Breaking: ‘Complete Panic’ at Highest Levels of DNC Over Kim DotCom’s Seth Rich Announcement
Saturday, an anonymous person who works in Washington DC, alleged on 4Chan’s /pol/ subgroup that high-ranking current and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation.
Is it because Seth Rich, murdered in DC on July 11th of 2016, was possibly involved? DC police concluded the killing was due to a failed robbery though apparently no property was taken from the completely unarmed Rich, who was shot in the back twice.
This comes after internet entrepreneur and hacker, Kim DotCom, admitted on Saturday that he was part of an operation along with Seth Rich to get stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks.
Wait. Didn’t Julian Assange tell us, last year, that the Russians were not involved in bringing the hacked emails to Wikileaks? From the January 3rd, 2017 DailyUKMail.com:
Assange says he is ‘1,000% confident’ that Russia was NOT the source for hacked Democratic emails which were published by WikiLeaks
by Thomas Burrows
Julian Assange claimed Barack Obama is ‘trying to delegitimize Donald Trump’
Reiterated his claims Russia was not behind hacks during presidential election
Emails stolen from DNC and Clinton’s campaign chairman were published online
But Assange said ‘source is not Russian government and it is not a state party’
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said Barack Obama is ‘trying to delegitimize the Trump administration’ by claiming the Russian government hacked Democrats’ emails during the bitter presidential election.
Assange, whose interview with Sean Hannity will air on Fox News tonight, also reiterated his claims that Russia was not the source of the hacks.
He told Hannity ‘with a thousand per cent’ confidence that the Russian government was not responsible for emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.
Private investigator Rod Wheeler, a former DC Homicide detective himself, revealed last week that evidence suggests Seth Rich had contact with Wikileaks prior to his murder, to the tune of 44,000 emails.
— Based Monitored ?? (@BasedMonitored) May 16, 2017
With that in mind, these two points.
The anonymous post released Saturday reads:
“Anons, I work in D.C.
I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current and former Democratic Party officials.
This is the reason why they have backed away from impeachment talk. They know the smoking gun is out there, and they’re terrified you will find it, because when you do it will bring the entire DNC, along with a couple of very big name politicians.
It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks. Podesta saying he wanted to “make an example of the leaker” is a huge smoking gun.”
Backed away from impeachment talk? Yes, there is some evidence of that. Then this post as well.
“The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate danger.
If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone.
I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned. He’s been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with Hillary.”
You decide for yourself. But I’m not ignoring the story.
Kim Dotcom Offers Congress Evidence to Prove Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks Source
by Cassandra Fairbanks
Megaupload founder and friend of Julian Assange has offered to provide Congress with written testimony and proof that murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was WikiLeaks’ source — if they will include his murder in their Russia investigation.
Kim Dotcom has also now claimed that he was involved in the leak — and that he personally knew Rich.
“Curiouser and curiouser,” it is.
“If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I’ll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @Wikileaks source,” Dotcom tweeted on Friday.
Dotcom also accused the DNC of withholding their servers from the FBI because “Seth Rich ain’t Russia!”
Even more curious is this.
In a bizarre and aggressive statement following Wheeler’s report, Brad Bauman, the spokesman for the Rich family, who just so happens to be a Democratic Party crisis PR consultant, claims that even if an email [to WikiLeaks] was found, it would not be evidence of foul play.
Right. Because Rich sending DNC emails to Wikileaks would, overall, tend to greatly please the DNC and Demorats of all stripes. What. The. Hell.
“Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we’ve seen that those interested in pushing conspiracies will stop at nothing to do so,” Bauman said in a statement.
Seven words for the Rich family: let’s just see how this plays out. My guess is that you are Demorats and you don’t wish this to be true in any fashion whatsoever. Understandable. I Grok your wishes. But they may be wrong.
Police Never Asked For Surveillance Video From Bar Seth Rich Was Last Spotted Hours Before His Murder
by Cristina Laila
On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.
TGP recently reported that according to Public Incident Report CCN #16113797 dated July 10, 2016 by the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, former DNC employee and the leaker of emails to WikiLeaks, Seth Rich was alive when the police found him on that date. He died later that morning. The report also notes that Rich was conscious and breathing with gunshot wounds to his back when the police found him. The report also notes that at least three of the police at the scene wore body cameras that night.
FOIA request for the cam footage. Except:
The video from the body cameras has gone missing.
Curious, eh wot?
A manager of the Washington, D.C., bar where Democratic National Committee worker Seth Rich was last spotted hours before he was shot and killed last summer told WND that D.C. police officers never interviewed the bar’s staff or requested any evidence from the bar, including the bar’s surveillance video from that night, as part of an investigation into Rich’s murder.
The revelation backs up a claim made by a private investigator who worked on the case who said D.C. police were told to “stand down” on the investigation.
Why wouldn’t police investigate the last public place Seth Rich was seen before he was murdered? Surveillance footage could give a lot of clues such as was Seth Rich followed out of the bar? Was he in a heated exchange with anyone there? Was he on his phone? Was he wearing the same clothes he was later found in?
Those are all logical questions that any competent homicide detective would be asking. Of note for this post in terms of future revelations:
On Thursday, Dotcom provided a list of surveillance cameras that were near the Rich crime scene, which should have been able to offer at least a rough glance at the perpetrator.
If more is unearthed and the murder of Seth Rich somehow points back to the DNC or the Demorats?
As with many things in politics, you have to possess the ability to read between the lines. A new story from the WaPo made me conduct such an examination.
Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia has compromising information on president-elect
by Greg Miller
A classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump last week included a section summarizing allegations that Russian intelligence services have compromising material and information on Trump’s personal life and finances, U.S. officials said.
The officials said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not corroborated those allegations, but believed that the sources involved in the reporting were credible enough to warrant inclusion of their claims in the highly classified report on Russian interference in the presidential campaign.
If true, the information suggests that Moscow has assembled damaging information — known in espionage circles by the Russian term “kompromat” — that conceivably could be used to coerce the next occupant of the White House. The claims were presented in a two-page summary attached to the full report, an addendum that also included allegations of ongoing contact between members of Trump’s inner circle and representatives of Moscow.
I recommend you read the rest of the article. The information being revealed between the lines of the story indicates, to me, a rocky road coming for President-elect Trump.
Some history, then a conclusion.
It’s no surprise that I remain skeptical concerning the “Russian hacking” of the American election, resulting in the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Demorats tried throwing every excuse imaginable onto the political wall in order to see what would stick, to include recounts for Hillary Clinton under the pretext of their being for Jill Stein, talk radio and Fox News, the Electoral College, FBI Director James Comey, misogyny on the part of females (of all things), and fake news — to encompass the Drudge Report, which is nothing more than an aggregator of news and frequently features sites such as CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, LA Times and more. If Drudge is “fake” then most certainly those other outlets are as well. They have also been saying “Russia Russia Russia” every day since November 8th.
The corollary glory of it all is that, particularly with regard to fake news, much of it has blossomed in the other direction. Time and again the true purveyors of fake news have been proven to be the American Media Maggots and not alternative news sources. The AMM have lost their “gatekeeper” status and desperately seek to lock it back up. They are quaking and frightened to their very core because they are losing control and cash.
That said, the theme that somehow Russia hacked the election and not only favored but enabled Donald Trump to win has its proponents and its detractors. Proponents would obviously include Hillary Clinton, Demorats and the American Media Maggots because, in their minds, it certainly had nothing to do with the quality of the candidate herself or the way the campaign was managed.
Detractors or skeptics would include myself and, well, a few other tens of thousands of persons.
First, I developed information from one source (corroborated by a similar intelligence source on the opposite coast) that the NSA was responsible (read here please) for the hacks, and this was supported by Judge Andrew Napolitano — from HRC’s mishandling of GAMMA class intelligence. Read this.
Then Julian Assange (he of Wikileaks creation) came out and straight-up stated that Russia was not connected to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta’s emails at all. Assange, being the recipient of the trove of materials should, one may conclude, know. The release of the information appealed to Assange because, after all, Hillary Rodham Clinton stated she would like to have had him killed with a drone strike. That would certainly seem sufficient to take HRC off Assange’s Christmas card list.
Now they are responsible. The party line is that “17 intelligence agencies say Russia was the source.” With, again, little or no clear evidence to back up the claims.
There was another person along the way with a healthy skepticism about the Russians being involved in the DNC hack and the hacking of the US presidential election. Donald Trump.
The meme is that the CIA, the DNI and the rest of the US Intelligence Community would not politicize intelligence except that, well, yes they would. And have. All the time. This is not finger-pointing at the line-level agents, processors or analysts. This is finger-pointing at the upper echelons of the Intelligence Community. As in: they decide what information to release to those who base policy and decisions upon intelligence take.
It’s no secret that Donald Trump has angered the lofty halls of the US Intelligence Community. They don’t care to have their character or their veracity questioned or second-guessed.
So Tuesday’s WaPo article — which contained, they admit, much speculation and little fact, could be a cautionary tale, a little sub-frequency IC message to President-elect Donald Trump: you’re in our gunsights.
One has to think that the source of whatever information “Russia may possess” about Trump personally could be the USIC itself.
Charles Krauthammer said on Tuesday:
“When you get these spy-vs-spy leaks, you can’t believe anybody because they’re all lying and that’s what they do for a living, so you never know which side is lying. But I think that the very fact this story has surfaced, is a way for the CIA to be telling Trump: you mess with us, we have a lot of information we can mess with you.”
As the grandmother once said on the commercial, “where’s the beef?” I ask: where’s the evidence?
I have seen nothing concrete. Nor do I see any agreement. It’s simplicity itself to constantly bleat “the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” if you’re a Leftist, Demorat or the American Media Maggots. But are they really?
Let’s first hearken back to what Barack Hussein Obama said to Mitt Romney in 2012 concerning the Russians, thanks to Patrick Dollard.
Since that time much has happened. The GOP winnowed itself from sixteen candidates down to one, Donald Trump. The Demorats from three serious candidates to one, Hillary Clinton.
On November 8th, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States, taking 306 electors to Clinton’s 232. This was confirmed on Monday, December 19, by taking all 270 electors required. Only six electors (instead of the “minimum of 37” promised) jumped electoral ship. But here’s the rub: four Democratic electors voted for someone other than Clinton, while two Republicans voted for someone other than Trump. Bottom line: the “elector revolt” hurt Clinton more than it hurt Trump.
In the roughly six weeks since the election, electors themselves have been threatened with death, injury, pressured, intimidated, had their personal information and addresses posted on the internet in order to sway a decision that was made over a month prior.
Now it would appear people want electors can be “lobbied” if you will, their votes influenced and — thanks to Michael Moore — purchased. Hillary Clinton actually lost more electors than Trump. Still, this sets a grim precedent. Leftists now insist that a small section of “very wise” or “very moral” persons should make the decisions.
I always ask: do the reverse. What would be happening now if Hillary had won the election and Trump supporters were acting in the same precise fashion as Clinton backers? There would be never-ending declarations of Brown Shirts and fascism.
More Leftists acted out regards the electors.
Then, as I said, let the Leftist cheating, hatred, violence and riots commence. I was not disappointed. As opposed to what the “fake news” said on the Left, 95% of the violence, burning and riots occurred at the veritable hands of the Left. The American Media Maggots did their level best to ignore or minimize this blatant fact.
Then came the demand for recounts, the declaration of “fake news,” the threat of electors turning and, of course, the Russians hacking the crap out of and influencing the election itself.
Let us go back in time, shall we, as evidenced and corroborated by the Mark I, Model I BZ Brain Housing Group (aided and abetted by Mr Gore’s internet) and examine the article that started it all, the December 9th story by the WashingtonPost.com:
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima & Greg Miller
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
This is the same consensus view mandating “global warming” to be real though, in truth, there is in fact no consensus.
Let me please state the obvious regarding the above WaPo story. This is a second-hand report from people whose identities are being shielded, describing what the CIA supposedly concluded and “laundering” it, if you will, through the WaPo. There is no evidence whatsoever provided or linked to these assertions and allegations. We know the CIA has no claim to having cornered the candor market, their duties in the past have been to disseminate disinformation.
What of the statement given by James Clapper on video where he was proven to have baldly lied to Congress and the American public?
James Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence and the boss of CIA Director John Brennan. This bespeaks volumes to me about the status of our intelligence community.
Leftists are saying that people who don’t believe the account of an account, unverified and with no evidence, are unpatriotic stooges for Russia and Vladimir Putin.
We apparently forget the much-vaunted “Russian Reset” promoted by Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Taylor Armerding writes:
President Obama declared early in his first term that he could have a productive relationship with Russia.
In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — you remember her, she was the most recent Democratic nominee for president — famously presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a “reset button.”
She said it “represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is, ‘We want to reset our relationship.’ And so we will do it together.”
A few months later, the liberal news blog ThinkProgress declared that “the turnaround in US-Russian relations is a huge foreign policy accomplishment for the president.” Apparently it was unseemly to mention the Russian invasion of Georgia just a year earlier.
So don’t hand me the standard Leftist “occurs in a vacuum” shite about Obama and his sycophants. Let’s also remember this contact between Obama and Russian President Medvedev in 2012:
Then, in 2012, Obama was overheard telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on things like missile defense after he was re-elected. Interesting that he was telling a Russian leader that he would win the election.
Medvedev assured Obama that he would pass this information along to the incoming president, Vladimir Putin.
Indeed, Obama in particular and Democrats in general haven’t had any qualms about “working with” the most brutal dictators in the world.
That was Obama being conciliatory and amenable to working with the Russians.
Was it not also, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton who allowed Russia to acquire a controlling share of US uranium for the betterment of the Clinton Foundation? Even the NYTimes wrote:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Call me wacky, but that sounds like not only a tad bit of corruption but Russia favoritism as well. As per normal, I could be horribly wrong.
GOOD then and somehow magically bad NOW? Perfectly fine to work with and praise Castro? Venezuela’s Chavez and Maduro? What about the smoochies slathered upon Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani? Pallet upon pallet, literally billions of dollars of cash delivered from the back of a US cargo plane in the dead of night to the Iranian leaders — something right out of a Tom Clancy novel? Obama’s all good with that. Now only Vladimir Putin is a “bad actor”?
Tucker Carson had a wonderful tete-a-tete with a professor over evidence of Russian hacking of the election who, essentially sums up his evidence solely as “I have said it, now it must be true.” As in: he had no evidence whatsoever. Please listen:
Is it impossible that Russia tried to hack the US? Of course not. Nations hack each other, these days, all the time. But where is the innate curiosity of the American Media Maggots who simply took the CIA at their word (as they seldom did in the past) and ran downfield with the ball? Did any of the American Media Maggot brands ask or, better yet, demand an accounting of the CIA for the report? Demand citations, evidence, names, sources, dates? No. I repeat: no. It fit their narrative about Donald Trump. So it stood.
“The 1980s want their foreign policy back” as documented in the video above? Really, Mr Obama? Leftists? That’s all you’ve got? This, remember, is the Obama who purposely did not arm anti-Russian factions in Ukraine, cooperated with Putin in Syria, ad nauseum.
Why has Putin emerged as the existential threat against the United States, that he is our arch-enemy now? Aren’t Obama and Demorats the same people who have been dovish and not hawkish on war and conflict in the past? Why Russia, why now?
What happened to “common ground” with Russia? What happened to embracing “glasnost”? What happened to America under Obama saying we will become the most respected nation on the planet?
Who may have been responsible for the Wikileaks emails acquired from HRC, Podesta and the DNC? Are we absolutely certain it’s “the Russians”?
Obama Crushes Conspiracy: No Evidence that Russia Tampered with Votes in Election
by Charlie Spiering
President Barack Obama emphatically denounced the conspiracy theory saying Russians successfully tampered with the American voting process.
I suggested it may have been the NSA. They had excellent reasons for doing so: dead personnel. I’m not the only one suggesting this; so did Judge Andrew Napolitano and other persons I’ve spoken to with intelligence contacts.
Further, didn’t the FBI itself say the Russians were not involved, as I wrote here — courtesy of the NY Times on October 31st?
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
by Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers
WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
A British diplomat, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, also says the Russians are not responsible. From TruthFeed.com:
British Diplomat “I’ve Met The Wikileaks Informant and They’re NOT Russian”
by Amy Moreno
Craig Murry is a former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and an associate of Assange.
I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
What of Julian Assange himself? What has he said about the “leaks”? From the UKDailyMail.com:
Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange goes on the offensive over claims Russia was behind Clinton email hack, saying Kremlin is NOT its source
by Alana Goodman
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has flatly rejected U.S. intelligence claims that his organization received leaked Clinton emails from the Russian government
He says the allegations are part of a ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’ effort by Democrats to overturn Donald Trump’s election victory
Said group has a strict policy against commenting on sources, but he wanted to dispute allegations Wikileaks was involved in a Russian-orchestrated campaign
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flatly rejected U.S. intelligence claims that his organization received leaked Clinton emails from the Russian government, saying the allegations are part of a ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’ effort by Democrats to overturn Donald Trump’s election victory.
‘Our source is not the Russian government,’ Assange told Sean Hannity on his radio show on Thursday, in his first U.S. interview since the election. ‘We have U.S. intelligence saying that say they know how we got our stuff and when we got it, and us saying we didn’t get it from a state.’
Assange said his group has a strict policy against commenting on its sources, but he wanted to dispute allegations that Wikileaks was involved in a Russian-orchestrated campaign to swing the election for Donald Trump.
Then there is this, a little-referenced article from TheNation.com:
Amazon, ‘The Washington Post’ and That $600 MIllion CIA Contract
by Greg Mitchell
It has been a tough few weeks for The Washington Post.
It’s been a rough couple days for The Washington Post.Word emerged that hackers invaded its internal system—for a few days, no less—all of its staffers had to change their passwords as the company tried to figure out how much data had been compromised.
Meanwhile, a petition campaign was launched related to news that Amazon, under the Post’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA.
Read that over again: the Washington Post, publisher of the article that gave the “Russian hack” meme legs for the Demorats, is in financial league with the CIA by way of the WaPo’s owner, Jeff Bezos.
Jeff Bezos is also a “good little Leftist” whose job it is to support by any means necessary the Demorats and Leftists of all stripes, to carry their water and their messages.
That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a “private cloud” for the CIA to use for its data needs.
Well now. It didn’t. Nor was there any mention of this fact in their original article. That wasn’t an “oopsie” or a “mistake;” it was purposeful.
In a statement released by the Institute for Public Accuracy, media writer/author Robert McChesney observes:
When the main shareholder in one of the very largest corporations in the world benefits from a massive contract with the CIA on the one hand, and that same billionaire owns the Washington Post on the other hand, there are serious problems. The Post is unquestionably the political paper of record in the United States, and how it covers governance sets the agenda for the balance of the news media. Citizens need to know about this conflict of interest in the columns of the Post itself.
If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”
What do you think? Is that not sufficient motivation to have the CIA do your bidding?
Let’s not lose sight of the bottom line. None of this would have occurred or been an issue had the Demorats, DNC and Hillary Rotten Clinton not been corrupt and rotten to the core.
Russia hacking the election — Russia influencing the election? Provide the clear evidence and the proof.
I speak to certain people now and then, and certain people have told me that the Russians — as Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump — are not behind the Wikileaks email releases from John Podesta.
This past week another individual with whom I spoke and who has “contacts” as well, indicated he was told the NSA was responsible, due to HRC’s careless mishandling of the most sensitive intelligence possible — of that GAMMA nature — which, in turn, was responsible for the loss of life.
Steve Pieczenik (who has a doctorate from MIT in international relations, is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Dr Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker, and whom I featured in the previous post) likewise indicates the Russians were not responsible for the Wikileaks emails.
CONFIRMED: US INTEL OPERATIVES LEAKED CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS, NOT RUSSIA
Insiders attempting to save America from Hillary presidency
It’s now clear from numerous sources that the Podesta hack, which led to Wikileaks releasing tens of thousands of Clinton campaign emails, as well as other hacks targeting the Democratic Party, were the work of U.S. intelligence operatives attempting to save America from a Clinton presidency.
The Clinton campaign has repeatedly insinuated that Russian agents were responsible for the release of the emails, but the reality is far different.
The hackers were concerned individuals who were alarmed at Hillary Clinton’s rampant corruption and mishandling of classified material as far back as 2009, when officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) became aware of violations of record keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.
This is backed up by former British ambassador Craig Murray, who was told by security insiders that the email leak “comes from within official circles in Washington DC.”
This is most telling:
“Hillary has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material,” (NSA whistleblower William) Binney said. “That is the most sensitive material at NSA.”
A phrase comes to mind now; something about “reaping” and “sowing.”
The third in a continuing series of videos from James O’Keefe of Project Veritas — the same individual whose videos ended up shutting down and eradicating the biased and corrupt group ACORN.
Nice to know that some of these loving persons were fired or otherwise removed from their positions — but only after being caught on video. This also confirms by way of Bob Creamer: Hillary Clinton was personally involved.
Voter fraud? What voter fraud? Remember, Hillary Rodham Clinton wants you Proles, Groundlings, Serfs and Commoners to be “an unaware and compliant citizenry.”
The truth? When the fix is in, the American Media Maggots are corrupt, the FBI is corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt, the Department of State is corrupt, your entire federal government is corrupt — who’s next? Jump on in, the betrayal of the American people is just fine.
At this point:
Hey, treachery must have some good points after all, right?
You bet. Money and power. Ask Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But instead, by insiders at the DNC.Kim Dotcom Offers Congress Evidence to Prove Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks Source
If more is unearthed and the murder of Seth Rich somehow points back to the DNC or the Demorats?
As with many things in politics, you have to possess the ability to read between the lines. A new story from the WaPo made me conduct such an examination.
As the grandmother once said on the commercial, “where’s the beef?” I ask: where’s the evidence?
I suggested it 
Proven by