaks.

There are three examples of such interactions as described in the New Yorker article, in the author Raffi Khatchadourian‘s own words (and arranged chronologically, with boldface added):

1) On June 17th, the editor of the Smoking Gun asked Guccifer 2.0 if Assange would publish the same material it was then doling out. “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,” it replied. “Don’t worry everything you receive is exclusive.” The claim at that time was true.

2) In early July, for example, Guccifer 2.0 told a Washington journalist that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.” (Indeed, the article by Joe Uchill from July 13 contains these sentences from electronic chats: “The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs.”)

3) According to Uchill’s July 22 article, The [Wikileaks] site does not specifically address who leaked the documents, but hacker Guccifer 2.0 who recently breached the DNC servers confirmed via electronic message that the emails came from that hack. “At last!” he wrote. 

Also, Khatchadourian notes other interactions that have not been documented by others so far, including his apparent attempt at interaction in mid-August 2016 with Emma Best, a journalist and a specialist in archival research who, according to her Twitter handle, is suing the FBI for 2.1 million documents. Khatchadourian seems to think that Guccifer 2.0 was considering sending his documents to Khatchadourian instead of Wikileaks in this time period. However, why would Guccifer 2.0 have written “at last!” on July 22nd to Uchill, and seemed to be happy with Wikileaks’ progress in releasing documents, but then attempted to find a different entity or individual to release the documents only a few weeks later in mid-August? It would make more sense if, between June 17 and July 22nd, the dates of the first and third aforementioned interactions, Guccifer 2.0 would have expressed a desire to send the DNC documents elsewhere. Regardless, Emma Best later commented on Twitter regarding the article, stating that “This is accurate.”

The question for American Thinker readers, researchers and the G-2.space community ought to be, do you agree with the New Yorker article when it claims that Guccifer 2.0 knew that Wikileaks is delayed in releasing the files in July 2016, as per the New Yorker article, the editor of the Smoking Gun and the Uchill articles from July 13 and July 22nd? It would be helpful if full transcripts of interactions with Guccifer 2.0 would be released by these entities for publication and analysis.

Researcher Verifies Robbin Young’s Guccifer 2.0 Chats

Hannibal Moot has verified Robbin Young’s chats with Guccifer 2.0, responding to her newly released photos and concluding that “It is safe to say, problems in older versions of Twitter’s software could have contributed to the anomalies with the icons.” Moot went further and validated the argument that a glitch in the software is likely to blame, stating: “Am I being overly particular? Possibly. It is likely a software glitch. The new shot looks legitimate.”

Guccifer 2.0’s told Robbin Young that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was his whistleblower, stating to her that “his name is Seth, he was my whistleblower” in the Twitter Direct Messages that she has released.

The editor of BullTruth Magazine, Hannibal Moot, had in the past taken exception to these anomalously misplaced signs when Robbin Young originally released her chats, pointing to how the “block and garbage symbols” were in the wrong spot. Moot had previously acknowledged the argument that the software Young used to release the chat may be to blame, stating “The software itself is what I would consider to be the strongest argument.” However, he has only recently concluded that the problems with the image are with a software glitch. 

Robbin Young had released a full set of photos of each of her chats with Guccifer 2.0, and Moot was responding to the new photos. The chats will help investigators and perhaps the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in assessing Guccifer 2.0, and perhaps lead to a more formal investigation of the alleged Seth Rich connection. 

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Seth Rich: Fox News’ Article Removal Doesn’t Address Investigator’s Confirmation of Rich-Wikileaks Connection

Fox News on May 23rd removed its article on Seth Rich, after criticism of Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was contracted by the Rich family to conduct an investigation. It is unclear if the article removal is to address the Rich’s family criticism of Wheeler, or the most important claim in the article, that a federal investigator in the case sees a connection between Seth Rich and Wikileaks, as explained by the now removed original article here, and archived here:

           “I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

            The revelation is consistent with the findings of Wheeler, whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case.

            The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.

Wheeler had released his findings on the Rich case, but according to the Rich family statement, “contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family.” After the family expressed its disapproval, applying legal pressure on Wheeler with the happy assistance of DNC apparatchik Brad Bauman, the liberal media began making it look like Wheeler is backtracking. For instance, Wheeler told Buzzfeed on the evening of May 16 that he had no personal knowledge of whether Rich sent email to a contact at Wikileaks. Yet on the morning of May 16, Wheeler told Fox 5 that he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and Wikileaks. However, saying you have sources that tell you about some evidence, doesn’t mean you have personally seen this evidence, and thus, the morning statement of May 16 doesn’t contradict the statement in the evening. 

The only thing that Wheeler had stated was inaccurate about the Fox 5 story is that he “doesn’t know where the computers are,” while in the original story, he stated about the computer, that “I believe (it) is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.” Even when the subsequent Fox News story that is archived here stated that “the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police,” that statement did not contradict Wheeler’s statement, because Fox News didn’t state where the computer itself was.

The fundamental point here is that Wheeler has not retracted his claim that there is a federal investigator who says that Rich sent email to Wikileaks. Also, Fox News has not retracted its own claim that it spoke to the federal investigator and confirmed this information.   


Meanwhile, Kim Dotcom has released his much-awaited statement on his connection to Seth Rich and how he knows Rich was involved in leaking information to Wikileaks. His statement reads:

            I know that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak. 

            I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.

             Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful. I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics. “He wanted to change that from the inside.”

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

Martin Shkreli Drops $100K Bounty For Info On Seth Rich’s Murderer

Martin Shkreli Drops $100K Bounty For Info On Seth Rich’s Murderer
Martin Shkreli: REUTERS/Brendan McDermid, Seth Rich: The Publicity Agency

American businessman and investor Martin Shkreli is putting up $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich.

 

Shkreli, former chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals and KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Inc., made the announcement via his Facebook page Friday.

Rich, 27, was the voter expansion data director at the DNC, according to Roll Call, and had been employed for two years. Rich also worked on a computer application to help voters locate polling stations, and had just accepted a job with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

According to Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police reports, officers patrolling the Bloomingdale neighborhood heard gunshots at around 4:20 a.m. on the morning of July 10, 2016. Officers discovered a “conscious and breathing” Rich at 2100 Flagler Place NW.

 

Police have not yet solved the case, but surmised that Rich was a victim of a botched robbery. Police said that they found his wallet, credit cards and cellphone on his body. The band of his wristwatch was torn but not broken. The current theory maintains that the shooters panicked after shooting Rich and immediately fled the scene.

 

Shkreli is not the only person offering a six digit reward for information surrounding Rich’s death. Washington D.C. attorney Jack Burkman is offering $105,000 and calling on the DNC to step up its role in the investigation. “I don’t know who is worse, the DNC — who haven’t done a thing, or Sean Hannity who talks about it every night without action. All talk, no action,” Burkman told the Daily Caller News Foundation Wednesday. (DC Lobbyist Behind Campaign To Solve Seth Rich Murder Mystery)

 

While police have refused to divulge information on the case to the public, The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained the public incident report, which revealed that at least three responding officers were wearing body cameras. When TheDCNF reached out to the police for information regarding the presence of body cams or surveillance footage near the scene of the crime, the department refused to confirm or deny the existence of surveillance footage.

 

Rich’s parents asked police to go public with details of its investigation this week, desperately hoping to find their son’s killer. (RELATED: Family Of Seth Rich Demands That Police Release Information To The Public)

 

by TED GOODMAN – Follow Ted on Twitter

Evidence Suggests Guccifer 2.0 is a DNC Operative

Rep. Adam Schiff stated on March 20 to the House Intelligence Committee that Guccifer 2.0 was an “intermediary” used by Russian intelligence service to leak hacked information from the DNC. However, according to Adam Carter, a Twitter user and an individual investigating Guccifer 2.0, information has been uncovered that shows a DNC Staffer edited Guccifer 2.0 released files only 30 minutes before they were released, and that Russian fingerprints were intentionally added to the releases. 

According to Carter’s website, Guccifer 2.0: Game Over,  “Metadata suggests it took only 30 minutes to go from a DNC tech/data strategy consultant creating documents to Guccifer2.0 tainting them – all occurring on a date that Guccifer2.0 claimed to be after he was locked out of the DNC Network – occurring on the same day that Guccifer2.0 emerged. Furthermore, “Data found deeper in files now also demonstrates there was a misdirection effort, that, in it’s larger scope – seems to have been intended to discredit leaks by having leaks blamed on Russian hackers.”

Specifically, four files from the June 15 release were created by DNC Staffer Warren Flood approximately 30 minutes before being modified by Guccifer, including 2.doc, which was created at 1:38pm and modified by “Феликс Эдмундович” at 2:11, 3.doc, created at 1:38pm and modified at 2:12pm, and 5.doc, created and modified at the same time, 2:13pm! This could suggest they were created and modified by Warren Flood or his computer at the same time they were being edited with a new Russian “modified by” name added to it. 

Furthermore, Carter alleges that Guccifer 2.0 engaged in “misdirection” by making it appear he was Russian, when he was not, by naming his computer account after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Guccifer 2.0 also created/opened and then saved documents so the Russian name was written to metadata, used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address and used public web-based email services that would forward his cloaked IP. He then contacted various media outlets using all of this, so that any simpleton will think he is a Russian, although outwardly denying he is a Russian.

The real reason for all of this, according to Carter, is that the DNC was desperate to portray information that was sent to Wikileaks as a Russian hack in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents and to make the conversation about Russian meddling in the election. Carter says that “The campaign was in a desperate position and really needed something similar to a Russian hacker narrative and one where they would be fortunate to have a seemingly clumsy hacker that leaves lots of ‘fingerprints’ tainting files and bringing the reputation of leaks iinto question… Sure enough, 2-3 days later, Guccifer2.0 – the world’s weirdest hacker – was spawned and started telling lies in an effort to attribute himself to the malware discoveries, etc.”

“We cannot connect dots to Guccifer 2.0” Senate Intel Hearing Cyber Analyst Says

Kevin Mandia, chief executive officer of FireEye Inc., listens during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, March 30, 2017. Leaders of the committee promised a thorough and impartial investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election at the hearing, held as a House probe remained mired in partisan disputes. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

There is No Evidence to Connect Russia to Guccifer 2.0 – Senate Intel Hearing Cyber Analyst Says

At the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 30, during testimony from experts, Kevin Mandia, Chief Executive Officer of the security technology company FireEye, said the following in response to Senator Lankford asking if there is any connection between Guccifer 2 and the alleged Russian breach of the DNC server: “We cannot connect all the dots from the breach, at least with the observables available to my company and our investigators. We can’t go from breach, and leaked data, to suddenly Guccifer 2.0, we just don’t have the means to do that.” 

The Intelligence Committee has been holding hearings over the past few weeks regarding alleged Russian interference in the election. However, new information has surfaced that the Committee hasn’t reviewed yet, including In the last few days, which was released by Wikileaks regarding Guccifer 2.0, with the tweet, “Direct Messages from U.S. alleged Russian spy @GUCCIFER_2 to actress-model @robbin_young (according to the latter).” 

The Wikileaks direct messages release have echoed in social media, with news sites pointing to Guccifer 2.0 claiming Seth Rich was his whistleblower, which is in contradiction to his previous claims of hacking the DNC directly. Guccifer 2.0 states that “His name is Seth, he is my whistleblower” and that “I’d like to find a journalist who can do an investigation and teel [sic] the real story of his life and death.” The new articles have generated thousands of views and shares on the matter. 

FBI MEETS WITH GUCCIFER 2.0’S FRIEND, ROBBIN YOUNG

Guccifer 2.0 claimed to Robbin Young that murdered DNC staff Seth Rich “was my whistleblower”

On April 11, Robbin Young tweeted how the FBI left a letter at her home requesting/demanding an interview. Young has found a lawyer and on April 12 private Twitter messages between her and Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 claimed that “Seth [Rich] was my whistleblower,” which would only make sense in the context of Rich being a DNC leaker sending information to Guccifer 2.0. However, Guccifer 2.0 has always claimed publicly that he obtained his information by hacking the DNC.

Seth Rich was murdered in front of his home in 2016. Speculation has been rife ever since then that he knew too much about something, and that he was assassinated.

Does the FBI’s immediate response to Robbin Young mean they are taking the Seth Rich information seriously? Or are they trying to pry more information about Guccifer 2.0 out of Robbin Young? As Robbin Young has said that she has received death threats as of late, is the FBI truly offering to protect her, or do they want to intimidate her from disputing the FBI’s narrative regarding Guccifer 2.0 being a hacker, being an entity that is represented by multiple people instead of one, and being a Russian? Young believes that Guccifer 2.0 is Romanian as he claims, is one individual and not many, and that Seth Rich was his leaker at the DNC.

Given the FBI’s interest in Robbin Young, the Republican members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees may be interested in calling her to testify before the hearings that the House and Senate have been convening over the past few weeks on the alleged hacking during the election. They may also direct the FBI to disclose their specific interest in Robbin Young, and to conduct a thorough investigation of the Seth Rich leaker claim and any other leakers at the DNC, including an investigation into Seth Rich’s murder and any ties to the DNC.

The FBI may be engaged in a more thorough analysis of Guccifer 2.0’s conduct, including a language analysis that encompasses the new text disclosed by Robbin Young, and the apparent attempt at misattributing his origins as being Russian when he intentionally added Russian metadata to his releases, such as adding Felix Dzerzhinsky as the modifying author, changing the native language of the document to Russian, and using a Russian language template. There were no other textual differences between Guccifer 2.0’s release of documents and Wikileaks release of those same documents, although Wikileaks documents were dated later than Guccifer 2.0’s, and Guccifer 2.0’s contained the name of Warren Flood as the creating author while Wikileaks’ contained the original author. Warren Flood’s job description at his firm is “helping campaigns, organizations, and companies implement winning strategies using data, analytics, and technology,” while Seth Rich was “voter expansion data director” at the DNC. It is unclear if they worked side-by-side.

Contact Steve Cunningham at [email protected]

An ‘Open, Democratic Process’ Needs Wikileaks Help

John Lewis recently said that “I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open, democratic process.” Putting aside questions of whether or not Russia hacked at all, and the claim of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that his “source is not a state party,” there is nothing wrong with a foreign entity helping to disclose truth about public officials. 

Investigative reporting is one of the most important contributions that the press makes to democracy, according to Silvio Waisbord, author of Watchdog Journalism in South America: News, Accountability, and Democracy. “It provides a valuable mechanism for monitoring the performance of democratic institutions as they are most broadly defined to include governmental bodies, civic organizations and publicly held corporations,” says Waisbord. But when media organizations fail to properly investigate these institutions, can the public get help from a foreign entity? 

In this instance, Wikileaks disclosed specific examples of corruption of the DNC by hacking the emails of the DNC. That corruption is firstly expressed in Hillary Clinton having a different position personally than the one she says publicly, or in her words, “you need both a public and a private position.” Such private positions that she didn’t disclose publicly, is her private support for fracking, and her private opposition to gay marriage despite her public reversal.

Other examples include those of institutional corruption, such as how the DNC, which should be neutral in a democracy, helped Hillary Clinton win the primary when DNC surrogate Donna Brazile on two occasions, leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton, as well as leaking a private email on African-American Outreach from a Sanders press representative to the Clinton campaign. 

However, the deepest corruption exposed as a result of the paid speeches that the Clinton would make before, during and after Hillary Clinton was in office. One such example is how a corporate donor got access to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when he requested it. Another example of is Bill Clinton used Clinton Foundation staff to reach out to donors to the Clinton Foundation, in order for them to funnel their dollars to him through private speaking fees. This is the most clear example of corruption, of privately benefitting from public office. Of putting money in your pocket as a result of the position that you hold in the government. 

Yet all of this information was found by Wikileaks, and not through the dogged investigations of the mainstream media. If it wasn’t for Wikileaks, we would think Hillary Clinton’s public position were here private position; that the DNC was perfectly neutral and that Hillary Clinton won her nomination fair and square; and that the sole purpose of the Clinton Foundation was AIDS research. If anything, Wikileaks saved the election from the lies and deception of the Clinton campaign. So what if a foreign entity intervened? 

There is a stark difference between foreign propaganda, and foreign intervention that leads to more truth being exposed. The difference is that the first one is founded on a lie, and the second one is founded on the truth. There can never be enough truth in a democracy, unless getting to that truth involves the violation of rights. Yet acts of civil disobedience in terms of hacking are necessary at times when so much truth has become obfuscated. We cannot say how much hacking is too much hacking, only when the rights of individuals have become so impugned that it outweighs the value of the hacking. Yet in this instance, so much truth was revealed, so as to outweigh the rights to privacy and other rights of the DNC members. If the foreign intervention did not rely on hacking, but on disseminating fake news like CNN does, then it would be foreign propaganda.

Foreign propaganda depends on a “subconscious manipulation of psychological symbols to accomplish secret objectives,” according to Kenneth Osgoode. It has been described as “the use of communication skills of all kinds to achieve attitudinal or behavioural changes among one group by another,” by historian Oliver Thomson. In other words, how to emotionally effect you so that you will hold a position that is not necessarily grounded in fact. An example of foreign propaganda would be if a foreign entity would say, “The Democrats are Weak, America is Corrupt, Your Democracy is losing,” etc. These would be baseless claims, or be grounded in inadequate sources that would inaccurate. 

In this example, the truth is exposed by hackers, and no additional emotional matter is added to the information, nor is the information taken out of context. This is because as the Wikileaks shows, Hillary Clinton is indeed corrupt. The reply of Americans if the Russian hacking allegations are true to help find the truth internationally as well, such as, for instance, researching the alleged examples of money laundering that Vladimir Putin was engaged in, as exposed by the Panama Papers, and any human rights violations, foreign and domestic. Democracy is not infallible, and needs to be preserved by those willing to find the truth, no matter who they are.   

Judicial Watch Seeks Accountability for DNC’s Hire of Illegal Alien

Judicial Watch

The brazen lawlessness by this administration and its allies on illegal immigration knows no bounds.  I was shocked to read that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired an illegal alien to help with its campaigns.  The media played it as a “Dreamer” moment.

Your Judicial Watch is having none of that lawless approach to the rule of law on immigration.

We have just filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission requesting that it investigate the DNC for having “knowingly hired” an illegal alien, Cindy Nava, to help craft the committee’s 2016 political message and communications.  Judicial Watch filed its complaint on August 25, 2015.

Debbie_Wasserman_SchultzA June 8, 2015, story in The Washington Post reported that the DNC hired Nava with full knowledge of what DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) termed Nava’s “undocumented status.”  The news report details that “Despite not yet attaining legal status, Nava is working for the Democratic National Committee as one of a crop of fellows from around the country helping the party organize ahead of a presidential election that President Obama predicted would feature immigration as a major issue.”  The Spanish language newspaper El Nuevo Herald reports that Nava would help coordinate DNC outreach to “women, youth, and Hispanics.”

Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from participating “directly or indirectly in the decision-making process” of federal, state, or local election-related activities.

The Judicial Watch FEC complaint charges:

The Democratic National Committee knowingly hired a Foreign National to assist, directly or indirectly, in setting the Committee’s Public Policy Agenda for its Candidates, the National Committee, and its Associated Organizations.

The United States has prohibited non-citizen participation in election related activities for over fifty years. The United States Supreme Court has held that such prohibitions are legally permissible under the U.S. Constitution… In 2002, Congress expanded the prohibitions on foreign nationals… to include “anything of value” that “directly or indirectly” contributes to a political campaign… The Commission has stated “foreign nationals [cannot] direct, control, or otherwise participate directly or indirectly in the decision-making process of [a] PAC.

On its face, the DNC’s decision to hire Ms. Nava is in direct violation of this provision. The FEC should investigate this matter further to determine the full extent of Ms. Nava’s responsibilities, her relationship to the policy making team, and her effect on the 2016 DNC election strategy.

The Democratic National Committee is Willfully and Knowingly violating Federal Law and Contradicting Federal Policy by Permitting a Foreign National to Contribute to the Conventions Campaigns, Election Strategy, and Fundraising Efforts    

The United States Congress created a federal offense to knowingly hire an illegal alien. It is against Federal law “to hire, or to recruit…, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien… There are two elements to this crime: (1) knowledge of the alien’s status, and (2) an employment offer…

Thus, the DNC is violating federal law by hiring Cindy Nava. Her fellowship constitutes expenditures under the FEC regulation, and therefore these illegal expenditures are within the scope of FEC regulations… They have actively employed Ms. Nava knowing that she lacked proper authorization to work in the United States.

Our request for a “full, formal investigation” concludes, “These actions are particularly egregious because the DNC flagrantly promotes their illegal activities, lawlessness, and disrespect for the rule of law.”

Is it any wonder this nation has a border and illegal alien crisis?

Not only do we have a major political party knowingly employing an illegal alien, but also openly boasting about it to the nation’s press. The DNC should be held accountable by the FEC for hiring an illegal alien in violation of both federal immigration and election laws.  Frankly, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should also take appropriate law enforcement action.

Source: Judicial Watch