BREAKING: Julian Assange Granted Ecuadorian Passport – Reports

Assange’s ID was issued on December 21, Ecuadorian outlet El Universo reports, citing “reliable sources” and providing the civil registry number to check on the government website.

Julian Assange Calls Out CBS Lies, Offers The ‘Oligarchs’ $100K if They Can Prove Their Claim

Showing how big of a lie CBS News was pushing, Julian Assange has offered them $100,000 to show any evidence of their alleged WikiLeaks aided Trump.

Assange Blasts Clinton's "Constant Lying" Over Claim Wikileaks Is "Subsidiary Of Russian Intelligence"

Julian Assange accused Hillary Clinton of “constant lying” and displaying a “cold creepiness” after the former US presidential candidate accused Wikileaks of being a front for Russian intelligence during interviews with British and Australian media last week, Russia Today reported.

Clinton, who has sat for interviews with media outlets in several different countries over the past week as the global leg of her book tour for “What Happened” began, described the organization that Assange founded as part of a “concerted operation” between Russia, Wikileaks and “people in the United States” – likely an oblique reference to the Trump campaign.

“It is not just her constant lying,” Assange tweeted on Monday. “It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.”

“Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”

WikiLeaks has a pristine record for accuracy. HRC is not a credible person. The primary cause of her downfall was her own Machiavellian scheme to elevate Mr. Trump ("Pied Piper").

Our last Russian expose was three weeks ago. https://t.co/MGa1z99vVU https://t.co/He4vgLIKBW

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) October 15, 2017

Hillary Clinton claimed in an interview with one Australian news program that Assange colluded with the Russian government to obtain and publish emails stolen from the DNC in the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election.

“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said.

“WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

“I think that their intention, coming from the very top with Putin, was to hurt me and to help [then-presidential hopeful Donald] Trump,” she said.

“Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism,” Clinton said.

“If he’s such a martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia? You don’t see damaging, negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks,” she added.

According to Clinton, Assange was motivated by a personal dislike of her stemming from her role as secretary of state, when the Obama administration cracked down on Wikileaks after it published sensitive government cables. Of course, Clinton has made similar accusations about Putin, whom she claims developed a hatred for her after she encouraged anti-Putin protests in 2009.  

“I had a lot of history with him because I was secretary of state when WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive information from our State Department and our Defense Department,” she said.

For what it’s worth, Assange has repeatedly denied having any connection with Russia, and has even offered to turn over conclusive evidence that Russia wasn’t Wikileaks’ source for the hacked DNC emails – in exchange for a presidential pardon. However, nobody in the administration has considered his offer, according to a member of Congress who’s tried to help broker the deal.

Assange has been in hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2011. Even though Sweden dropped sex crime charges against Assange earlier this year, he has remained in the embassy for fear of being arrested by the US for publishing classified material through Wikileaks.  
 

Putin Unveils ‘CryptoRuble’ as Assange Thanks US Gov’t Corruption for 50,000% Return on Bitcoin

Over the weekend, WikiLeak’s Julian Assange took to social media to give his “deepest thanks to the US government, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for pushing Visa, MasterCard, Paypal… et al, into erecting an illegal banking blockade against @WikiLeaks starting in 2010.”

In April 2010, WikiLeaks released footage from a Baghdad airstrike in July 2010 in which revealed Iraqi journalists and others being brutally slaughtered by American forces in what became know as Collateral Murder. Additionally, 2010 releases by WikiLeaks also included the Afghan War Diary and the Iraq War Logs.

Following the release of the explosive secret government documents related to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – which revealed the wars in all their barbarity — Sen. John McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, both known war party/deep state commodities, led a bipartisan effort to cut the flow of donations to WikiLeaks by forcing ‘traditional’ payment systems to block them and disallow donations to the transparency activist government watchdog group.

Subsequently, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks became early adopters of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, as a means of bypassing the US government’s financial blockade meant to shut down all avenues of public donations to WikiLeaks.

Advertisment

My deepest thanks to the US government, Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman for pushing Visa, MasterCard, Payal, AmEx, Mooneybookers, et al, into erecting an illegal banking blockade against @WikiLeaks starting in 2010. It caused us to invest in Bitcoin — with > 50000% return. pic.twitter.com/9i8D69yxLC

— Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange) October 14, 2017

With the value of Bitcoin hitting $5,746.51, Assange took the opportunity to thank the villainous forces in their failed attempt to financially strangle WikiLeaks out of existence, as it precipitated the group’s initial 2010 investment into Bitcoin, and a whopping 50,000 percent return on investment, according to his tweet.

READ MORE:  Putin: Clinton or Trump is Irrelevant, The Real Problem is U.S. "Imperial Ambitions"

The Wikileaks founder posted his comment on Twitter, after a stunning week of price jumps in the cryptocurrency’s value. The tweet was accompanied by a chart of the value of Bitcoin.

It’s clear that Assange understands the value of having a peer-to-peer based system that bypasses governmental control and regulation, and allows for maximum individual control over one’s own financial instruments – with minimal outside interference or costs.

Assange has been living as a political refugee in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012.

It seems clear that the advent of blockchain distributed ledger technology, and the ability of the technology to remove the “gatekeepers” of industry and revolutionize numerous systems – from money transactions, to contracts, voting and more – is not lost on Assange as in many ways he leads a parallel fight in regards to freeing information from the clutches of societal gatekeepers.

Ironically, the US government forced WikiLeaks into Bitcoin investing as a means of circumventing the financial blockade they attempted to enforce on the whistleblowing group, only to have them reap a windfall due to the dramatic rise in the demand for the leading cryptocurrency.

Interestingly, Russia’s development bank, VEB, and several Russian state ministries are reportedly teaming up to develop blockchain technology. Russia plans to create a fully encrypted, distributed, inexpensive payments system that has no dependence upon Western banking institutions, SWIFT, or the U.S. government to move money across the world.

Minister of Communications, Nikolay Nikiforov, confirmed that Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially stated that Russia will issue its own ‘CryptoRuble’ during a closed-door meeting in Moscow, according to local news sources.

READ MORE:  Coroner Report Contradicts Claims of Heart Attack -- RT Founder Beaten to Death in D.C. Hotel

Aside from utilizing the blockchain technology, the system is in no way connected to Bitcoin, which is just another digital token. The blockchain technology (now often referred to as distributed ledger technology, or DLT) is a platform that can facilitate a wide variety of transfers — potentially including the new Russian-state cryptocurrency backed by gold.

According to a report by the Bitcoin-focused website CoinTelegraph:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially stated that Russia will issue its own ‘CryptoRuble’ at a closed door meeting in Moscow, according to local news sources.
The news broke through Minister of Communications Nikolay Nikiforov.

According to the official, the state issued cryptocurrency cannot be mined and will be issued and controlled and maintained only by the authorities.

The CryptoRubles can be exchanged for regular Rubles at any time, though if the holder is unable to explain where the CryptoRubles came from, a 13 percent tax will be levied.
The same tax will be applied to any earned difference between the price of the purchase of the token and the price of the sale.

“I confidently declare that we run CryptoRuble for one simple reason: if we do not, then after 2 months our neighbors in the EurAsEC will,” Nikiforov said.

Although the announcement marks Russia’s entrance to the cryptocurrency world, it is no affirmation of Bitcoin or any other decentralized cryptocurrency. In fact, Russia recently called for a complete ban on all cryptocurrencies within Russia.

It seems as though Putin, while appreciating the idea of a blockchain based currency, would like Russia to have complete control of the digital currency being used and traded in Russia.

Senate Declares War on Assange: Moving to Classify WikiLeaks as “Hostile Intelligence Service”

By Aaron Kesel

The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would classify WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service” bundled as part of the 2018 Intelligence Authorization Act. Presumably, that classification would authorize the use of force against WikiLeaks.

“It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States,” a section of the Act reads.

The Act almost unanimously passed a Senate panel last month 14-1, rejected by only one man, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who staunchly opposed the measure due to the provision that was snuck in about WikiLeaks.

Advertisment

“The language in the bill suggesting that the U.S. government has some unstated course of action against ‘non-state hostile intelligence services’ is equally troubling,” Wyden said in a press release. “The damage done by WikiLeaks to the United States is clear. But with any new challenge to our country, Congress ought not react in a manner that could have negative consequences, unforeseen or not, for our constitutional principles. The introduction of vague, undefined new categories of enemies constitutes such an ill-considered reaction.”

“The use of the novel phrase ‘non-state hostile intelligence service’ may have legal, constitutional and policy implications, particularly should it be applied to journalists inquiring about secrets,” said Senator Wyden.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously said in April that the arrest of WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange was a “priority” for the DOJ.

“We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks,” he said. “This is a matter that’s gone beyond anything I’m aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail,” Sessions said.

READ MORE:  Leaked Email Reveals Possible Evidence State Dept Never Intended to Charge Clinton

Meanwhile, CIA Director Mike Pompeo has regularly labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” the same term used in the Senate bill.

WikiLeaks, an international non-profit whistleblowing organization, has leaked at least 10 million classified documents to date from various governments including the United States. In 2016, the group published a number of documents and emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta that suggested the DNC deliberately tried to discredit presidential candidate Bernie Sanders over then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

As both the current and former administrations continue forward with an ongoing seven-year investigation into WikiLeaks since their 2010 leak of almost 100,000 State and Defense Department secret documents dubbed Cablegate pertaining to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither administration has been able to charge a single member of WikiLeaks with a criminal indictment.

In that case, only the source of the leak was punished: former U.S. intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who spent spent the last seven years in prison before former U.S. President Barack Obama commuted 28 years of her 35-year sentence on his way out of office, calling it “very disproportionate relative to what other leakers have received” and that “it makes sense to commute and not pardon her sentence.”

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been illegally detained in arbitrary detention, according to a UN panel. Assange has been held against his will, isolated from his children, since June 2012. He faces extradition to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations that have been repeatedly dismissed, and is an investigation that’s since been dropped by Swedish prosecutors.

READ MORE:  WikiLeaks Vault 7 Reveals CIA Can Disguise Hacks, Malware as Russian or Chinese

The other aim of the bill is to assure that all secret and clandestine missions are approved by the president and that Congress is made aware of all military operations.

Here’s Julian Assange speaking with Ron Paul a few months ago about the “War on Truth”:

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post, where this article originally appeared, and is Director of Content for Coinivore. Follow Aaron at Twitter and Steemit.

Julian Assange could be pardoned for revealing proof that Russia did not hack DNC

Washington, D.C. – This week, in a stunning turn of events, U.S. congressman Dana Rohrabacher became the first congressman to meet with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

During the private three-hour meeting Assange told Rohrabacher that he will prove that leaked DNC documents, published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential election, did not come from Russia. Then on Thursday, Rohrabacher made a promise to pardon him.

On Thursday, Rohrabacher gave an interview with the Daily Caller in which he noted that Assange couldn’t come to Washington given his current status as a wanted criminal. So, he brought up the notion of pardoning the political prisoner.

Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview Thursday that Assange is hoping to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he is currently in asylum, and that during the meeting they explored “what might be necessary to get him out.”

The congressman told TheDC that “if [Assange] is going to give us a big favor, he would obviously have to be pardoned to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.” Assange took asylum in the embassy in August 2012 after facing sexual assault charges in Sweden. The Justice Department also reportedly wants to charge Assange for helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, leak thousands of classified documents.

“He has information that will be of dramatic importance to the United States and the people of our country as well as to our government,” Rohrabacher said. “Thus if he comes up with that, you know he’s going to expect something in return. He can’t even leave the embassy to get out to Washington to talk to anybody if he doesn’t have a pardon. Obviously there is an issue there that needs to be dealt with, but we haven’t come to any conclusion yet.”

The potential for a pardon based on smashing the Russian hacking narrative is nothing short of bombshell. And, according to Rohrabacher, Assange has the proof to back it up.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill:

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said,“Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.

Perhaps even more interesting, when Rep. Rohrabacher was pressed for details about the source of the documents he said that he had information that was to be shared with President Trump privately.

“Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” Rohrabacher added.

While anonymous sources within U.S. intelligence agencies have continually claimed they have proof of Russian involvement — which it has curiously never made public — numerous former intelligence officials have come forward after a technical analysis of the data and determined that it was much more likely that someone on the east coast of the United States was behind the data theft from the DNC.

The technical analysis revealed that files stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 election cycle were most likely downloaded to a USB drive by someone with physical access to a computer connected to the DNC network. The analysis firmly refutes the official narrative of the files being hacked remotely by the Russians – as popularized by the U.S. corporate media, without any actual evidence ever publicly presented.

According to a report by Bloomberg:

The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other things: “We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”

VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network.

VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency’s former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials.

While the DNC leak was quickly attributed to the Russian hackers by U.S. intelligence agencies, a document published by an individual going by the name Forensicator reveals how the 7-zip file published by Guccifer 2.0 was transferred at a speed of 23 MB/s, making it “unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet.”

“The initial copying activity was likely done from a computer system that had direct access to the data,”the report from the Forensicator stated. “By ‘direct access’ we mean that the individual who was collecting the data either had physical access to the computer where the data was stored, or the data was copied over a local high speed network (LAN).”

Even more curious, the DNC never allowed the FBI to conduct a technical analysis of the allegedly hacked servers, and instead relied on a private company called CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike’s conclusions informed much of the intelligence community’s assessment — which had obvious conflicts of interest — due to the fact they’re being paid by the DNC as well as their co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch’s affiliation with the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power.

Assange has previously intimated that Russia wasn’t the source of his leaked information, but Tuesday marks the first time he has engaged with a U.S. lawmaker to make it “official.”

Rohrabacher noted he had information he planned to deliver to President Trump upon his return to the US, and said that included a request that the WikiLeaks be given a news media seat inside the White House press briefing room.

“Julian passionately argued the case that WikiLeaks was vital to informing the public about controversial though necessary issues. He hoped that WikiLeaks — an award-winning journalistic operation — might be granted a seat in the White House press corps. As a former newsman myself I can’t see a reason why they shouldn’t be granted news status for official press conferences,” he said.

In regards to other information to be delivered to the president, Rohrabacher said:

“We left with the understanding that we would be going into further details in the near future. The rest of the message is for the president directly and I hope to convey it to him as more details come in.”

“Unbeknownst to me I am the first member of Congress to visit there with Mr. Assange,” he said.

While initially, the U.S. public saw through Hillary Clinton’s “the Russians did it” mantra last year, and she lost the election, many Americans have been propagandized into believing the “Russians hacked the election” narrative after a prolonged and sustained propaganda operation.

Authoritarian regimes often use external enemies to distract the public from domestic discord, but in a functioning democracy, this should never happen. Perhaps the fact that these tactics are now being used on the American public should serve as a wake-up call that we are teetering on the brink of despotism.

Please share this article so that the “Russia hacking” narrative can finally be put to rest, and called out for what it is – U.S. government sponsored propaganda!

Via The Free Thought Project 

Featured Image: Joe Mesa/Flickr

Assange Destroys Liberals and Conservatives, Shows How They’re the Same in Epic Tweet Storm

The false left vs. right paradigm has been used and abused in the United States for years, and yet in 2017, there is still a sense among Americans that there is actual difference between liberals and conservatives.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called out the hypocrisy on Twitter by using one of the issues both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on—the call for his assassination.

Assange began the Tweet storm over the weekend, with a Tweet that said “Hello snowflakes,” and then went on to note that he will focus on “some censorship double standards,” such as the “threats to kill” he has received on Twitter.

“I don’t think people should threaten to kill others, but I don’t think companies should be in the game of determining what is a threat and what is not because any such system will be played by those with greater access to the internals of the system,” Assange wrote.

Hello snowflakes. I will do a small tour now of some censorship double standards that I have a deep personal experience of, namely…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…threats to kill. I don"t think people should threaten to kill others, but I don"t think companies should be in the game of…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…determining what is a threat and what is not because any such system will be played by those with greater access to the internals of…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

Advertisment

Assange then went on to describe the “system” run within social media platforms such as Twitter, in which “biases about how close to the in-group that runs the censorship system the complainer is and their relative social standing of the complainant.”

Comparing the process on Twitter to the process that is seen in the modern day “justice system,” Assange noted that both can lead to the same result because it typically happens that “those people who need justice the most are the least likely to get it.”

…the system. This is clearly the case with Twitter and other mediums where biases about how close to the in-group that runs the…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…censorship system the complainer is and their relative social standing of the complainant.. This is true of all justice systems which…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…is why except for the greatest extremes we should avoid them because they are inevitably bringers of intense injustice to the…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…most excluded or marginalized i.e those people who need justice the most are the least likely to get it. This is why Twitter et al…

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

Assange then posted a link to a video showing a compilation of politicians referring to him as a “terrorist” after he received asylum from Ecuador, and began living at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London in 2012.

READ MORE:  BREAKING: Clinton Insiders Reveal "Blame Russia" Plan Hatched "Within 24 Hours" of Election Loss

From former Vice President Joe Biden, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—both Republicans and Democrats alike seemed to be reading the same script as they called Assange a “criminal,” a “high-tech terrorist,” and an individual who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Assange went on to reference Hillary Clinton’s infamous “Can’t we just drone this guy?” comment, that was made when she was the head of the State Department. At the time, Assange and WikiLeaks were threatening to release a trove of documents referred to as “CableGate.”

These confidential cables would give insight into the internal communications within the State Department, leaving officials such as Clinton in search of a way to stop Assange and his organization for good.

Hillary Clinton on Assange "Can"t we just drone this guy" — report https://t.co/S7tPrl2QCZ pic.twitter.com/qy2EQBa48y

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 3, 2016

Assange then turned to the mainstream media—an entity that has worked hand in hand with the U.S. government to demonize Assange for releasing credible information to the public.

The list included a Tweet from Politico’s Michael Grunwald in August 2013, saying that he “can’t wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange,” and a Washington Times Op-Ed from Jeffrey Kuhner calling for Assange’s assassination in December 2010.

“Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security,” Kuhner wrote. “The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America. The administration must take care of the problem—effectively and permanently.”

…Here"s a fun poster from the Washington Times. Goes with the article "Assassinate Assange". A "?" added later. https://t.co/VIpAHNIsUi pic.twitter.com/3VrM3o6VQB

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…Here"s noted Obama hagiographer, @MikeGunwald then at @TIME, now promoted to "Senior writer" at Politico. Quality sycophant… pic.twitter.com/HN6cFjbCuB

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

…Here"s the NY based Mediaite which is owned by Dan Abrams a former ABC "journalist"; sister is an Obama judge… https://t.co/AfOByZxFV0

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

Assange proceeded to add “#TolerantLiberal” when re-tweeting a torrent of posts calling for his assassination. Out of the nearly 30 Tweets Assange shared, several were then deleted by the original user.

#tolerantliberal (and a master of geography) https://t.co/f7cX4681XO

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

#tolerantliberal (Tony Blair is his hero)https://t.co/vqA9ZWr6Us

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

#tolerantliberal (and spy agency lovin") https://t.co/hXuIPBdxc6

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) July 1, 2017

The thing to remember is that Assange gained both international attention and international scrutiny for releasing thousands of classified documents that revealed U.S. soldiers killing and torturing innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. By showing Americans the reality of the war crimes that are being committed by their military and funded by their tax dollars, Assange did the public a service that most politicians and mainstream media pundits would never dare to do.

READ MORE:  Breaking: Assange Emerges to Confirm Russia Was NOT the Source of DNC/Podesta Leaks

The issue of the sanctity of innocent life is one that should cross “party lines,” and should be of the utmost importance. However, the fact that both liberals and conservatives have united together for a number of years to call for the assassination of the man who has risked his live to reveal the truth to the public, says everything about the fact that there is no true difference between the “left” and the “right.”

The Intercept Has A Source Burning Problem

(MPN) Long having built its reputation on reports derived from classified information provided to them by leakers, The Intercept now finds itself in the unpleasant position of having burned – or outed – one of its anonymous sources.

The leaker, Reality Leigh Winner, allegedly gave The Intercept classified NSA documents pertaining to an investigation of Russian military intelligence hacking within the U.S. and now faces years in prison under the Espionage Act. While outing Winner could have been the result of negligence, the FBI affidavit explaining why the bureau arrested Winner shows it went beyond mere negligence.

According to FBI documents, a reporter at the paper sent the leaked documents to a contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) – the very agency they had been taken from – a full week before The Intercept published the story. The alleged intention was to let the NSA itself verify the documents, an unusual move for a news outlet that was originally intended to have exclusive publication rights over the Snowden leaks that exposed NSA surveillance. Upon being contacted, the NSA asked that The Intercept redact parts of the document and The Intercept complied with some of those requests.

The FBI warrant also notes that the reporter in question – who is unnamed in the document – contacted a government contractor with whom he had a prior relationship and revealed where the documents had been postmarked from – Winner’s home of Augusta, Georgia – along with Winner’s work location. He also sent unedited images of the documents that contained security markings that allowed the document to be traced to Winner.

While the reporter’s identity remains unknown, the published report has four authors – two of whom have been known to burn sources before. Journalists Richard Esposito and Matthew Cole once found themselves involved in a case against CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou specifically singled out Cole as having not only misled him, but having played a likely role in incriminating him. Kiriakou spent nearly two years in prison for exposing the CIA’s torture program.

.@theintercept should be ashamed of itself. Matthew Cole burns yet another source. It makes your entire organization untrustworthy.

— John Kiriakou (@JohnKiriakou) June 6, 2017

WikiLeaks, a publishing organization committed to transparency that maintains the confidentiality of its sources, has sharply condemned The Intercept’s role in Winner’s arrest. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote that “If the FBI affidavit is accurate, the reporter concerned must be named, shamed and fired by whomever they work for to maintain industry standards.” “Source-burning reporters are a menace,” he continued. “They chill trust in all journalists, which impedes public understanding.”

WikiLeaks is now offering a $10,000 reward for information “leading to the public exposure & termination” of the responsible reporter.

WikiLeaks issues a US$10,000 reward for information leading to the public exposure & termination of this ‘reporter’: https://t.co/W9wijCk5d3

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 6, 2017

The Intercept responded to the situation in a statement, stating:

“While the FBI’s allegations against Winner have been made public through the release of an affidavit and search warrant, which were unsealed at the government’s request, it is important to keep in mind that these documents contain unproven assertions and speculation designed to serve the government’s agenda and as such warrant skepticism. Winner faces allegations that have not been proven. The same is true of the FBI’s claims about how it came to arrest Winner.”

The paper’s most prominent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, has distanced himself from the article and claimed that he does not edit the paper – even though his bio lists him as a “founding co-editor.”

I didn’t write the article, & I don’t edit the Intercept. I don’t control other journalists. My views on it are here https://t.co/bLVvxrpc15

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 6, 2017

The Intercept’s corporate dark side

This latest debacle for The Intercept may be proving the organization’s long-time critics right. The short history of the publication shows that it was hardly set up to serve the public interest. The paper was founded by Pierre Omidyar, a billionaire and major owner of both eBay and PayPal, who gave the project more than $50 million in seed money.

This alone should have been enough to complicate its mission “to hold the most powerful governmental and corporate factions accountable.”

Its first hires were Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras – all of whom were involved in publishing the Snowden revelations, as well as other leaks. Greenwald and Poitras were the only journalists with the full Snowden cache and those secrets now belong to a single billionaire running a for-profit media company.

Omidyar’s connections to the U.S. political establishment are numerous and concerning. One of his foundation’s microcredit projects to “help” farmers in India led to an epidemic of farmer suicides that gained international headlines, as farmers became unable to pay the foundation back. His network has also funded regime change operations with USAID, most recently in Ukraine. In addition, Omidyar was well-connected to the Obama White House, which stood to lose the most from the mass publication of the Snowden cache. One of Omidyar’s main companies, PayPal, is said to be implicated in some of the NSA documents that have still been withheld.

Omidyar’s influence on The Intercept has also been established. Former Intercept writer Ken Silverstein wrote that, at the paper, “a cult of personality existed around him [Omidyar] internally that disrupted the whole organization” and that “the company’s culture centered on Omidyar.”

This background makes it less surprising that The Intercept has been caught publishing partisan stories that back U.S. establishment objectives, such as articles supporting U.S.-led regime change efforts in Syria and the very piece that outed Winner.

Outing a source only to perpetuate the “Russian hacker” narrative

The Intercept piece at the center of the controversy is particularly troubling. Titled “Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election,” it asserts that “Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.”

However, the NSA report that The Intercept published in tandem with the article provides no evidence for that claim, as it does not even mention of a cyberattack by “cyber espionage operations,” indicating that no one was attacked and only that information was collected. It also presents no proof that any accounts were compromised, nor were the U.S. elections. Even worse is that the document itself states that techniques were used by this cyber espionage actor that distinguish it from known Russian military intelligence operations, meaning the act in question may not have been carried out by Russian intelligence.

In addition, the piece quotes cyber security expert Bruce Schneier. However, Schneier is a well-known Clinton supporter and argued that Russia hacked the Democrats as far back as last July, a claim for which there is still no evidence. The Intercept piece fails to mention this aspect of Schneier’s background.

Essentially, The Intercept piece – which could lead to hard prison time for one very unfortunate whistleblower – does not accurately interpret the classified information at its core and instead seeks to propagate the “Russian hacker” narrative still being peddled by the parts of the U.S. establishment that are still bitter over Hillary Clinton’s loss. Given Omidyar’s cozy ties with the Obama White House and the left-leaning slant of The Intercept’s current editor Betsy Reed, this could be more than coincidence.

While The Intercept is now making headlines for outing a source, the bigger message is that the paper has revealed itself as being part of the system of establishment journalism it purports to stand against.

By Whitney Webb / Republished with permission / MintPress News / Report a typo

Sweden Drops Phony Assange Rape Case

Since June 2012, he’s been holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy, granted political asylum by its government weeks later in response to phony Swedish rape charges.

Britain conspired with Washington to get Assange to Sweden, once there extradited to Washington where a reported sealed indictment charges him with spying under the WW I relic Espionage Act.

Neocon Attorney General Jeff Sessions calls arresting him “a priority…(W)e will seek to put some people in jail” for whistleblowing, he blustered. CIA head Mike Pompeo said he deserves the death penalty.

He lied saying “(i)t’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

“Julian Assange has no first amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a US citizen.”

Anyone exposing US high crimes and other wrongdoing is vulnerable to police state arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for the crime of doing the right thing.

Swedish Public Prosecution director Marianne Ny saying she’ll no longer pursue rape charges against Assange, her arrest warrant dropped, doesn’t mean his ordeal is now over. Far from it.

His lawyer was way premature calling the decision a “total victory,” adding “(t)he preliminary investigation has been dropped and the detention order has been withdrawn, and from Sweden’s point of view this is now over.”

That’s the good news. What’s bad is if he returns to Sweden (voluntarily or involuntarily) before the statute of limitations expires in 2020, the rape case could be reopened.

More serious is US authorities wanting him extradited to America. Britain almost certainly will help get him there if he leaves Ecuador’s embassy.

London’s Metropolitan Police said a warrant for his arrest remains for failing to surrender to the courts on 29 June 2012. If he leaves Ecuador’s embassy, it’ll be executed.

Virtual certain extradition to America will follow unless his lawyers can get the London arrest warrant dropped.

On Friday, WikiLeaks tweeted “UK states it will arrest Assange regardless & refuses to confirm or deny whether it has already received an extradition request from the US.”

In February 2016, citing the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, human rights expert Alfred de Zayas said Assange’s detention violated provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

He called on UK and Swedish authorities to assure his safety, physical integrity, and right of free movement, along with paying damages for his long, unjustifiable ordeal – first as a political prisoner under house arrest, then refugee in Ecuador’s embassy to avoid unjust extradition to Sweden, then America.

He stressed whistleblowers are vital human rights defenders, deserving high praise, not prosecution.

Assange’s ordeal is far from over, subject to UK arrest, extradition to America, or CIA assassination if he leaves Ecuador’s embassy.

WikiLeaks’ Assange Offers Comey a Job: ‘Mr. Comey Knows Where Many Bodies are Buried’

Washington, D.C. – Only hours after the unexpected firing of FBI Director James Comey, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extended a job offer to the embattled former federal bureau chief.

WikiLeaks would be happy to consider hiring James Comey to help lead its DC office should he like to properly investigate the US government.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Assange tweeted, “WikiLeaks would be happy to consider hiring James Comey to help lead it’s D.C. office”, where the now unemployed top G-man could “properly investigate the U.S. government.”

Only minutes prior to Assange’s job offer to Comey, WikiLeaks offered to assist, posting that “If James Comey or any other former or current FBI officers have information on why he was fired, we want to help: wikileaks.org/#submit”

If James Comey or any other former or current FBI officers have information as to why he was fired, we want to help: https://t.co/cLRcuIiQXz

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 9, 2017

And for those that thought Assange was simply trolling the recently fired Comey, he posted another tweet that metaphorically (and perhaps literally) explained his reasoning for the job offer, noting that, “Comey knows where many bodies are buried.”

Mr. Comey knows where many bodies are buried. Working for WikiLeaks is fulfilling. James–don"t become another lobbyist for Glock or Donkin.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 10, 2017

While the offer of employment by WikiLeaks, to the man who recently labeled the transparency organization as “intelligence porn” that compromises sources and methods by publishing sensitive material without regard to who it may affect, is surprising in some regards, it makes sense given the extensive access to highly sensitive information Comey was privy to.

pic.twitter.com/c4MqktGPeV

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Assange predicted a politicized backlash within the FBI would precipitate a massive amount of new leaks from within from the bureau and suggested that Comey could eventually make a presidential run himself in 2020 (given the highly partisan atmosphere surrounding his dismissal).

FBI source says the FBI will now start leaking leaking like Niagara. But please FBI friends full docs or you know the press will spin it!

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Comey"s firing will be an extraordinary boon for transparency as his loyalists leak and the admin counter-leaks. Will he run for 2020?

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Given the fact that the head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, recently labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” during an April 13, 2017, speech, it seems unlikely that Comey would be willing to accept WikiLeaks employment offer.

READ MORE:  REPORT: IRS Continues SWAT Raids for Evasion While Hundreds of Agents Avoid Paying Any Taxes at All

“It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” Pompeo told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The irony of Pompeo’s assertion is that WikiLeaks essentially operates as an intelligence service for the citizenry of the world. It’s the opposite of hostile actor, as it operates in the public interest.

In fact, the only way for the public to hold their elected representatives responsible is by having a thorough understanding of the actions undertaken globally in their name. Without the basic knowledge provided to the public by WikiLeaks, government can operate with virtual impunity, with actions shrouded in secrecy.

The idea that releasing truthful and verified original documentation pertaining to the actions of governments and their representatives, in an effort to open up governments and force greater transparency, can be classified as a hostile action, reveals the lack of morality that underpins the U.S. government position on WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks operates as a public information portal that sheds light on the policies and actions of state actors, and their representatives, that often take place unbeknownst to the public they claim to represent.

While we won’t hold our breath for Comey to accept WikiLeaks offer, it would be amazing to see the revelations he could provide as a source.

Please share this article, and let us know what you think about Assange’s job offer to Comey in comments below.

Candidate Trump: ‘I Love Wikileaks.’ President Trump: ‘Arrest Assange!’

“I love Wikileaks,” candidate Donald Trump said on October 10th on the campaign trail. He praised the organization for reporting on the darker side of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It was information likely leaked by a whistleblower from within the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks.

Back then he praised Wikileaks for promoting transparency, but candidate Trump looks less like President Trump every day. The candidate praised whistleblowers and Wikileaks often on the campaign trail. In fact, candidate Trump loved Wikileaks so much he mentioned the organization more than 140 times in the final month of the campaign alone! Now, as President, it seems Trump wants Wikileaks founder Julian Assange sent to prison.

Last week CNN reported, citing anonymous “intelligence community” sources, that the Trump Administration’s Justice Department was seeking the arrest of Assange and had found a way to charge the Wikileaks founder for publishing classified information without charging other media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post for publishing the same information.

It might have been tempting to write off the CNN report as “fake news,” as is much of their reporting, but for the fact President Trump said in an interview on Friday that issuing an arrest warrant for Julian Assange would be, “OK with me.”

Trump’s condemnation of Wikileaks came just a day after his CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, attacked Wikileaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” Pompeo accused Assange of being “a fraud — a coward hiding behind a screen.”

Pompeo’s word choice was no accident. By accusing Wikileaks of being a “hostile intelligence service” rather than a publisher of information on illegal and abusive government practices leaked by whistleblowers, he signaled that the organization has no First Amendment rights. Like many in Washington, he does not understand that the First Amendment is a limitation on government rather than a granting of rights to citizens. Pompeo was declaring war on Wikileaks.

But not that long ago Pompeo also cited Wikileaks as an important source of information. In July he drew attention to the Wikileaks release of information damaging to the Clinton campaign, writing, “Need further proof that the fix was in from President Obama on down?”

There is a word for this sudden about-face on Wikileaks and the transparency it provides us into the operations of the prominent and powerful: hypocrisy.

The Trump Administration’s declaration of war on whistleblowers and Wikileaks is one of the greatest disappointments in these first 100 days. Donald Trump rode into the White House with promises that he would “drain the swamp,” meaning that he would overturn the apple carts of Washington’s vested interests. By unleashing those same vested interests on those who hold them in check – the whistleblowers and those who publish their revelations – he has turned his back on those who elected him.

Julian Assange, along with the whistleblowers who reveal to us the evil that is being done in our name, are heroes. They deserve our respect and admiration, not a prison cell. If we allow this president to declare war on those who tell the truth, we have only ourselves to blame.

Ron Paul Defends Assange: “Don’t Allow This President To Declare War On the Truth”

This article was written by Ron Paul and originally published at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Editor’s Comment: As President Trump continues to be the anti-Ron Paul of the Republican Party, the sidelined former Congressman and 2008/2012 upstart presidential candidate is calling out the commander in chief for his recent support for arresting (and perhaps even executing) Julian Assange, who has been sequestered away in the Ecuadorian embassy for some 5 years after starting a revolution of revelations through his Wikileaks activism.

Not only does Trump seemingly have Wikileaks to thank for his election victory – after leaking emails, corrupt activities inside the DNC, and exposing the unsavory machinations and odd activities tied (however loosely) to the Clintonian sphere of politics – but he publicly praised Assange on the campaign trail. Now, it appears that this could all be turned around, ending an embarrassment and annoyance for the U.S. deep state as the nation gears up for another round of endless wars, and perhaps event the big one. “The first casualty when war comes is truth.“

Candidate Trump: ‘I Love Wikileaks.’ President Trump: ‘Arrest Assange!’

by Ron Paul

“I love Wikileaks,” candidate Donald Trump said on October 10th on the campaign trail. He praised the organization for reporting on the darker side of the Hillary Clinton campaign. It was information likely leaked by a whistleblower from within the Clinton campaign to Wikileaks.

Back then he praised Wikileaks for promoting transparency, but candidate Trump looks less like President Trump every day. The candidate praised whistleblowers and Wikileaks often on the campaign trail. In fact, candidate Trump loved Wikileaks so much he mentioned the organization more than 140 times in the final month of the campaign alone! Now, as President, it seems Trump wants Wikileaks founder Julian Assange sent to prison.

Last week CNN reported, citing anonymous “intelligence community” sources, that the Trump Administration’s Justice Department was seeking the arrest of Assange and had found a way to charge the Wikileaks founder for publishing classified information without charging other media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post for publishing the same information.

It might have been tempting to write off the CNN report as “fake news,” as is much of their reporting, but for the fact President Trump said in an interview on Friday that issuing an arrest warrant for Julian Assange would be, “OK with me.”

Trump’s condemnation of Wikileaks came just a day after his CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, attacked Wikileaks as a “hostile intelligence service.” Pompeo accused Assange of being “a fraud — a coward hiding behind a screen.”

Pompeo’s word choice was no accident. By accusing Wikileaks of being a “hostile intelligence service” rather than a publisher of information on illegal and abusive government practices leaked by whistleblowers, he signaled that the organization has no First Amendment rights. Like many in Washington, he does not understand that the First Amendment is a limitation on government rather than a granting of rights to citizens. Pompeo was declaring war on Wikileaks.

But not that long ago Pompeo also cited Wikileaks as an important source of information. In July he drew attention to the Wikileaks release of information damaging to the Clinton campaign, writing, “Need further proof that the fix was in from President Obama on down?”

There is a word for this sudden about-face on Wikileaks and the transparency it provides us into the operations of the prominent and powerful: hypocrisy.

The Trump Administration’s declaration of war on whistleblowers and Wikileaks is one of the greatest disappointments in these first 100 days. Donald Trump rode into the White House with promises that he would “drain the swamp,” meaning that he would overturn the apple carts of Washington’s vested interests. By unleashing those same vested interests on those who hold them in check – the whistleblowers and those who publish their revelations – he has turned his back on those who elected him.

Julian Assange, along with the whistleblowers who reveal to us the evil that is being done in our name, are heroes. They deserve our respect and admiration, not a prison cell. If we allow this president to declare war on those who tell the truth, we have only ourselves to blame.

This article was written by Ron Paul and originally published at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Ron Paul
Views: Read by 178 people
Date: April 26th, 2017
Website:

Copyright Information: This content has been contributed to SHTFplan by a third-party or has been republished with permission from the author. Please contact the author directly for republishing information.

Is Someone Else Making Trump’s Decisions for Him? It Certainly Seems That Way

(ANTIMEDIA) At the end of last week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said arresting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is now a “priority.” Not long after, CNN reported that authorities have prepared charges against Assange, who is currently seeking refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Donald Trump’s response to these recent developments was “It’s OK with me.” Trump is not included in the decision-making process as to whether Assange should be charged. Bear in mind, however, that Trump once told his fanbase, “I love Wikileaks,” and the fact that he is merely “OK” with the decision seems, if anything, to indicate he is claiming little to no say at all on what is going on in his administration regarding this issue.

Most of the world watched with horror — or awe, depending on your level of humanitarian indifference — as the U.S. military dropped the so-called Mother of all bombs (MOAB) on an ISIS position in Afghanistan. Conservative estimates show that for every ISIS fighter killed, the financial cost of the bomb was $450,000.

Yet, according to Fox News, Trump was told of the decision to drop the MOAB after it had already been detonated. Fox reported:

“The new approach was on display this week in Afghanistan, where Gen. John Nicholson, head of the U.S.-led coalition there, decided to use one of the military’s biggest nonnuclear bombs—a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or MOAB—to hit a remote Islamic State underground network of tunnels and caves.”

Fox adds:“A senior administration official said Mr. Trump didn’t know about the weapon’s use until it had been dropped.”

This recent development is part of a broader strategy that has seen the Trump administration give enormous power and responsibility to generals on the battlefield with very little oversight. The loosening of these restrictions was already done in Somalia and parts of Yemen but has now been deployed in the Iraq arena. Supposedly, the process put in place under the Obama administration frustrated many within the military, even as they were still able to drop over 26,000 bombs last year, alone. Now, the military establishment has almost free reign to do as it wishes.

We have already seen the effects of this, as an air strike was recently ordered in on a civilian area in Mosul, killing over 200 civilians in a single bombardment. In March alone, the U.S.-led coalition killed 1,782 civilians in Iraq and Syria.

In the words of the New Republic, “the Generals have won their war with Trump.”

Donald Trump’s original pick for national security advisor was Michael Flynn, who was well on his way to restoring ties with Russia before leaked intelligence forced his resignation. Flynn was replaced by General H.R. McMaster, a staunch cold warrior. It speaks volumes that not long after McMaster booted Steven Bannon off the National Security Council, the U.S. military struck the Syrian government directly. As noted by the New Yorker, Bannon, a genuine nationalist, would not have been in favor of such a move to strike Russia’s close ally:

“In the dystopian ‘Clash of Civilizations’ scenario that Bannon and his supporters subscribe to, Syria represents an important staging ground in the U.S.-led crusade against radical Islam, and an example of what future U.S.-Russian coöperation could look like.”

Asked about the decision to strike the Syrian government, Trump’s recollection of the cake he was eating at the time was far clearer than which country he actually bombed:

“I was sitting at the table. We had finished dinner. We are now having dessert. And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you have ever seen. And President Xi was enjoying it,” Trump said, as reported by the Guardian.

“And I said: ‘Mr. President, let me explain something to you … we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq,’” he said before the interviewer interjected to clarify. He then corrected himself.

Without getting too entangled in these contradictory actions, it is also worth pointing out that Trump was dining with the Chinese president, a complete policy switch from his furious attempts to berate China in the early days of his political career.

Further, the following statement seems to cast doubt on how involved Trump really is in the formulation of these incredibly important decisions:

“And I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded. What do you do? And we made a determination to do it. So the missiles were on the way.”

What do you do? You say no. You say what you said at least 18 times previously before you became president, namely that the U.S. should “stay the hell out of Syria.”

On a side note, it was McMaster who presented the Syrian military strike proposal to Trump in the first place. Shortly after the MOAB was dropped in Afghanistan, McMaster took an unannounced visit to the war-ravaged nation. According to the Military Times, McMaster’s visit was a surprise move not just to the Afghans, but also to Pentagon officials. As a result, the White House was forced to dispute the notion that McMaster is operating independently from the Department of Defense.

In the most recent development, which has resulted in the accumulation of Trump’s power giveaway, Vice President Mike Pence was busy last week threatening North Korea directly with war while the Donald played golf. As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, not even king of neoconservatives Dick Cheney took the spotlight away from Bush Junior to declare war on his behalf.

Of course, it is worth noting that Pence just recently announced this Saturday that this issue could be solved by “peaceful means.” However, the fact still remains that the issue to be solved is the establishment of a “nuclear-free Korean peninsula,” something North Korea would be unlikely to accept in the face of repeated provocation from the U.S. government over the last decade or so (including Obama’s use of cyber warfare). In North Korea’s eyes, the only thing stopping their country from turning into Iraq is their stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Pence has essentially given North Korea a lose-lose ultimatum: either give up their nuclear weapons and make themselves an easy target or prepare for a direct war with America’s naval fleet. As Anti-Media predicted in March, Mike Pence was likely always going to be the “Deep State’s Insurance Policy” against a nationalist Trump administration.

For those who voted Trump into office, his complete indifference — as demonstrated by him playing golf all day while the neocons completely infiltrate his administration to make important decisions on his behalf — is nothing more than a giant slap in the face.

The rest of the die-hard Trump supporters who will support him no matter what should know they are supporting Clinton-style policies that are being pursued by the neoconservatives inside his administration.

They may as well have voted for Clinton.

However, these Trump supporters can finally admit the fact that neither party represents them (something more and more people are realizing) and that America’s illusion of democracy is dangerous, at best. Even if Trump was genuine during his presidential campaign, many of the most important decisions taking place right now are not being formulated by anyone who was democratically elected — especially not Trump.

In McMaster’s case, he wasn’t even involved in Trump’s original assembly. He is only part of the Trump administration because someone from within the intelligence community decided the restoration of U.S.-Russia relations was a complete dealbreaker and forced Flynn’s resignation. At least when the American people were casting their votes for Trump, they were well aware of who Bannon was, for example. McMaster’s name would have hardly been commonplace at anyone’s dinner table, yet this is a man who is advising Trump directly (including on his potential plan to send as many as 50,000 Americans to fight and die in Syria in a war that Trump dismissed numerous times in the past due to its projected catastrophic consequences).

Is this democracy?

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Assange Exposes the Truth About Corporate Media: ‘You Are Reading Weaponized Text’

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange called “very, very, very inaccurate” corporate presstitutes “opportunistic snipers” in an interview over the weekend, accusing newspapers of printing “weaponized text.”

And the outspoken publisher isn’t at all dissatisfied with the current propaganda of “fake news” — because, as Assange explained to Australian comedian Chas Licciardello, according to CNET,

“WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.”

While the corporate press continues misrepresenting information, quoting unnamed and thus unverifiable sources, and even printing flagrant fabrications, Wikileaks indeed maintains an unparalleled streak of publishing authentic and undoctored data — despite excoriation from the establishment — thus eliminating all bias or unintended insertion of opinion.

“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange elaborated. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.”

But the outspoken publisher’s opinion on so-called fake news emphasizes the disastrous failings of a mainstream media hell bent on propping up its own establishment agenda — regardless of which political affiliation a given outlet claims.

“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story,” noted Assange, “it’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story.”

Further, he said, discussing Wikileaks’ searchable database, “You’re not reading pre-weaponised knowledge. When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you.”

READ MORE:  After the WaPost"s Latest Shot, It"s Time to Call "Fake News" By Its Real Name "Weaponized Journalism"

Assange’s description of weaponized text characterizes the corporate press’ penchant for propaganda — a political establishment-friendly slant that has once-illustrious media institutions like the Washington Post and New York Times frivolously abandoning journalistic integrity whenever it’s deemed necessary.

In fact, after the Post published a slew of articles without any basis in fact, The Free Thought Project noted in January,

“This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

“We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.”

That assessment has proven true, as what appears to be recklessness in corporate journalism generally gains editorial approval if the article appeals to emotion and will manipulate readers into a specific thought pattern — like both anti-Russia and anti-Iran reports so frequently topping mainstream headlines.

Of course, no coincidence exists in the corporate press’ continued stark criticism of Wikileaks as a politically-motivated organization — an allegation oft repeated during the last presidential election cycle.

Such accusations only act to divert attention to the corrupt ugliness displayed by politicians and insiders who never imagined their words behind curtains would be unveiled to public scrutiny.

Outlets loyal to the Democratic establishment thus accused Wikileaks and its founder of publishing damning documents from the DNC, John Podesta, and candidate Hillary Clinton as part of a political vendetta — particularly due to the lack of documents the outlet received on rival Donald Trump.

READ MORE:  George Soros was Hacked! -- Thousands of Files Expose Election Manipulation & More

“We had lots of critics in the Democratic Party, liars in the Democratic Party … saying that what we published was not accurate — trying to imitate it, sometimes saying it directly. And of course, we could mathematically prove that they were liars. And it’s not every day that you can mathematically prove that your critics are full of it.”

Assange has emphatically repeated that Wikileaks cannot publish what it doesn’t have in its possession — and no whistleblower or leaker has yet come forward with a cache of information on Trump or the RNC.

Beyond content, Wikileaks came under fire for the timing of document dumps during election season — a matter of such concern to the former Obama administration, U.S. officials attempted to dam the flood of documents by persuading the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which Assange has called home since 2011, to cut his connection to the Internet.

But timing is everything for the clients who hand over information to WikiLeaks, and striking the greatest blow with truth isn’t something Assange avoids. As he told Licciardello on the decision of when to publish the Podesta Files,

“We try and maximize the value of the information to readers. So that’s publishing it at the moment when they most want to read it, when they most want to know what it contains. And that’s definitely before an election rather than after election.”

“Sources don’t give you stuff unless it’s going to have impact,” he explained.

Wikileaks, unlike a traditional media outlet, publishes and catalogs data for anyone to search — and doesn’t remove documents after maximum impact has been achieved:

“The real value in WikiLeaks is it is a wonderful library that you can trust … But the library has to be marketed. And so the scandal-generation business, which we’re also in — I view that as a kind of marketing effort for what is much more substantial, which is our archive […]

“I think that is the real beauty of WikiLeaks … it is that sea of information, that treasure, that intellectual treasure, that rebel library of Alexandria you can go into.”

Critics from both sides of the political duopoly claim Wikileaks’ policy of printing everything in a leak — without editing content — presents a danger to government officials acting surreptitiously in the field. But Assange disputes this, and has said Wikileaks carefully vets every document to ensure no lives would be jeopardized before it publishes.

“Nothing that we’ve published has ever hurt anyone, physically,” Assange asserted. “Information very, very rarely, is dangerous. And not compared to what government does.”