Connect with us

News

Assange Stopped From Releasing Source Of Leaked Emails After Comey Showed Up And Ended Him

Trump was right!

Published

on

Julian Assange said – “Opponents past and present have the same essential weakness about them: first they want to use you, then they want to be you, then they want to snuff you out.”

It seems that Assange knew what he was talking about. The prelude leading up to one of the most devastating intelligence leaks in American history is nothing less than astounding. The unmasking of the CIA’s arsenal of cyber warfare weapons last year by Wikileaks has a backstory in which none other than disgraced former FBI director James Comey plays a starring role – as the villain.

John Solomon of The Hill, revealed a supporting cast of characters are some names many know due to the fallout from the phony Russian collusion scandal – Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Department of Justice (DOJ) official – Bruce Ohr, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and American attorney Adam Waldman.

Solomon dropped the bombshell that a “stand down” order given by Comey to kill an imminent deal between the US Government and Julian Assange preceded the largest leak in CIA history, known as “Vault 7.” It seems that Assange was actually willing to redact the names of CIA employees. He also offered to provide technical evidence which would rule out “certain parties” like Russia for instance, in the DNC email leak.

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

The combined efforts of all involved resulted in the drafting of a limited immunity deal that might have temporarily freed the WikiLeaks founder from a London embassy where he has been exiled for years, according to interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators. Read the draft immunity deal proffer that the Justice Department was considering for Assange here.

Comey killed any and all advanced negotiations with Assange and Wikileaks that would have safeguarded the lives of CIA agents who are now at risk. He also lost the opportunity to provide crucial key evidence in the ongoing Russian investigation, on purpose it seems. Apparently, Comey was not interested in the truth and he did not want anyone else to have it either and it seems he did not care if lives were endangered as a result.

An unexpected intervention by Comey killed the entire deal. That intervention was relayed through Warner soured the negotiations and as a result of Comey’s actions, Assange then chose to unleash a series of leaks that CIA officials claim damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.

The drama began to unfold in January of 2017 when Assange’s legal team approached D.C. lobbyist Adam Waldman to reach out and see if anyone in the Trump administration would negotiate with the WikiLeaks founder. Waldman was known for his connections, and especially with regards to his direct links to the Clintons. Waldman was also known for previously acting as an intermediary from 2009 – 2011 between Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and the FBI in searching for a retired FBI agent captured in Iran. In return, the FBI rewarded Deripaska by granting him entry to the United States after years of being banned.

Waldman was asked to work for Assange pro-bono, which he agreed to do. They hoped Waldman, a former Clinton Justice Department official, might be able to successfully navigate the U.S. law enforcement bureaucracy and find the right people to engage.

Assange also had an ace in the hole, a bargaining chip if you will in the form of a massive trove of CIA technical documents known as “Vault 7,” which detailed the agency’s massive cyber-warfare arsenal. Assange’s team then made contact. Waldman reached out to DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Ohr would later be demoted in December 2017 for his failure to disclose his previous interactions and secret meetings with Fusion GPS founder, Glenn Simpson.

Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, was hired by Fusion GPS as part of the ongoing opposition research effort against the Trump campaign. Fusion is also the same company that produced the now infamous 35-page “Steele Dossier” written by former M16 spy Christopher Steele.

Waldman also promised Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) access to Steele in late March of 2017. The deal ended up falling through weeks later after Steele got cold feet. Waldman is in deep with the deep-state as a go-between or a middleman of sorts. Waldman and Ohr would meet in person on Feb. 3, 2017, in Washington. Waldman and Assange met three times in London.

OhrWaldman Text Messages by JohnSolomon on Scribd

Zero Hedge reports

“After Assange made clear that he would be open to redactions at most to protect the names of exposed officials, Ohr took Assange’s offer up the chain of command at the DOJ – which by and large held Assange in contempt.

Although the intelligence community reviled Assange for the damage his past releases caused, officials “understood any visibility into his thinking, any opportunity to negotiate any redactions, was in the national security interest and worth taking,” says a senior official involved at the time. –The Hill

(To reiterate, James Comey killed a deal that would have protected CIA officials in the line of duty and ostensibly ruled out Russia in the election leaks.)

After Ohr ran Assange’s offer up the flagpole, the DOJ assigned federal prosecutor David Laufman – an accomplished prosecutor and then-head of the DOJ’s counterintelligence and export controls section.

Waldman, Assange’s lobbyist, then contacted Laufman – where he laid out the groundwork for a deal that would grant Assange limited immunity and a one-time “safe passage” to leave the London embassy and talk with US officials.

The shuttle diplomacy soon resulted in an informal offer — known in government parlance as a “Queen for a Day” proffer — in which Assange identified what he wanted and what he might give. –The Hill

Laufman also “put an offer on the table from the intelligence community to help Assange assess how some hostile foreign powers might be infiltrating or harming WikiLeaks staff.”

Amid the negotiations, and perhaps to show the US government that he was serious, Assange released his first Vault 7 leak on March 7, 2017 – around 8,000 pages of documents concerning the CIA’s cyber weapons. The talks continued since US officials were very concerned about the remainder of Assange’s leaks.

“Dear David, I relayed our conversations to Assange and he had a generally positive view of it,” Waldman wrote Laufman in mid-March.

The shuttle diplomacy soon resulted in an informal offer — known in government parlance as a “Queen for a Day” proffer — in which Assange identified what he wanted and what he might give. –The Hill

Three weeks later on March 28, 2017, Waldman wrote Laufman with an advanced offer: “Subject to adequate and binding protections, including but not limited to an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement, Mr. Assange welcomes the opportunity to discuss with the U.S. government risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA documents in WikiLeaks’ possession or control, such as the redaction of agency personnel in hostile jurisdictions and foreign espionage risks to WikiLeaks staff.”

Assange was also willing to discuss technical evidence which would rule out certain parties in the DNC leaks during the 2016 election – which the US Government believes were hacked by Russia – a charge Assange denies.

“Mr. Assange offered to provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases,” Waldman told The Hill’s Solomon. “Finally, he offered his technical expertise to the U.S. government to help address what he perceived as clear flaws in security systems that led to the loss of the U.S. cyber weapons program.”

Inside Justice and the intelligence community, confidence grew that perhaps the mercurial Assange might adapt how he released classified information.

“As we give continued consideration to the substance of your proposed proffer, please clarify a procedural point,” Laufman wrote Waldman in early April. The government wanted to know if Assange’s demand for “safe passage” meant him coming to America, or just leaving the London embassy for meetings there.

What U.S. officials did not fully comprehend was that an earlier event weighed heavily on the Assange team’s distrust of U.S. intentions. –The Hill

Several days after the negotiations with Assange began, Warner reached out to Senator Warner to see if Senate Intelligence Committee staff desired any contact with Assange as part of their investigations.

Warner then reached out to James Comey – who ordered a stand-down.

“He told me he had just talked with Comey and that, while the government was appreciative of my efforts, my instructions were to stand down, to end the discussions with Assange,” Waldman told The Hill.

In disbelief at the news, Waldman went back to Laufman – who said: “You are not standing down and neither am I.”

Waldman couldn’t believe a U.S. senator and the FBI chief were sending a different signal, so he went back to Laufman, who assured him the negotiations were still on. “What Laufman said to me after he heard I was told to ‘stand down’ by Warner and Comey was, ‘That’s bullshit. You are not standing down and neither am I,’” Waldman recalled.

A source familiar with Warner’s interactions says the senator’s contact on the Assange matter was limited and was shared with Senate Intelligence chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). But the source acknowledges that  Warner consulted Comey and passed along the “stand down” instructions to Waldman: “That did happen.” –The Hill

And with that, Assange got cold feet and backed out of the deal – releasing the entire “Vault 7” trove of information for which the DOJ just indicted former CIA computer engineer, Joshua Adam Schulte. And the rest is history.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.