The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 2

The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 1 introduced the topic of the recently published AP leaks related to WikiLeaks and built a case around the first document being fraudulent or at the very least unauthenticated.

This case was built around the document properties provided by AP in their attempt to authenticate the document, the context in which the document appeared on the scene as well as the person WikiLeaks believes created the document, Sigurdur Thordarson.

In Part 1, I concluded that WikiLeaks assessment was the one most likely to be correct given all of the facts that are publicly available to us. That is, the document was most likely a forgery created by Sigurdur Thordarson and the allegation that it “proved” Julian Assange was trying to flee to Russia was just a baseless confabulation.

Note that the Russian Embassy released a statement on September 26, 2018 (two days before Part 1 was published) confirming WikiLeaks denial. So this entire issue is now done.

The embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorean colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russian participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.– Julian Assange and Russia’s UK embassy. The Guardian, September 24, 2018

Ivan Volodin, at the Russian embassy in London, responds to a Guardian article reporting that Russian diplomats held secret talks about helping Julian Assange flee the UK

Israel Shamir has been directly associated with the document as allegedly having been the recipient who was responsible for obtaining a Russian visa for Julian Assange. There is no evidence to support this, given that the document itself isn’t authenticated properly, is a forgery, according to WikiLeaks, and the Russians state unequivocally that there has never been any discussion with anyone regarding “ending Mr. Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador“.

The AP (Associated Press) article also claims that Shamir has stated the following in a telephone interview:

Shamir told the AP he was plagued by memory problems and couldn’t remember delivering Assange’s letter or say whether he eventually got the visa on Assange’s behalf.

“I can’t possibly exclude that it happened,” Shamir said in a telephone interview. “I have a very vague memory of those things.”  

Shamir’s memory appeared sharper during a January 20, 2011, interview with Russian News Service radio — a Moscow-based station now known as Life Zvuk, or Life Sound. Shamir said he’d personally brokered a Russian visa for Assange, but that it had come too late to rescue him from the sex crimes investigation.

However, they don’t provide a reference link to the interview so that statement can be verified, nor has Shamir confirmed the statement they attribute to him in the telephone interview anywhere that I could find.

What Israel Shamir said or didn’t say is now irrelevant anyway given the tweet from the Russian Embassy and the statement by the Russian Embassy in the Guardian, quoted above.

His last blog post related to Assange is this one: The Long Captivity of Julian Assange by Israel Shamir • June 21, 2018 

Given that the conspiracy theories surrounding his part of the story are fascinating (actually laughable), I feel obligated to rehash this part of the story for the sole purpose of demonstrating how disinformation campaigns like this work.

Part 1 has provided you with some insight on how “evidence” is concocted and misrepresented deceptively as the foundation of a disinformation campaign.

While I didn’t present it in that context, it is actually how it works.

So, now, in the case of Shamir’s part of the story:

Shamir was one of many journalists with access to portions of the WikiLeaks database for journalistic research purposes. He had no formal relationship with WikiLeaks other than that, nor was there any long term relationship between him and Julian Assange, according to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks statement that was given to, but not used by, the UK satirical current-affairs magazine, Private Eye:

Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an ‘agent’ of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual. However, he has worked for the BBC, Haaretz, and many other reputable organizations.

It is false that Shamir is ‘an Assange intimate’. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Assange) twice. It is false that ‘he was trusted with selecting the 250,000 US State Department cables for the Russian media’ or that he has had access to such at any time.

Shamir was able to search through a limited portion of the cables with a view to writing articles for a range of Russian media. The media that subsequently employed him did so of their own accord and with no intervention or instruction by WikiLeaks.

We do not have editorial control over the of hundreds of journalists and publications based on our materials and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. We do not approve or endorse the writings of the world’s media. We disagree with many of the approaches taken in analyzing our material.

Index did contact WikiLeaks as have many people and organisations do for a variety of reasons. The quote used here is not complete. WikiLeaks also asked Index for further information on this subject. Most of these rumors had not, and have not, been properly corroborated. WikiLeaks therefore asked Index to let us know if they had received any further information on the subject. This would have helped WikiLeaks conduct further inquiries. We did not at the time, and never have, received any response.

END

One photograph was taken with Shamir and Assange together, a common practice when people meet well-known people.

Julian_and_Shamir-600x450

Deception:

“Shamir has a years-long friendship with Assange, and was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables months before WikiLeaks made public the full cache. Such was Shamir’s controversial nature that Assange introduced him to WikiLeaks staffers under a false name. Known for views held by many to be antisemitic, Shamir aroused the suspicion of several WikiLeaks staffers – myself included – when he asked for access to all cable material concerning “the Jews”, a request which was refused.” – Israel Shamir and Julian Assange’s cult of machismo by James Ball 

The claim that Shamir was a close associate of Assange is denied by WikiLeaks. The only “evidence” provided to support it is this single image of them sitting together. By that absurd standard, Tommy Douglas, father of Canada’s Health Care system was my bestie because there’s one picture of me with him when I met him as a teenager and was a member of the New Democratic Youth.

Absurd as it is, this deception has become the foundation for numerous confabulations to discredit Assange using the Guilt by Association fallacy as an Argumentum Ad Hominem attack. This demagogic style of argumentation is a key component of any Propaganda arsenal.

One example of this is the false allegation that, Assange is allegedly antisemitic and right-wing because he allegedly has a close, long term relationship with Shamir who is allegedly an antisemite and holocaust denier.

” I wrote hundreds of pages on the Jewish topic, but for the benefit of the reader I’ll sum it up. Naturally, as a son of Jewish parents and a man living in the Jewish state and deeply and intimately involved with Jewish culture, I harbour no hate to a Jew because he is a Jew. I doubt many people do. However I did and do criticise various aspects of Jewish Weltanschauung like so many Jewish and Christian thinkers before me, or even more so for I witnessed crimes of the Jewish state that originated in this worldview.

As for the accusation of “Holocaust denial”, my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, but I do deny its religious salvific significance implied in the very term ‘Holocaust’; I do deny its metaphysical uniqueness, I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust and I think every God-fearing man, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim should reject it as Abraham rejected and smashed idols. I deny that it is good to remember or immortalise such traumatic events, and I wrote many articles against modern obsession with massacres, be it Jewish holocaust of 1940s, Armenian massacre of 1915, Ukrainian “holodomor”, Polish Katyn, Khmer Rouge etc. Poles, Armenians, Ukrainians understood me, so did Jews – otherwise I would be charged with the crime of factual denial which is known to the Israeli law.” – Israel Shamir 

It’s the right wing extremist element in Israel and their supporters in the Israel Lobby, that is pushing this propaganda that any criticism of Israel constitutes “antisemitism”. Jeremy Corbyn, a man who has a long history of fighting against fascism and antisemitism is also being falsely accused of being an “antisemite” by that same element.

To understand this issue in depth, I recommend the recent Al Jazeera film, The Lobby (UK) which exposes the dark underbelly of the Lobby in the UK.

Segments of the US version, which has been banned, have also been leaked to various sites.

So, back to the main topic, and to summarize this section:

  1. the disinformation is spread about Shamir that he is an alleged antisemite, holocaust denier which implies he’s right wing
  2. a foundation is built by spreading that falsehood everywhere
  3. that becomes the foundation for disinformation attacks on Assange by association, that is, since Assange has “friends” who are allegedly right wing,antisemite, holocaust deniers then he must be as well.

The claim that Shamir hadaccess to thousands of US diplomatic cablesis based on the above allegations by James Ball, a WikiLeaks intern from November 23, 2010 to December 15, 2010. In February, 2011 he became a full-time journalist for the Guardian. The job with the Guardian gave him an unprecedented platform from which he could establish his false narrative as an alleged witness to Shamir’s activities in relation to WikiLeaks and Assange. That narrative consisted of exaggerations, spins, and, according to Shamir, outright lies, intended to give the false impression that Shamir had more access to the cables than other journalists.

WikiLeaks, in their statement quoted above, has stated clearly that his access was the same as that of other journalists.

If Shamir had unrestricted access to the cables (implied by Ball), why would he have to ask Ball for cables about “the Jews”, as Ball also claims? He wouldn’t have to.

The “interest” in those cables appears to have been a fabrication by James Ball, as a set-up, so that a foundation could be created for later allegations. Ball, and the other media writing these stories, simply ignore the inherent contradictions in Ball’s story when they use it as a foundation for later false allegations.

Shamir states that he received cables related to Minsk and Moscow from James Ball and that Ball offered them to him on his own initiative, not at Shamir’s request.

You [James Ball] did it even twice: just before my departure you came to me on your own initiative and kindly handed me “a better file on Jews”, twice as big as the previous one. Apparently lying and cheating is your second nature by now.

Deception:

Ball continues to build on this smear:

Still later, when damning evidence emerged that Shamir had handed cables material to the dictator of Belarus – a man he holds in high esteem – to assist his persecution of opposition activists, Assange shamefully refused to investigate. – Israel Shamir and Julian Assange’s cult of machismo by James Ball 

This part of the story was built on the foundational false narrative established by Ball re: the “ access to all cable material concerning “the Jews”” and the “was privy to the contents of tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables” plus the following image was “evidence” that Shamir had been in Minsk.

Shamir was photographed by an Interfax photographer on the steps of the Belarus Presidential Administation Building in Minsk earlier today.

e3ea542c479f2c82357c9de905eb1d4262126f07

In this CounterPunch article, Shamir explains what he was doing in Minsk (International Observer to the Elections) and his position on Belarus. His mother is from Minsk which explains his interest in the region: The Minsk Election in a Wikileaks Mirror by Israel Shamir

This particular story is quite complex but has been examined in depth in this article: The Guardian and WikiLeaks, Hazel Press, January 19, 2013. To understand this issue I recommend you read the article.

The author, after an in-depth analysis concludes that the allegation that Shamir handed cables over to Lukashenko to damage the Belarus opposition is baseless. There isn’t a shred of hard evidence to support it. This image combined with articles which appear to be based on nothing more than unsupported assertions, assumptions, exaggerations and spin, are the combined total of the evidence.

The article is a recommended read to get a solid grasp of what happened, when and why.

One of the very interesting points made in the article is to demonstrate how one false allegation gets built by using other false allegations as their foundation. You can see this by clicking through the links the articles reference to try to locate the original source. When you find the original source you can see that the entire narrative is built on sand since the original sources don’t offer any evidence of their claims.

Guilt by association is used to smear Assange here as well. Once the narrative was established by Ball, that Shamir had allegedly handed cables over to the Belarus government, led by Lukashenko, Assange and WikiLeaks were then falsely accused of putting dissidents at risk.

The facts, according to the Hazel Press article above, and which are substantiated, are that Charter 97, a human rights group in Belarus, had received the cables and had published articles criticizing the Lukashenko regime. The web site was DDOSd and the Belarus police raided their offices and arrested them. According to the article, this is likely how the regime got access to the cables. Andrei Sannikov, the leader of the Opposition was imprisoned by Lukashenko.

In addition, Andrei Sannikov’s  sister, Irina, main spokesperson of the Free Belarus campaign, invited Julian Assange to the screening of their film, Europe’s Last Dictator. Assange had been helping Belarussian dissidents in the background.

“Europe’s Last Dictator” in Belarus Q&A session with Julian Assange,  part 1 of 2

If one wanted to nitpick this tempest in a teapot, one certainly could, but in the end it would be a pointless exercise. As I said in Part 1, even if it were all true and the motivation was to escape any US extradition attempt by going to Russia (and there is no foundation here to indicate that it is) … so what?

After Ecuador granted Assange Ecuadorian citizenship & made him a diplomatic staffer to the embassy in London, Ecuadorian officials may well have discussed amongst themselves what diplomatic posting to give him, on the assumption that the UK response would be to declare him “persona non-grata” (and thus trigger Vienna Convention rules about allowing sufficient time for diplomats rejected in this same way to leave the country safely).

However, as eye-witness Craig Murray has already told us in his recent blog post on this topic “it is a fact that Julian  directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable“.

The fact that this document referred to in this article and the others which appeared on Twitter today do indicate that Ecuadorian officials wanted to send Assange to Russia, are quite meaningless, since Assange rejected the suggestion.

“There is a ministerial agreement [at the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador], according to which Julian Assange was appointed Ecuador’s diplomatic representative in Moscow,” Vintimilla said.

 

screenshot-twitter.com 2018-10-17 13-41-21-214

And last but not least, you know the propagandists are desperate when they’ve sunk so low that all they have left is to try to divert the discussion of serious political and civil rights issues into personal attacks about Julian Assange’s personal hygiene and threaten Embassy Cat.

The inevitable outcome of all of this confabulation is to support the RussiaGate confabulation that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are allegedly in cahoots with the Russians to undermine the US. There is no evidence that demonstrates any connection between Assange and the Russians or WikiLeaks and the Russians, that would support this narrative, despite repeated attempts to create the false impression that there is.

In my humble opinion, the US is doing an excellent job of undermining themselves, as is Russia and numerous other countries around the world. None of those countries actually need any help from anyone when it comes to undermining their own democracies, economic and social systems, even if they’re getting that “help” from each other. Which they probably are.

All WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have done is expose these governments own words and deeds to the people. For the first time in history, we can see globally and first hand, the destruction that is being wreaked on our societies by the global elite working in collusion with lawless governments that have gone rogue.

In order to clearly understand the problem, you have to ignore the MSM Propaganda narratives and look at the actual facts. Thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, people are starting to understand this and have actually been enabled to do this.

This is what many of the Independent and Alternative media sites have been doing and it’s why they have much larger followings on Social Media than MSM sites. It’s also why they’re being mass-censored by Google, Facebook and now Twitter is following suit. It’s a last ditch desperate attempt to save the dying MSM and maintain control over the propaganda narratives.

When you understand the problem, you can work on the solution.

 

Dv19lzQ

The Recent Defamation of #WikiLeaks and #JulianAssange, Part 1

I’ve entitled this article “The Recent Defamation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange” because in reality the defamation campaign against both has been going on for years. In order to write this article I had to do a deep dive into the details of what can only be described as the darkest and most deceptive rabbit hole in existence in recent years.

Given this history, the deceptions in dark places and webs of intrigues that are now occurring are beyond the pale and would rival any great spy novel.

Anyone calling themselves a journalist, who is accepting the narrative spin being provided by the mainstream media, at face value, is proving that they don’t have the foggiest clue what real journalism is or simply don’t care.

Let’s start by examining the AP release of ten documents from their much larger WikiLeaks leak, announced on September 17, 2018.

screenshot-twitter.com-2018.09.26-07-20-00

The first ten documents are located here on the AP Document Cloud

In their first article, AP Exclusive: WikiLeaks files expose group’s inner workings, written by Raphael Satter and published by AP on September 17, 2018, they introduced their first document. It was a letter, allegedly written by Julian Assange, giving a journalist, Israel Shamir, authority to act on Assange’s behalf to obtain a Russian visa.

This article and the letter led to headlines in mainstream media globally about an alleged attempted escape plan by Julian Assange, to slip away to Russia.

letterofauthority
AP and Raphael Satter, the author of the article, received a quick response from WikiLeaks refuting the authenticity of the document and identifying its source:
screenshot-twitter.com-2018.09.26-07-21-32

While I’m not a professional journalist, just a lowly blogger journalist who writes opinion pieces occasionally, it seems to me that the first rational step here, given WikiLeaks refutation, would be to find out more about Sigurdur Thordarson and Israel Shamir and their relationships with WikiLeaks.

Make sense? Apparently not, at least not to numerous “professional” journalists writing hit pieces all over the globe which leap to unwarranted conclusions, based on assumptions regarding this one letter.

Ok, that’s not entirely true. Many did do a little “research” into Siggi (Sigurdur’s nickname) and “Israel” (not his real name). Their “research” consisted of using old hit pieces as references for their new hit pieces.

Go “Investigative Journalism”!

Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave.

As I enter the dank, dark rabbit hole, brush off the numerous spider webs, and turn on my flashlight I discover the infamous young Siggi was convicted for two years for committing embezzlement and financial fraud against WikiLeaks which included the forgery of information relating to impersonating Julian Assange.

That’s aside from his obsession with grooming and bribing under-age minors into having sex with him. He was convicted for another 2 years for that and another two years for embezzlement and fraud against another company.

The Judge sentenced him to prison for a total of 6 years, running concurrently and he was required to pay a total of over $200,000 USD in damages to all of the affected parties. He served 3 years and, according to the WikiLeaks Twitter account, was released recently.

screenshot-twitter.com-2018.09.27-07-21-32

Previous to his arrests and convictions, in 2011, Siggi had offered his services to the FBI to act as a paid informant within WikiLeaks.

It was then that, at about 3:30am on August 23, 2011, Thordarson sat down at his computer at home in Kópavogur and typed out a message to the US Embassy in Reykjavik. He decided he wanted to become an informant – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks’s baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013

This was what triggered the rather infamous illegal operation by the FBI in Iceland. They had attempted to sneak into Iceland under false pretenses by telling the Icelandic authorities that they were investigating breaches in the Icelandic Parliamentary computer system. They were actually there to interview Siggi and set him up formally as a paid informant in WikiLeaks. When their deception was discovered they were unceremoniously kicked out of Iceland and arranged to meet Siggi in Denmark instead.

This action is detailed in Julian Assange’s affidavit and confirmed by Iceland’s Interior Minister at the time: Jónasson: The Icelandic Minister who refused cooperation with the FBI. katoikos.eu, December 7, 2016.

Siggi has publicly admitted he turned a lot of material over to the FBI and received $5,000 USD in payment on March 18, 2012.

According to a Justice Department receipt Thordarson says was provided by the FBI, he turned over eight hard drives in total containing of about 1 terabyte of data, which is the equivalent of about 1000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks’s baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013

On September, 17, 2018, after Siggi’s release from prison, AP received what appears to be the same material. Was the source Siggi? Siggi and the FBI were the ones who had the material. That fact combined with Siggi’s recent release makes a strong case that he was the one who released them to AP, possibly in collusion with the FBI, unless he retained his own copies.

After Siggi handed the material over to the FBI on March 18, 2012, Siggi’s relationship with the FBI began to fall apart according to emails between Siggi and the FBI, which Siggi provided to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Once the agents obtained the hard drives and received the passwords to access them, Thordarson’s emails suggest, they stopped responding regularly to his messages and rebuffed his attempts to set up another meeting. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks’s baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013

The FBI agent quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald stated there were “bureaucratic issues” but doesn’t specify what they were.

In early 2012, after a period of not responding to Thordarson’s emails, his alleged FBI handler wrote that there had been “bureaucratic issues beyond my control that prevented me from maintaining contact,” adding that “our relationship has been problematic for some others. This is not an ordinary case. But those were not my issues and I have been diligently trying to work out those issues so we can continue our relationship.” – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks’s baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013

In my opinion, and based on my knowledge of how the FBI works, SMH’s explanation is unlikely.

There were also signs that internal conflict was developing within the FBI over the infiltration of WikiLeaks, a controversial tactic not least because WikiLeaks is a publisher and press freedom groups have condemned from the outset the government’s investigation into Assange and his colleagues. – Sigurdur Thordarson: WikiLeaks’s baby-faced traitor. Sydney Morning Herald. August 16, 2013

The FBIs history demonstrates that it doesn’t use civil rights violations like press freedoms as a measure for determining whether they are or are not going to infiltrate an organization, whether it’s a criminal enterprise or a social activist cause or something else.

It’s far more likely that they were concerned about the reliability of the information provided to them and therefore Siggi’s reliability. Especially in light of all the charges laid against him by the Icelandic Police during the same time period, some of which were directly related to his impersonation of Assange.

There would also have been a huge risk that the FBI might have been perceived as colluding with Siggi’s criminal activities where WikiLeaks and Assange were concerned. That is, the impersonations and fraud that Siggi was eventually convicted of.

If the FBI thought any of this information was actually credible or legally useful in building a case of Russian collusion or anything else against WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, they would have: 

  1. Continued to build their relationship with Siggi  
  2. Handed the information over to the Prosecutors for future use in a WikiLeaks / Julian Assange prosecution. 
  3. A leak would have been highly unlikely because BOTH would have had more to gain by NOT leaking it. 

If the information was tainted and not useful in building the legal case against WikiLeaks, both the FBI and Siggi would have something to gain with it’s release. The FBI could use their media connections to instigate a disinformation campaign and Siggi would have more notoriety and possibly some more cash in his pocket.

According to WikiLeaks (in the above screenshot) Scandinavian outlets also received the documents “years ago” and refused to publish them because they considered them untrustworthy. Therefore they would have no reason to release them now to other media.

All of that said, let’s get back to the letter.

The AP article claims the following as evidence of it’s “authentication”:

Metadata suggests that it was on Nov. 29, the day after the release of the first batch of U.S. State Department files, that the letter to the Russian Consulate was drafted on the Jessica Longley computer.

One of the former associates, an ex-employee, identified two of the names that frequently appeared in the documents’ metadata, “Jessica Longley” and “Jim Evans Mowing,” as pseudonyms assigned to two WikiLeaks laptops.

– AP Exclusive: WikiLeaks files expose group’s inner workings. AP, September 17, 2018

However, they neglect to mention that Siggi was working as a low level volunteer for WikiLeaks at the time and had access to their computers. That’s how he was able to get the data in the first place. Fabricating documents on WikiLeaks laptops would have been easy for him to do and he’s already been convicted of fraud for fabricating information in relation to Julian Assange.

Another problem with the AP authentication procedure is that we are expected to believe anonymous sources on the assumption they are telling the truth. They don’t appear to have provided any supporting evidence to back their claim that WikiLeaks laptops exist with those names.

As a result, we simply don’t know if they are being truthful, acting as disgruntled ex-employees on a vendetta, or acting as paid informants pushing a disinformation campaign. This makes their verification meaningless because there is no way for us to vet it independently.

The only real benefit to legitimate anonymous sources is they can point journalists and investigators in the right direction to getting the hard evidence they need to make a case. Their information also provides journalists with the background to ask the right questions when they’re probing an issue.

This was the contribution that anonymous source Deep Throat made in the 1960s which led to the Watergate scandal. In other words, Deep Throat was just the beginning of the process of collecting hard evidence to support his allegations independently and then to act on them. Nobody just took his word at face value.

Claiming one has authenticated a document based on “non-public details such as bank accounts, telephone numbers or airline tickets” is equally absurd because that information isn’t non-public in reality. Since Siggi was a low level volunteer for WikiLeaks, it’s precisely the type of information he could have had access to in order to fabricate the documents.

This kind of vetting is as absurd as the banks insisting that I provide my mother’s maiden name to identity myself as a “security” measure because it’s “non-public”. Everyone and their dog who knows me, knows my mother’s maiden name. I don’t use it. I give a fake maiden name for my mother.

In addition, where is the evidence that the laptops named “Jessica Longley” or “Jim Evans Mowing” have ever been used by Assange? Anything written by him would be on his own laptop and not on some random WikiLeaks laptop used by staff (that’s assuming the anonymous sources were being truthful and that WikiLeaks laptops with those names existed – we don’t actually know).

As a friend of mine pointed out, he could write a letter today, put Julian Assange’s name on it, send it to the FBI and/or the media, and it would have as much credibility as this one. Well, maybe a little more since he hasn’t done time in prison for impersonating Assange like Siggi has.

The end result is that all the metadata actually proves is that someone had access to laptops with those names, which may or may not have been WikiLeaks laptops. The only someone with demonstrable access to those particular laptops is Siggi.

The additional photocopy of the passport published with the letter in the Document Cloud is irrelevant since the point of the passport would simply be to verify whether there was a Russian Visa stamp on it dated November or December, 2010 and that isn’t visible.

AP’s note above the passport (scroll down to see it) states:

The following is a notarized copy of Assange’s passport. The document was obtained by the AP separately from the letter to the Russian Consulate in London, but it is consistent with the letter’s content. 

If it was obtained separately, and all it is, is a notarized copy of the front page of Julian Assange’s passport, how is it consistent with the letters content? It wasn’t attached to the letter and by AP’s own admission, it was obtained separately from the letter. There is no information related to where it came from or what the evidentiary link to the letter might be. Again, we’re expected to just believe based on nothing but an assumption.

The fact that the date it was notarized is one month previous to the letter isn’t enough to confirm anything, especially given the facts that it did not come attached to the letter and the letter is not properly authenticated, signed or notarized.

People have copies of their passport notarized for any number of reasons.

All of that said, in the end and in my opinion, this entire drama is a smear campaign intended to lay the foundation for further false “Russian collusion” disinformation against WikiLeaks and Assange. When the Feds can’t make a legal case, jury by public opinion through mainstream media has become a last resort.

It’s called Manufacturing Consent (Noam Chomsky).

It’s a tempest in a teapot since even if it were true, so what? Going to Russia doesn’t automatically indicate collusion of any kind. If it was true, it might (but not necessarily) indicate he was trying to escape extradition to the US. So what? That’s why he asked for asylum.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know what the implications would be to Assange if the US succeeded in extraditing him. Injustice, torture and abuse of due process are the name of the game in the US Injustice System as Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner, Jeremy Hammond, Matt DeHart and numerous others can attest to first hand.

The implications to Press Freedoms would be even worse since WikiLeaks and Assange’s only “crime” was to publish leaked information, much of which exposed corruption and abuses of power at the highest levels. This was in the public interest and is a protected right under the US Constitution. SCOTUS legal precedent has established that protection extends to non-US citizens.

Jennifer Robinson, one of Julian Assange’s lawyer commented on the AP allegations and this particular document, pointing out that they could have easily been verified by contacting the UK authorities who still have Julian Assange’s passport or the Russian Embassy in the UK. His passport was confiscated by the UK on December 7, 2010. If it had a brand new Russian Visa attached to it, it’s unlikely they would have granted him bail and yet they did.

Jennifer Robinson’s comments on this occur around the 10:20 mark in the video at the bottom of the following article:

Ecuador pledged to not kick out Assange, but threat of US prosecution still serious – lawyer to RT 

Common sense would also dictate that if Julian Assange had decided to get a Russian Visa, he would have done it through his lawyers and not some journalist, irrespective of whether that journalist is a friend or not. According to WikiLeaks, Shamir wasn’t a close friend. He was simply one of many journalists that had some access to some material in the WikiLeaks databases and nothing more.

It is false that Shamir is ‘an Assange intimate’. He interviewed Assange (on behalf of Russian media), as have many journalists. He took a photo at that time and has only met with WikiLeaks staff (including Asssange) twice. –WikiLeaks

The only discussions that did occur regarding Russia, occurred in December, 2017, were between the Ecuadorian Embassy and Assange and were related to his diplomatic status. Assange was given diplomatic status by Ecuador in December 2017 and the Ecuadorians were proposing he be sent to Russia to act as Ecuador’s diplomatic representative in Moscow. Since the UK refused to recognize his diplomatic status that proposal became moot and did not involve any discussions with the Russians.

Ecuador had named Assange adviser at Embassy in Russia: Ecuadorian Lawmaker

Craig Murray, in his recent Blog post, Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian dated September 23, 2018 and updated on September 24, 2018 made the following comment:

UPDATE One reason I was so stunned at the Guardian’s publication of these lies is that I had gone direct from the Ecuadorean Embassy to the Guardian building in Kings Cross to give an in-depth but off the record briefing to Euan MacAskill, perhaps their last journalist of real integrity, on the strategy for Julian. I told Euan that Russia was ruled out. I did not mention this yesterday as I greatly respect Euan and wanted to speak to him first. But on phoning the Guardian I find that Euan “retired” the day the lying article was published. That seems a very large coincidence.

Craig Murray, a former UK Diplomat, also states in the blog post that: “…Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable…”.

In addition, the Russian Embassy released a statement on September 26, 2018 confirming WikiLeaks denial.

The embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorean colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russian participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.- Julian Assange and Russia’s UK embassy. The Guardian, September 24, 2018

Ivan Volodin, at the Russian embassy in London, responds to a Guardian article reporting that Russian diplomats held secret talks about helping Julian Assange flee the UK

Russian Embassy tweet

Now, I’m just curious… How is it possible that numerous professional journalists writing for numerous platforms…

  1. Can be so eager and willing to accept what can only be described as an Orwellian narrative without question?
  2. Are so willing to accept the word of completely anonymous sources making statements that not only cannot be independently verified but are openly and publicly contradicted by people who are both identified and in a position to know the facts?
  3. Are so accepting of “facts” that can so easily be refuted?

I’ll leave it to those journalists writing the hit pieces to explore their own consciences and the reader to come to their own conclusions.

It isn’t rocket science and doesn’t require a genius IQ to see what’s going on here.

#DisinformationWars

Special thanks to Raymond Johanson and the others who assisted me by giving me feedback and constructive advice on this article.

quote-journalism-should-be-more-like-science-as-far-as-possible-facts-should-be-verifiable-julian-assange-121-30-33

INTERVIEW: Meet @88blackhatz of AnonIntelGroup

jamesstpatricavatar

– KITTY HUNDAL, RAYMOND JOHANSEN – ACTIVISM

Social media has become a global community which mirrors real lives and real societies. In recent months some of us on social media have noticed that certain individuals and groups have become very familiar on our Facebook and Twitter feeds and are receiving a ground swell of support from many.

We, at Hacktivist Culture, would like to introduce readers to one such individual and group. This individual has become quite well known for the contributions they and their group are making through social media activism.

James St. Patrick aka @88blackhatss is the founder of the popular #IntelGroup also known as AnonIntelGroup or Anonymous Intelligence Group. #IntelGroup can also be found on wordpress: http://www.anonintelgroup.com/

The Anon, the man, the activist

We don’t want you to risk your anonymity but in order for our readers to be able to connect with you they need to understand a little bit about who you are. You have become a familiar, respected figure on social media, in Anonymous and social activist circles. In order to understand why, it helps if we understand who you are as a person or persona. So please tell us who James St. Patrick is?

Well first of all, I want to say thank you for having me . Thank you for the amazing work you have both done and are doing as we speak.

This would be my first formal interview and I’m honored it’s with you . So lets get to it…

Who is James St.Patrick? My response will always be “an idea”. I would describe myself as a person who not only wants change, but wants to be a part of the process that ultimately brings change. Maybe that’s what drew me to Anonymous. I was tired, of being tired you know? I genuinely want to help people. And I think I give people that feeling when they deal with me. I’m all work … no bullshit.

What are your passions in life? What do you hate and what do you love?

I am a big fan of everything . You name it and I can talk your ear off about it. I’m a huge advocate for marijuana.

I am a lover of life and everything in it. I am not afraid of fighting so long as I believe I’m fighting for what is right. Listing my dislikes would truly just boggle the mind. But trust me Police and Feds are 1 & 2 on that list. I hate the system. It’s rigged we know it, they know it, so lets fuck it up!

Can you share anything personal without risking your anonymity? Things like whether or not you have a family, personal/social commitments, involvement in community activism, career, or other information.

family_960_720Well I most definitely have a family who I get up and go to work for everyday. I am a father who’s devoted to his children. I am an active member of my community and I always try to give back. My family means the world to me. I try to lead by example both in real life and through my online identity.

What does your daily routine look like?

I go thru a lot of information on a daily basis. I mean people from all over the world are in constant contact with me sharing information. I spend a lot of my day reading and researching. I make sure I’m up to date on all current events, So we can always be in the best position to help our fellow brothers and sisters.

Watching your presence on social media we see that you have a multitude of friends and followers. Do you think they gravitate towards you because of your wit, good looks or knowledge? 😉

Well I definitely dont think its cuz of my looks, i think my followers for one, are the fucking greatest! Shout out to them, because nothing and I mean absolutely nothing would be possible without the tremendous amount of support I receive from them on a daily basis. But back to the question, I think people gravitate towards me because I dont clutter your timeline with useless shit.

I like to bring you information that you want, that you need. I don’t just report the news, I occasionally help create the news, I participate in the same things I bring awareness to. I have been consistent and I think people admire and respect that. I have been fortunate enough to meet great people doing great things. You know the saying ‘Real Recognize Real’, well I believe people believe in what I’m doing and who I’m doing it for and they support that.

Maneuvering through Anonymous is not easy without making enemies but i think others recognize what we are doing. We get a lot of support and we give back twice as much!

Does your handle @88blackhatss have any special significance?

8-8 stands for August 8th. That would be my birth month and day. Black is my favorite color. And everything I talk about is over your head like a Hat. 😉

Do you fear you have or will become the target of a federal investigation simply because you share Anon operations?

keep-calm-and-practice-good-opsecI refuse to live in fear of anything. The government will not and can not do anything to me they haven’t been doing to us already. I will not allow the fear of prison or death hinder our objectives.

The same way they operate with Authority and Impunity, so shall I.

I will continue to do everything in my power to contribute to the Anonymous idea. In our quest for truth, transparency, justice and freedom, I will not let fear be a factor.

“Let them not say we did nothing”

What do you think has changed in the world post-Snowden?

I think now we question security practices a lot more than we ever did. He changed the way people did business with big tech companies. He brought encryption to the forefront. Those companies all had to step up their securities as well. I mean what was that line they said “the scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities is staggering”. He has become huge in our community.

What is your philosophy on life? Do you follow any particular belief system?

Me personally, I believe there’s pieces of truth in every religion. And no man can truthfully tell another that his beliefs are wrong.

But I will say this:
The complexity of life on this planet. The beauty of the universe. The dance the stars do across the heavens is no accident. I believe without a doubt in a higher power. An architect if you will. There’s no way I believe life just happened. So I believe in something greater. Who? Or What? I’m still working that out.

88 on #IntelGroup

You are the founder of Anonymous Intelligence Group also known as AnonIntelGroup or #IntelGroup. Many of us have seen your daily stream of news about what is going on in the Anon world as well as the world at large. Some people think that if you share a story, an op or a tweet that you support that particular action. Why don’t you tell us what #IntelGroup is, and what its primary function is?

Well the primary function would be the steady flow of information. Sometimes people do mistake a re-tweet or the sharing of an article as support. But we share everything with the intent that YOU the reader should have all the info on a matter to decide for YOURSELF what you should do.

For example :
Reporter shares an article about a man who threw a dog off a roof. That doesn’t mean the reporter supports this man, it means, Hey! This guy threw his dog off the roof and I want that information out because we need to do something about it!  You know what I’m saying.

Our site is designed to focus on what the mainstream will not cover. We do spotlights on activities coming up and causes, that without us, wouldn’t even get a mention.

What is your short term and long term vision for #IntelGroup?

Well we are still growing and naturally there are growing pains. I think we are at that point every Anon account goes through where people are taking shots. You know these Feds have no respect, morals or ethics. They stop at nothing to disrupt any momentum any movement has. And I don’t mean just Anonymous. Look around.

So, short term we want Health, Freedom And Love.

Anonymous activism is a fluid situation. Things change and move quickly. You can be on top of the world one minute … Hiding in Canada the next. We take it day to day and we just work hard!

Would you care to name any particular ops that #IntelGroup, past or present, supports or participates in?

anonymous-serena-shim-turkey.jpgWow yea … Thinking back we have supported 100’s of Op’s throughout my time in Anon.

But the ones we were hands on with were:
#OpFerguson – worked with the streamers on ground.
#OpDarrianHunt – worked with victims mother Susan
#OpICantBreathe – formed with daughter Erica Garner
#OpSerenaShim – Currently working with victims mother Judy .
#OpFlint – we worked it with the activist that first brought awareness (@C1ty_of_Fl1nt)

And more that aren’t coming to my head right now. But the point you get from my work is I’m anti police brutality and I work closely with the families. I do this for two reasons. 1. I like to know my help directly effects the victims families. And 2. I don’t like disrespecting the families by doing things in the child’s name that they don’t agree with. So if I’m not confident we are helping the family, we won’t participate.

Can people join #IntelGroup? If not, why not? If so, how? Are there requirements to be a member?

People can support IntelGroup. Joining is a different story. See I have built this up in a certain way and a certain style. I am proud of it . From where my idea started to where it is. I am appreciative for the blessing of having a platform. A voice. I have let people in before and those people are no longer with us. But they caused immediate problems and didn’t want to follow our vision. They used the name as a badge and did what they wanted.

Also to be honest … I did so much work and just fell into a pattern of working . That with the small team we got we have accomplished a lot . We all work hard . And by working at this pace, we don’t leave a lot for the next guy to do. But I’m open minded and I know talent when I see it. If anyone’s interested just contact me. Great minds think alike. Anonymous has no leaders. But #IntelGroup is a circle within circle. A sub division.

#IntelGroup has rules . We operate with ethics. We show respect. We demand respect. We aren’t dramatic. We don’t go back and fourth. We just Do Work. And people have come to appreciate that. I won’t let anything tarnish what we work for. Our actions always represent two things: #IntelGroup & #Anonymous

I’ve noticed that there are other people on Twitter who use the hashtag #IntelGroup. Are they members or supporters? What do they do for #IntelGroup? How do they contribute?

Some are members, most are supporters. Sometimes you see people use it who clearly don’t even know what it is. But have seen it so often on Twitter that they use it.
The hashtag #IntelGroup was first used for the reason of me not wanting to just hand the keys to our #IntelGroup accounts to just anybody. By others inserting the hashtag into their tweets, I would scan at the end of the day that hashtag and share the articles with the hashtag in it.

Then the hashtag took on a life of its own . And now people use it as like an Alert …. A bat signal if you will lulz

Do your members follow the same belief system that you do or do you accept people from a variety of beliefs? Is there a world view or core belief that everyone accepts and follows as a criterion for involvement in #IntelGroup? In other words – what is it that unites you as a group?

I don’t push my beliefs on anybody in #Intelgroup . But naturally we all just click . We operate with minimal contact yet stay in touch, we all got issues and things we push. Occasionally things clash but we manage to sort things out internally without much ruckus. There are no children here. We know what’s at stake and we mutually bond for justice , transparency and freedom. We are all fighters.

88 on Anonymous in general

Anonymous is seen by some as a headless collective that in recent years have lost their touch and effectiveness. Some have even concluded that all Anonymous ranks and ops have been so infiltrated by intelligence agencies, special interests and otherwise bad actors that they can never again exert any real positive impact on the world we live in. What are your thoughts on that?

91c5c6ba85820c033c1fc756ff6db962Well anytime money gets thrown into the mix it changes everything. Feds grab these kids and scare them. The next thing you know they offer a way out, throw em a couple bucks and boom your signing online identity agreements, and now the Feds are running a Twitter account. The shit gets crazy quick. But you know what? Name me a movement without these perpetrators and imposters . Name a movement they don’t try and discredit or hijack. There will always be these issues.

But I urge Anons to make a decision. If you’re doing this for money or fame, this is not a game. And the problem is, you don’t just hurt yourself but you almost always hurt people that actually care and fight out of the goodness of their hearts. I formed IntelGroup to actually control what we do. Anonymous is awesome and I love Anonymous. But it has flaws . And that, ‘anyone can be Anonymous’ bites you in the ass real quick. But see, not everyone can be #IntelGroup. Therefore we control the actions carried out in our name.

We control what we support. We can spark for #IntelGroup. There’s a contact. You can reach out and ask us shit, you know?

Do you think Anonymous will ever again be a part of world changing events like the Arab Spring?

Arab SPringFor sure. Every movement evolves. Anonymous is evolving every day . It has come such a long way. The snake with many heads gets one or two cut off daily but it continues to flourish. Maybe I’m biased.

Maybe I believe in the idea of Anonymous so much, I’m blinded. But from where I’m standing Anonymous is just getting started.

What do you think of the fact that at least one Anonymous op (one of the OpISIS ones) openly states that they are working with the Feds? Is this a good or bad thing? Or are you neutral towards ops like this one.

It’s disgusting . And I know some of those guys who made the switch. These muthafuckers spent an entire summer hitting Police Departments offline and fighting for #TamirRice and #DarrianHunt and then wake up one morning and are working with the Feds taking down #ISIS. People freaked. They trusted these guys. And this is just one case that we know about. Can you imagine the ones we don’t?

Back to the question is this a bad thing? Well from what I’ve experienced, any cooperation with law enforcement is a bad thing. But for fuck sake these people who do this never were pure. This is all a platform to do what they ultimately want to do which is be a fucking rat.

What is, in your opinion, the most important areas of interest to Anonymous?

Social Justice and Change. Internet Freedom. And Being the Voice For The Little Guy.

Anonymous has a love hate relationship with Julian Assange, but do you think that most still support the actions of WikiLeaks?

Everyone’s a critic. And while I do implore everyone to research and be patient with information. If you can’t?? Fuck it! Leak Dat Shit! I’d rather it leak than not. And I think everyone will agree you’d rather have something then nothing. I applaud Julian [Assange] for his work.

If you could change three things about how Anonymous operates, what would those be?

I am not one to criticize something without a solution and the problems Anonymous has right now are just too big for me to contemplate. I love Anonymous for the idea that it is and I will do my part to make it better.

What are your thoughts about our biggest signal boost channel, Your Anon News?

I have a great relationship with #YAN. Whether they admit it or not, they are the biggest voice for us in Twitter. YAN supports us and helps us carry our message further. I mean people don’t know this but #IntelGroup was formed in part because we couldn’t get YAN’s attention at first, being new and not knowing how to utilize Twitter better. I was like fuck it! I’ll make my own news account and push our own shit! Well thanks to that #IntelGroup is gaining ground and now our inspiration is a DM away. YAN has been doing amazing work for years. They have my Love and Support.

Everybody knows that you and every other anon would never support or endorse a political entity under the Anonymous label. Yet there seems to be a certain affinity between the Pirate Party and the Anonymous collective. What are your thoughts on that?

I think that the Pirate Party shares similar ideals. Like civil rights, free sharing of informationanon_pirates_by_cr3tiv3-d4ytykc, privacy, transparency, network neutrality as well as copyright and patent laws.

Like I said great minds think alike and I think when you get down to it Anonymous and The Pirate Party have a lot in common.

Plus name me a person who doesn’t think Pirates are cool. Lulz.

Do you believe that the unity that developed between Anonymous, Occupy and WikiLeaks in 2011 still exists (generally speaking)? If so, is/was this a good or bad thing? If not, should it be rebuilt?

I think like everything in life when things go wrong people try and pass the blame around. People grow and distance themselves from others. But I think it’s natural. All our paths crossed because we are all seeking the same thing. Truth and transparency. No relationships have been damaged beyond repair. We all just assumed more responsibility and that weight gets to be too much sometimes. But I believe we will all unite very soon. We are all playing the same game . We will forever be players.

– Interview by Kitty Hundal and Raymond Johansen for Hacktivist Culture 2k16

‪#‎IMSIcatchers‬ | Oslo under surveillance

gsm_monitor

#PST Norway spied on it’s own country’s government, financial industry and foreign embassies in #Oslo.

I base this on OSINT information having followed the case ever since the newspaper Aftenposten revealed the existence of IMSI catchers in central parts of the capital. The same was discovered in Stockholm. London and all over the US.

PST tried, in vain, to discredit the newspaper and their experts. (Later they apologized to the latter, Delma, a British security firm). Then they took part in a white wash investigation which they later “closed”. The capital police was also caught blatantly lying about the frequency of their use of the technology.

Most pundits speculated that there was only two categories of suspects. criminals and foreign Intelligence services. I contend that there is a third.

Namely our own Norwegian intel services. Their behavior, lies and spins makes it the most reasonable conclusion. It is noteworthy to mention that IMSI catchers are produced by a US company in Florida, and the fact that Norway has a very special relationship with the Americans. Norway is in fact one of nine countries in the so called 9 Eyes Alliance.

It is my sincere hope that Aftenposten and other newspapers continue to work on this case, because the implications if I am correct are enormous.

It is not the first time the intelligence services in Norway have been caught spying on their own government. Anonymous Norway​ will continue to try to “find” evidence, sharing this information with media.

There is no doubt that certain politicians have been complicit in helping cover up what has really happened here and they will of course be a target of our investigation too. Again, using only OSINT resources. (At least those of us that reside in Norway.)

For the more nerdy of you, here is an article with loads of technical information and links to sources that documents each and every word in this post.

http://nottmagazine.com/2015/07/17/oslo-under-surveillance/

Latest: http://nottmagazine.com/2015/04/05/a-norwegian-watergate/

Enforced Transparency 101

CIA Director John Brennan

CIA Director John Brennan

When the ones who should be taking care of our security go bad, do bad things and fuck up the world someone must Enforce Transparency on them.

This just happened and #TheBrennan will be a part of history from now.

It’s not a bad thing to hack the bad and to expose their corruption / abuse of power. It’s an indication of a good hack when the bad are hacked. It is in fact supreme Lulz to do so.

The kuul thing is that his whole security clearance file is there. Kuul for everyone but Brennan, that is, since everyone he ever knew is in it. Hmmmm.

Hat tip @ 4:20 and high school teens making hero moves. All hail Enforced Transparency!

“Today, 21 October 2015 and over the coming days WikiLeaks is releasing documents from one of CIA chief John Brennan’s non-government email accounts. Brennan used the account occasionally for several intelligence related projects.

John Brennan became the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2013, replacing General David Petraeus who was forced to step down after becoming embroiled in a classified information mishandling scandal. Brennan was made Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on the commencement of the Obama presidency in 2009–a position he held until taking up his role as CIA chief.”

WikiLeaks Emails

~ by Raymond Johansen