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Raphael Satter released a previously unpublished chat he had with Guccifer 2.0, where Guccifer 2.0 stated, in reply to a question about why Guccifer 2.0 is sending documents directly to a journalist instead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]

How Donald Trump Orchestrated ‘the Greatest Land Deal in History’

By: John Grayson.

“Psychological operations” campaigns, or psy-ops, are “planned operations designed to convey selected information and indicators to audiences, to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”

What President Trump did at the UN on December 23, 2016 was on a whole other level. It wasn’t just a “call to arms”. It was a layman’s psy-op, from September to April. The best stories, however, always start in medias res.

With one phone call, Donald Trump gained control over the Israeli/Palestine peace process, effectively destroyed the legacies of Obama, Clinton, and Carter, started up the (eventual) Muslim ban, banked (future) favors from Egypt, and stumped the UN into (again) showing their true anti-Semitic colors.

Here’s how he did it.

 

Friday, December 23:

Egypt was planning to submit a resolution to the UN that would’ve declared the West Bank as occupied territory, including the Western Wall.

Donald phoned Egypt, whom promptly canceled their plans. New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia, and Venezuela therefore decided to submit the Resolution instead. The Security Council, which has 15 members, voted 14 – 0 in favor of the resolution. The United States (under Obama) however, abstained, whereas previous American foreign policy had dictated a veto.

While Obama claimed that he had nothing to do with the resolution, this was one of the few times the United States had failed to support Israel. Of the 226 anti-Israel Resolutions passed previously, only 17 were abstained from by American foreign policy, making this a significant event for all sides.

The UN Resolution 2334, thusly adopted, “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity.” As well, the resolution also condemns acts of terrorism, provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric – heavily implied against the Palestinian side. “Settlements” include anything annexed after the 1967 war with Jordan.

So on the face of it, it would appear that Obama’s abstaining is in line with his administration’s policies – as a means of supposedly punishing Israel for building the settlements while providing a condemnation of rhetoric that leads to conflict – but not in line with American foreign policy.

Yet while this was the opposite of long-standing American foreign policy doctrine with regards to the two-state solution and the inherent borders therein, this course of action was the best thing possible for Israel, and while it looks like Donald was finally stumped, he’s really just playing the part.

During the Primaries, Marco Rubio mentioned that Donald’s stance of neutrality was anti-Israel in nature. Rubio would be right in that regard, if he were dealing with any other situation wherein one’s anti-war pacifism would only serve to support the inflammatory rhetoric of the opportunity-stealing opposition. However, Donald always has another trick up his sleeve.

 

Donald’s nimble navigating:

The thing to remember is that Donald is pro-Jewish even though he puts on the guise of being indifferent. After all, his daughter’s Jewish, his grandchildren are Jewish, he grew up in New York City and entered the Real Estate Business. Simply put, he has always been pro-Israel:

“You know, you have both sides, really, but one side in particular growing up learning that these are the worst people these people are the worst people, etc. etc.,” he said. “I was with a very prominent Israeli the other day, he says it’s impossible because the other side has been trained from the time they’re children to hate Jewish people.”

As evidenced by his Facebook message a day before the UN vote, despite claiming he’d be neutral, Donald really plays all sides in pursuit of the greater goal. And with the Facebook post and the phone call, Donald changed the game:

“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position, and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

First off, in even commenting on the matter, he solidified the fact that Obama would abstain purely on the principle of the matter, and ensured that the Democrats would only double-down on their support (due to their irrational hatred of Donald himself).

Previously, the Obama administration wasn’t sure how they’d vote, and were virtue-signaling to gauge liberal reactions. Donald forced them to choose on his terms. Thus, whichever side he took, Obama had to take the opposite. The US Government only ever had two options; abstain, or veto. An Agreement would never be on the table as long as Israel maintained relations diplomatically, and Donald advocating for a “veto” ensured that Obama only had one option left – to abstain.

More importantly, Donald united even more GOP establishment Republicans to his cause. He now had a carrot to dangle over them, as they need Israel to exist to fulfill their religious “End Of Days” prophecy as foretold in the Book of Revelations:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement, “[T]he consequences of this disgraceful U.N. resolution should be severe. I look forward to working with Sen. Graham, and with the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump, to significantly reduce or even eliminate U.S. funding of the United Nations, and also to seriously reconsider financial support for the nations that supported this resolution.”

Now we know Donald was responsible for the immediate result, but is this detrimental to his incoming Presidential policy? A reversal of campaign terms (like Obama did to Israel several times over, much to Alan Dershowitz’s chagrin)?

No.

See, Donald isn’t sabotaging his own platform, he’s sabotaging everyone else’s by only appearing to destroy his.

And he’s played people before.

He did it at the Colorado Convention, when he threatened to go 3rd Party if the GOP chose Cruz. He made both himself and Ben Carson into “media victims/underdogs” in highlighting how Cruz stole votes from Carson, as well as in how Cruz was playing by unfair voting rules with Delegates. The same happened with “Pussygate” and his pre-emptive public apology.

He didn’t attack the issue head-on, he made it seem like he was vulnerable. It’s classic misdirection on his part, and while the liberal media was focused on the superficiality of how Donald presents himself, he’d already advanced three, four, five steps ahead.

Trump is no stranger to priming worldviews; he’s working overtime to combat Obama’s policies at every step. After Obama helped pass the UN Resolution, Trump again started enforcing the worldview that everything Barack Obama does turns out terribly. He was, of course, doing this before, but he really ramped up the rhetoric afterwards.

One of his latest Tweets at the time was very dramatic:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!

He was actively hammering home the point that Obama was a failure as a President, and that this is simply another one of his terrible decisions.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.Thought it was going to be a smooth transition – NOT!

As petty as it sounds, he’s even resorted to taking the legacy of Obama’s catchphrase.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald!

Imagine that tweet later being appended with “Obama tried and failed to bring peace to the Middle East for 8 years. I did it in 8 months. Sad!”.

In the media landscape, Donald might appear to have “lost”, but it’s all posturing.  In fact, shortly after, Trump was already considering inviting Israeli PM Netanyahu to the White House as well as moving the American Embassy to West Jerusalem (a section of land even Palestinians officially admit is Israeli territory).

Of course, this isn’t to say that Donald has ensured his victory in a peace deal, but he completely defined the narrative of things to come. A false sense of (Obama’s) security, and people start to believe the lie.

But what’s most important is that Donald just dragged the Palestinian Authority kicking and screaming to the table they’ve always shouted about wanting a seat at:

“Well, Iran has done it again. Taken two of our people and asking for a fortune for their release. This doesn’t happen if I’m president!”

This nutshell of a foreign policy will (now) also extend to “Palestine”, which has kidnapped plenty of Israeli civilians and soldiers before, demanding the release of thousands more Palestinian terrorist prisoners in an exchange.

Now that Donald is our President, this Islamic sabotage will no longer be an acceptable option under a Trump administration.

What also won’t be acceptable are Islamist terror cells in Israel. You know, things Obama never cared to mediate with in his weak eight years as a mediating President…

 

It’s like playing football and scoring on your own team (Obama BTFO):

Obama is really, really bad at foreign diplomacy, as “he has alienated the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Emirates and other allies by his actions and inactions with regard to Iran, Syria, Egypt and Iraq”. As a contrast, Donald appointed David Freidman as Israeli Ambassador.

For those unawares, David Friedman believes that Palestinian mayhem, rather than the settlements, are to blame (to put it lightly). The Palestinian Leadership considers David’s opinion to be a “green light” to Israeli “extremists” and “racists”.

Bit of an odd reaction to take, isn’t it? Everyone I don’t like is an extremist and racist? Where have we heard that before?

Weird, since if Israel were an apartheid, as Palestinians claim, one wouldn’t be able to vote, work, gain citizenship, reside in, marry, etc. if they weren’t Jewish – everything they can do in Israel. The crux of it is that the “minority” feel they are oppressed, when the reality highlights everything differently. Simply put, they are professional victims, and because no one challenges their narrative, they remain as such.

Obama’s Resolution calls for a two state solution. This is incredibly impractical because the thing we have to understand about the Palestinian Authority is that calling for a two-state solution is more socially acceptable than calling for Israel to not have one at all. For the Palestinians, it’s never been about “settlements” or “UN Statehood recognizance”. It’s all Taqiyya (professional Islamic lying) designed to cripple the stance of the Israelis as much as possible, until all the land is sequestered away.

And this was the official Obama administration policy as well:

“The United States acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians,” Kerry said Friday. “Two states is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors, and freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”

See, the Palestinian Authority rejects the Holocaust wholesale (even though they actively participated in it). Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel in their Charter, and the PLO (Fatah’s predecessor) was responsible for the terrorist attacks in the 70s and 80s – the most famous of which was the Munich Massacre – when an Israeli Olympic team was murdered. Not to mention everything else, like the frequent hijackings in the 60s and 70s of Israeli commercial planes.

Additionally, after an earlier attempt to overthrow the Jordanian kingdom (referred to as Black September), the Palestinians realized they were running out of legitimacy in terms of their status as a “victimized” people. This is actually why the Oslo Accords (based on the 1978 Camp David Accords) happened, since Israel didn’t want to govern a hostile population and Jordan and Egypt definitely didn’t want to take them either (the three places considered in the British Mandate of Palestine and the Sevras Treaty). Funny then, how the First Intifada (or, “uprising”) only came to an end after the paperwork was signed. Was it a peace accord, or a ransom negotiation tactic?

As /u/high4power (an Israeli Redditor) states:

Even after the existential wars. We were faced with daily bombers and attacks during active negotiations in the early 90s, and again later by suicide bombers in the early 2000s, and again later when we took those settlements out of gaza with no conditions (Hamas was voted in, sworn on Israel destruction) So we received tens of thousands of rockets in exchange. Consider that anyone who is 21+ lived through those backstabs.

The narrative that jews are subhuman and should be ethnically cleansed from the land of our forefathers is the norm in the palestinian society, which western media often fails to report. We’ve been fooled, especially when we reached out our arm to peace.

Simply put, reality does not have a Palestinian bias. Through Taqiyya, the Palestinians subvert and destroy – and the media and “inter-governmental organizations” / “activism industry” helps them amplify such actions.

And Obama is definitely practicing Taqiyya, as he did with the Iran Deal wherein he gave Iran nuclear capabilities with the Deal in order to build up the country as an excuse for a future invasion.

A sweet side-benefit for Obama was the inherent delegitimization of Israel, a country he’s never respected. It was all Taqiyya, and it would have worked here if it hadn’t been for Donald.

So how did Obama extraordinarily mess up (something Donald has taken full advantage of)?

He passed the UN Resolution under the wrong Chapter!

UN Resolution 2334 was passed under Chapter VI, rather than VII. The former is for resolutions meant for peaceful negotiation and mediation, whereas the latter is for resolutions that require the use of the Security Council’s military forces.

If this deal truly was about peaceful negotiations between two nations already hostile towards each other, then the matter would have been referred to under Chapter VII because the end goal in that format is always to prevent war. Or as VP Mike Pence states, “Peace through Strength”.

In fact, Chapter VII is always a better fit to actually maintain anything more than a courtesy ceasefire – which Hamas uses to stockpile up on food and weapons – if one is truly looking for long-lasting peace. That Chapter allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security”.

The Obama administration was thus fully aware that since this resolution was passed under Chapter VI rather than Chapter VII of the UN Charter, there is no enforcement mechanism required to implement it, that it is not necessarily binding and UN military presence isn’t granted.

Obama’s aim was to give the Palestinians a boost in support and blame the (eventual) breakdown in the peace process on the Trump administration…

Therefore, the entire resolution either highlights that the Palestinian intifadas don’t matter, or they very much do. In this scenario, where there’s been 70 years of war, you only pass something in Chapter VI if you’re angling for UN Statehood in an otherwise purely symbolic gesture with no intent of actually following through. Because it’s evidence that “mediation” is never going to work without military force backing it.

But this Trumpian strategy only works if Palestine is pressured into actually accepting Statehood status, instead of just whining about it. Trump defined any weaseling of Arab nations as a “put up or shut up” moment. Fortunately, given the change of circumstances in which this Resolution was passed, an educated guess can be made as to how it will all end… in Cairo.

What’s extremely telling is that Egypt wanted to pass the UN Resolution first – despite being the long-standing ally of Israel. It’s nothing personal, just incredibly long-term business. It’s not that Egypt is trying to de-legitimize Israel as Obama did, it’s that they’re trying to end the Palestinian “cause” once and for all. They’re tired of playing “politically correct” at the expense of Egyptian lives.

See, Egypt also instituted a blockade after too many Palestinians were utilizing state services (like construction companies and ambulances) to smuggle in weapons for the jihadi cause.

Egypt’s end goal was to recognize Palestine so the next skirmish that occurred would mean Palestine (and all their leadership) were committing acts of war, “justified” for retribution (not necessarily on behalf of Israel).

If necessary, some could be tried for War Crimes, and that is why the Palestinian Authority would previously shout about being accepted, but always shirk away from actual state recognition. It’s like a restaurant owner who yells about being up for certification, saying their kitchens are the cleanest, but never goes through with the inspection because the Health Inspector would find rat excrement in the soup.

Donald, however, understood what Egypt was going for, and framed it accordingly by making that phone call.

While the reversal in Egypt’s opinion is odd (in submitting a proposal and then rescinding it), it revealed a deeper thinking of Donald’s – the resolution couldn’t be passed by Egypt because they needed plausible deniability, they needed diplomacy. The proposal’s rescinding only happened because Donald asked them to do so.

The importance of the phone call in the decision-making process  was actually confirmed by the Sissi government.

To that end, recognizance of Palestine (and the legacy of the brokerage regarding the Suez Canal) has been important for ex-President Jimmy Carter, and he, in championing the Palestinian cause, just got played.

 

Donald’s proposal to ban all Muslims (Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton BTFO):

The Resolution was ultimately sponsored by countries that have no interests strategically in Israel – Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal and New Zealand. Deeply, deeply misinformed countries with no dog in the fight.

As Reddit User UWarchaeologist explains why:

The most NZers ever hear about these things is “settlements on occupied Palestinian land breaking international law”. They don’t stop and ask ‘what is a settlement’, what is ‘occupied’, what is ‘Palestinian’ and how do we know whose land it is, or what law applies to it. Most people would just accept that statement at face value, especially when they see ostensibly “neutral” people & countries who ought to know the complexities of the situation agreeing with the UN resolution, and that’s it – the Israel govt must be in the wrong, case closed. My impression is that NZers believe they took a moral and idealistic stand against “illegal settlements”, they want to stick up for the underdog and don’t see themselves as part of some big conspiracy against Israel or Israelis, even though they are justifiably pissed off at how Mossad was using NZ passports. So yeah, that’s not really a sense that there is even another side and an historical basis to the settler argument… so “what we have here is a failure to communicate” – among many other failures of course 😦

As Carter mentions (who, remember, is the anti-war pacifist ex-president whose personal morality enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini to revolutionize Iran):

“I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, ” Carter wrote. “The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine.”

Carter’s sentiment is exactly what Donald wanted, because both Obama and Carter unwittingly played into Trump’s hands. Now the Palestinians have to actually follow through for once in attaining UN Statehood! So how does that affect them (in ways it didn’t before)? Why will Palestinian resistance finally matter, in following the rules of warfare?

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention:

First, let’s do away with any notion that the UN is some bastion of morality and peace in the conflict. In 2015 alone the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism — and only 3 resolutions on the rest of the world combined. This is despite the Palestinian Authority still paying terrorists salaries, and “losing” over 1.6 billion in aid money

The views of the Palestinian populace are not much better.

The UN has never been neutral (even though they proclaim to be):

The Jewish state is the U.N.’s scapegoat for anything and everything,” Greenfield continued. “These days, the United Nations is a forum for Islamist powers and the rotting remains of the Communist front to continue its war against the free world while seducing weak-minded nations into going along.”

UNRWA schools are turning out students who want to fight for ISIS.  The UN’s email system has been used to distribute child pornography. UN staff members have smuggled drugs, attacked each other with knives and pool cues, not to mention a tractor. This month the UN marked Anti-Corruption Day despite refusing to fight its own corruption. The former President of the UN General Assembly was arrested on bribery charges last year. He had also headed UNICEF’s executive board. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is battling accusations of bribery.

So why is the Fourth Geneva Convention so important?

The Convention essentially makes it illegal for nation-states to either move populations, or establish settlements on occupied land. While violating the Fourth Geneva Convention offers no sanctions, there are talks of this new resolution justifying cases to be sent before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Basically, there is a code of conduct that both nations must adhere to in order to not be accused of committing war crimes in the first place).

Remember the rhetoric within the UN Resolution, which “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity”?

the resolution makes it possible to file lawsuits against Israel and Israeli officials as well as Israeli citizens involved in settlement activity at the International Criminal Court and for sanctions to be imposed on Israel both by the UN and by individual countries”.

The Palestinian Authority has been maneuvering to gain the status to take the State of Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, neither Israel nor the U.S. are signatories to the Rome Statute which created the ICC, and entities must have the status of states in order to have standing at the ICC.

It’s a double-slap to Palestinians, because not only does it superficially blame Israelis (as is UN tradition), but deeply within, the clause’s existence ensures that the Fourth Geneva Convention is forever intertwined to the Palestinian cause. It doesn’t matter if Palestinians aren’t facing accusations of building settlements, both nations now have to follow the code of conduct set out in the “War Crimes” legislation.

But to the Palestinians, it’s really never been about the “settlements” (which comprise 3% of actual land in the West Bank), it’s always been about the land Israel won in their existential wars after 1967.

 

Those Settlements:

So why are the settlements important to Israel? Because they were de facto spoils of war. And why are the condemnations of violence important to the Palestinians? Because it “undermines their right” to Statehood.

This Resolution may not have been legally binding, but Donald made it spiritually binding. He’s forced the hand of the Palestinians (just as Obama inadvertently did in filing the resolution under the wrong Chapter).

In fact, the argument regarding the settlement’s legality is based on Fourth Geneva Convention, an international treaty governing the treatment of civilians in a war zone or in territory occupied in the course of a war. It was adopted in 1949 as a humanitarian measure in reaction to the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Hitler’s Third Reich. Article 49 of the convention forbids the transfer by an occupying power of its civilians into the occupied territory. Note that the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan occurred in 1947. No one claimed it was illegal.

That’s why the UN is so hypocritical. The Fourth Geneva Convention / Article 49 was always passed as an act of collusion, similar to what we’ve seen last month. The UN is a mouthpiece for the will of the Arab Nations – it always has been. Just as it was during the League of Nations.

Extraordinary tolerance has been granted towards Islamic Nations by those suffering from white guilt, and only now is it so drastically showing. It is no different than the Democratic National Party standing for Progressivism yet promoting Islam which kills gays and stones women.

According to Forward.com:

The territory was slated under the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan to become an Arab state alongside the Jewish state of Israel. When the Palestinians rejected the partition plan and refused to set up their state, Jordan captured the territory and annexed it. Only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank as valid and legal.

Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the West Bank. The treaty states at the outset, in Article 2, that it addresses situations in which one signatory state captures the territory of another signatory state in the course of war. Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 from Jordan, which had no legal claim to it, so it didn’t capture the territory “of” another state.

The issue has been a source of frustration for U.S. administrations ever since Arabs attacked Israel in 1967, only to lose the West Bank and Gaza and then demand the return of the territories. Israel gave back Gaza but its government maintains the tiny Jewish state needs to retain the West Bank and allow settlers there in order to maintain a buffer zone against terrorists and any future invasion.

This is actually a great thing, because according to Foreign Policy:

“British and U.S. diplomats, as well as the American and European press, may be fooled by Palestinian and Peace Now complaints that Bibi is gobbling up Palestinian territory, but the settlers live in those places and know better — construction is slowing down.”

Here’s the official settlement activity report, as released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Note that how the only reason we hear about “settlements being built” is by the “activist” groups on the ground (the exact same thing we’ve seen in Syria) – many funded by Soros with the clear goal of delegitimizing Israel’s status in the world stage.

You know what the “activist groups on the ground” don’t report (because it’s not in their interest)?

War Crimes (of the 4th Geneva Convention, again, the very charge the Palestinians try to pin on the Israelis).

The Palestinian Authority is no stranger to those accusations, especially during the last (third) intifada!

Here’s the admission of the Palestinian Authority stating it is intentional and religious in nature.

Here’s a report on schools teaching students to hate Jews.

Here’s a bus driver being stabbed by palestinian children passengers as part of the stabbing intifada.

Here’s a random civilian being stabbed by two palestinian teenagers as part of the stabbing intifada.

Here’s another video of palestinian teens trying to stab a Jewish civilian.

Here’s a video of a woman stabbing an Israeli security guard civilian.

Here’s a video of a Palestinian children being taught stabbing games.

Here’s a story about a 19-year old Palestinian killer whose name now bears a stadium in honour of killing 2 Israelis and wounding a mother and her baby.

And who could forget the lovable Farfur, Hamas’ Mickey Mouse – in this episode martyred by the Jews?

None of this will be tolerated by Donald’s administration. When Palestine is granted official UN Statehood, they will be finally held accountable for war crimes, with the “authority” coming from the very institution they thought had finally stumped Trump.

The 4th Convention applies to non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

All of which the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have violated in recent years.

And here’s the best part: it’s a good pretext for Arab nations to declare war, due to “a violation of UN law”.

Because of the incorrect Chapter filing, and the peer pressure to become signatories to conventions and ratified resolutions they’d rather not be a part of, eventually the UN Resolution will have to be voided by the Palestinians. The filing of the Resolution under the wrong Chapter means that if they want to pursue anything other than peace (and have military strength to back it up) they themselves will have to do the very thing they blame the Israelis of.

And while it is possible that the Arab nations could convince the UN to deploy troops against Israel, on behalf of the PLO, regardless of the logistics of its possibility, it would still look really, really bad diplomatically. Even though they’ve performed such actions before against Israel, they’ve never been held accountable like they will be since the Resolution passed. If it were to happen that the very organization that demands its members follow the UN Resolutions was working back-room deals to violate their own decrees, well, that level of collusion would be completely contradictory in its nature. The UN would become redundant overnight.

In fact, the only nation (and terrorist proxy group) that could really go to bat for the Palestinians is Iran and Hezbollah. And even that relationship will be tenuous (if it’s even possible) as Iran is comprised of Shia Muslims, and Palestinians are majority Sunni Muslims, embroiled in their own religious sectarian war.

As for the other usual suspects, as Alan Dershowitz previously mentioned, Iraq still hasn’t recovered from Bush era (through actions led by Obama), Egypt and Jordan are steadfast allies with Israel, Libya was destabilized, Syria’s undergoing a civil war, and Saudi Arabia is busy fighting ISIS/won’t be able to get America to do their dirty work.

Indeed, thanks to the boost of confidence they received from the previous Obama administration, they’re now officially a threat. If fact, it is questionable if another reason the Iran Deal was made was specifically to help the Palestinians as their ally in the long run.

The beautiful part about giving the Palestinians Statehood also means that any historical arguments regarding the logistics of war are then completely off the table. Should Palestine start a war with Israel (both being recognized by the UN), the outcome of that war then sets the precedent. To lose in 1967 is one thing. To lose in 2017 will be another.

It’ll be fair game, a clean slate. Not only for the evidence of previous war crimes committed by the Palestinians, but also for actual “land takeovers” and “hostage takings”.

Because you cannot pretend to be for peace and then commit acts of kidnapping, rocket launching, knifing attacks, van attacks, school bus attacks and then claim to be a victim.

And this, of course (if it happens), will only strengthen Donald’s proposal to completely ban all Muslims (rather than those from specific countries). Donald’s been wishy-washy in public about the exact requirements for the ban – first claiming that a full and complete ban would be in place until they could figure out what was going on. Then adjusting his views to include extreme vetting (albeit no contradiction in grammatical terms actually exists).

But why re-invent the wheel to keep out dangerous radicals, when Carter showed us how he did it (a guideline for Donald to follow, no doubt)?

During the hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter banned Iranian students as a result of the Iranian turmoils, an event bolstered heavily by his anti-war pacifism. If there’s an uptick in Jihadi Palestinians, Donald will be ready.

As Carter did to block Iranian immigration:

“The Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

Indeed, the past six presidents have all used the executive power to bar different classes of immigrants:

“Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The funny thing is that had Carter not gone on a crusade of pro-Palestinian advocacy, he’d be remembered as a great leader in the region.

Carter maneuvered the Israeli-Egyptian landmark peace treaty. Israel gave the Sinai peninsula back, Egypt agreed to station no soldiers in the Sinai without Israel okaying it, and Egypt and Israel both got the most military weapons and funding from the US amongst American allies. And it wasn’t even equipment that we were going to use, it was obsolete equipment that our own Army wouldn’t buy back from the paramilitary organizations we contracted out labor to!

Egypt and Israel have been peaceful since 1978, and Carter was a large part of that. And that is why Egypt “betrayed” Israel – they both have the same Palestinian problem. Israel and Egypt are allies and both have border enforcements and blockades in place against Gazan/West Bank terrorism. If Carter had understood this and not sided with the Palestinians in spirit, he would have furthered Middle Eastern relations even more!

But he didn’t, and in doing so trashed his legacy.

Funnily enough, even at the “failed” Camp David Summit, hosted by none other than Bill Clinton himself, a man Donald has raked over the coals (in every stance possible) for the last 2 years, he’s been given congratulations by Liberals and Republicans alike for at least recognizing his errors. Bill saw that the problem wasn’t the Jewish negotiating side, but the Palestinians.

In reference to Yasser Arafat congratulating him on trying at the Summit, Clinton replied, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”.

In pulling off this deal, Donald trashed the final vestiges of what remains of the legacies of Clinton, Obama, and Carter – all the while setting up the machinations to not only support his Muslim ban (should the need arise), but also to deal with the Palestinian (and by proxy, the Saudi Arabian) problem that both Israel and Egypt were having. With one phone call.

4D Chess, folks. 4D Chess.

The best part of all this? This UN mishap occurred under Obama’s administration, meaning if anything went wrong at that stage, Obama’s tenure would have been to blame.

But Donald was giving so much of himself to this deal, what did he get out of it? Why go through with it in the first place, and what were the ramifications if he didn’t?

Well, Donald’s got a strengthened relationship with a fresh “prince” of Egypt – a man who had only been in power since 2014 – himself fighting the Deep State of the Middle East.

 

Abdul al-Sissi, the “Prince” of Egypt: 

Whatever happened in their meeting, it must have been a pretty big deal for the humanitarian aid worker to be released, from a President who had formerly, and formally, stated “Aya Hegazy is a judiciary matter, as a president I don’t have the authority to intervene”.

We are very happy to have Aya back home,” President Trump remarked, “It’s a great honor to have her in the Oval Office with her brother.”

A senior administration official told the Washington Post that behind the scenes, President Trump told top aides, “I want her to come home.’ More importantly, the official said there was “no quid pro quo offered for her release,”  i.e., it was not a trade off.

However, Antony Blinken, the former deputy Secretary of State under President Obama, said thatwhile he’s pleased Hijazi has been released, he’s skeptical that al-Sissi received nothing in return for her freedom.”

 

Who is Aya Hegazy?:

Aya Hegazy (the American aid worker imprisoned for three years in an Egyptian jail) was released by Abdel Fattah al-Sissi’s government late April. The deal was brokered at the White House on April 3rd. She was released two weeks later. Her trial acquittal came on the 17th after her trial charges were dropped on the 16th.

The Background Story: On March 23, the Cairo Criminal Court adjourned the hearing of the case against the Belady Foundation for the Care of Street Children to May 21, 2016. The special committee summoned to review the evidence has claimed it was not qualified to do so. This is the sixth time the trial has been postponed. The eight defendants, including Egyptian-American Aya Hegazy and her husband, Mohamed Hassanein, have spent nearly two years in pretrial detention. They face charges ranging from running an unlicensed organization to sex trafficking and child abuse.

Basically, Aya was facing trumped up charges, and Trump lobbied al-Sissi for her release behind closed doors.

So who is al-Sissi? Al-Sissi helped orchestrate the Egyptian coup – and in the aftermath of the ousting of former President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, Egypt banned the Muslim Brotherhood and labeled the group a terrorist organization. Reasons for demanding Morsi’s resignation included accusations of increasing authoritarianism and his pushing through an Islamist agenda disregarding the predominantly secular opposition or the rule of law. Prior to Morsi, however, Hosni Mubarak had been in power for 30 years. He was ousted in the 2011 protests.

Just before the meeting, however, Trump was being criticized for giving the appearance of not taking “human rights” seriously. The New York Times said that al-Sissi’s government has persecuted “violent and nonviolent Islamist groups with equal zeal and without due process. It has maligned and harassed human rights activists, rendering their work all but impossible. And it has smothered what remains of the political opposition.” Obvious bias of the NYT aside, even Tim Kaine lobbied against Trump for better awareness of Egypt’s treatment of jailed NGO workers:

“We are alarmed by the repeated delays in the trial and verdict for Ms. Hijazi,” a bipartisan group of senators, led by Tim Kaine (D-Va.), wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. “She has been unjustly imprisoned since May 2014 and held on unsubstantiated charges related to her nonprofit’s efforts to educate and rehabilitate street children.”

This extended as far as the Middle East, where Trump was criticized for granting Sissi any kind of audience at the White House:

It was hard enough for human rights organizations to get former President Barack Obama to speak up about Hegazy’s case during his second term in office. Today, under President Trump, a man that has called the most brutal dictator in modern Egyptian history, a “fantastic guy”, Hegazy’s chances for freedom have been dashed.

As he welcomed al-Sissi to the White House, Trump unsurprisingly put aside concerns about Egypt’s human rights abuses. And so, Aya Hegazy, an American unjustly detained and blatantly persecuted by a foreign government, did not make the agenda. It seems, then, that Trump’s ‘America First’ principles are little more than empty rhetoric.

Note how this is after The Washington Post ran an op-ed in June 2016 stating that “the Obama administration was ignoring an American imprisoned in Egypt”!

 

The Secret Meeting:

Cairo appeared eager to push for a stronger bilateral relationship that it perceived would do more to benefit its interests than its strained relationship with the Obama administration.

The April 3rd meeting was publicly diagnosed in having four aims:

  1. securing U.S. support for Egypt’s counterterror interests,

  2. pressuring the United States to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization,

  3. promoting Egypt’s economic reform program, and

  4. presenting Egypt as a leading regional power.

Clandestinely, however, Al-Sissi felt the US was involved in what he refers to as the “fourth generation war”, U.S.-backed subversion intended to destroy the anti-Islamist movement within Egypt, and to relinquish control once again to Hosni Mubarak’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood forces.

Fourth-generation warfare, Sissi once explained to cadets at Egypt’s military academy, occurs when “modern communication channels, psychology and the media are . . . deployed to create divisions and harm Egypt from within,” according to the website Mada Masr.

The reason why Aya Hegazy was jailed under al-Sissi’s reign is because she was pro-Muslim Brotherhood (which is not good), working against al-Sissi’s anti-Islamist agenda. This is why al-Sissi didn’t want to release her.

Aya Hegazi was attempting to give “street children” a better life. She was attempting to lift children living in poverty out of their socio-economic class, something that is taboo in the Middle East.

It has long been known that the entirety of the Middle East has been a huge boon to human trafficking. Muslims literally invented the slave trade down in Africa.

Aya was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time…but how does “fourth-generation warfare” work exactly?

 

“The Press Is The Enemy”:

Donald has long decried the “all-talk, no-action politicians” of yesteryear, therefore his fulfillment of proving a solution to al-Sissi’s aforementioned Palestinian/UN problem meant that Egypt could now re-establish diplomatic ties on better terms, with a base level of trustworthiness between the two.

In Egypt, after two revolutions, there’s an information war going on for their minds, and it affects Americans too! The Washington Post and the New York Times are usually a conduit in “determining” the outlook on the Middle Eastern region.

“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” [Rhodes] said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — ”

I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. “I’ll say, ‘Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,’ ” he continued, “In fact it’s a sign of strength!”

“And I’ll give them some color,” Price continued, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”

This is something different from old-fashioned spin, which tended to be an art best practiced in person. In a world where experienced reporters competed for scoops and where carrying water for the White House was a cause for shame, no matter which party was in power, it was much harder to sustain a “narrative” over any serious period of time. Now the most effectively weaponized 140-character idea or quote will almost always carry the day, and it is very difficult for even good reporters to necessarily know where the spin is coming from or why.

The reason why the Deep State wants Egypt so badly is because it serves a crucial strategic role within the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Al-Sissi has positioned himself as a bulwark against religious extremism and as a strong leader who can maintain stability in Egypt, even as neighboring countries like Libya, Yemen, and Syria have collapsed under civil wars fueled by foreign intervention. On the other hand, the importance of Egypt’s relations with the Gulf allies should not be understated, as the security of the Gulf region is a part of Egypt’s as well.

For Trump, time is of the essence because in November 2016, when Obama was still President, Egypt signed a three-year $12 billion agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that aimed to help the country achieve macroeconomic stability and promote inclusive growth. Egypt has also been negotiating funding agreements to fulfill its ambitious commitments in the IMF program with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and other G8 member countries.

According to The Nation, “the economy is on the brink of collapse, with skyrocketing inflation, massive debt, and austerity measures that recently helped secure a stringent new IMF loan”.

But that’s not to say that Egypt is only having problems outside its borders or within its economy, they’ve plenty of problems with jihadi violence right at home.

For example, al-Sissi and his government are major targets of ISIS-related terrorist attempts. Cairo has been battling militants in the Sinai since 2013; in late 2014, the militant group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis pledged loyalty to ISIS. Days later in Amman, Jordan, at the 28th Arab summit, al-Sissi (having already faced enough plots to round up 292 conspirators) called for a “comprehensive” approach – religious reformation.

Whether such reformation is possible is another story, but come to thing of it, the only ones who have a problem with al-Sissi are literal terrorists:

“We’re giving $1.5bn to an autocrat who has killed thousands of people, who has imprisoned tens of thousands of people, including Americans,” said Mohamed Soltan, an American who was jailed in Egypt for nearly two years. “We’re here to shed light on their plight.”

“We need to tell the world what kind of man Trump is bringing to the White House,” Soltan, who was jailed after attending a sit-in against Morsi’s removal in Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya square, told Al Jazeera.

Hundreds of people were killed as security forces dispersed the protest on August 14, 2013. Soltan’s father, a Muslim Brotherhood official, was also arrested and imprisoned.

Mass trials have since been held for thousands of Brotherhood supporters [when someone is a “Brotherhood supporter, they’re literally ISIS”], and hundreds have received death sentences or lengthy prison terms.

No wonder Trump was able to strike a deal with al-Sissi, both are under constant threat of islamist extremism!

But now that Aya’s free, her saga is mostly over.

What remains is why Trump was able to orchestrate what he did at that time.

In later leaving for his trip to the Middle East, as well as simply not tweeting out derision against Fake News, he gave the liberal media enough rope to hang themselves. Each and every day the media rails against Trump, more and more people feel they’re being unfair against the President unconditionally.

This, however, wouldn’t be the first time a President railed against the media machine. The difference is that when JFK was railing against the Press, he was actually congratulating them. JFK was the Obama of his time, charming and beloved – they also covered up his sexual impropriety.

JFK knew the media was in his pocket given how hard he defended Nixon from the very same liberal slurs that could have befallen him:

“You have no idea what he’s been through. Dick Nixon is the victim of the worst press that ever hit a politician in this country. What they did to him in the Helen Gahagan Douglas race was disgusting.”

Unfortunately, in their haste to feel smug and superior, the liberal media is finally pushing out their last memo from the Deep State – to fire Kushner and blame Ivanka. It’s not because of the “Russian connection”, but because Trump consensually made him out to be his political pinata. Specifically, Donald left Kushner in charge of the “Israel-Palestine” peace-process, and since the Israel-Palestine peace process is considered the bulwark of the interventionist, globalist, Deep State, ShareBlue has had an initiative to get rid of Jared at all costs.

The “problem” is that Trump’s detractors don’t realize that once again, they’re playing into his hands.

As a member of the president’s family, Kushner had to retain a law firm to navigate him through potential legal obstacles to working for his father-in-law– specifically, an anti-nepotism law which states that “a public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.”

But his legal counsel, WilmerHale, concluded last month that precedent was laid for Kushner by Trump’s former rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won a court case in the 1990s in her fight to chair a national task force on health care reform for her husband, then-president Bill Clinton. That case found that existing law bans appointments to agencies and departments, but not within the White House itself.

Indeed, by focusing on a non-existent Russian connection, by focusing on the son-in-law’s identity as a Jew (which is actually somewhat racist – the idea that only a Jew could solve the problem), he’s buying time he doesn’t even need to once again solve problems behind closed doors.

Since he started planning for Middle Eastern peace in September, took the beginning steps in December, and went head-on in April, he’d laid the framework before he’d even left America for his “goodwill” tour between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

People keep assuming things that are valuable to them are valuable to Trump. In harping on his “legacy in the making”, in slandering him for a Russia connection, they fail to realize that Trump doesn’t necessarily have the same goals as everyone else. His primary goal is to “fight for the American people”.

Either way, it looks like this is the continuation of a beautiful friendship.

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]