Intro to Butowsky Lawsuit, Seth Rich Gave DNC Server to Assange

Intro by John R. Houk

© July 24, 2019

Mueller and many Clinton-invested DOJ members stick to the story the DNC email server was hacked by Russians then shared with Julian Assange’s Wikileaks. Many of us anti-Crooked Hillary folks believe Seth Rich had a hand in delivering the DNC email server content to Assange. There is plenty of respectable tech analysis the DNC server content was downloaded to a thumb drive and delivered to Wikileaks.

o   Mr. Mueller: Was the DNC Server Actually Hacked by the Russians? By GEORGE PARRY; The American Spectator; 3/29/18 12:00 AM

o   Roger Stone Asks for Evidence Russians Hacked DNC Server – Court Won’t Provide It Because They Don’t Have the Proof; By Joe Hoft; The Gateway Pundit; 5/11/19

o   Bill Binney and Larry Johnson, How we Know the DNC was NOT “Hacked by the Russians”; By James Fetzer; JamesFetzer.org; 3/1/19

o   Julian Assange, CrowdStrike, and the Russian Hack That Wasn’t; By Michael Thau; American Greatness; 7/13/18

o   Assange Expected to confirm Wikileaks source of DNC Emails was Seth Rich not Russians; By Dr Michael Salla; MichaelSalla.com; 4/25/19

If indeed the later is truer than the former, it is a strong indication Rich was assassinated rather than murdered in random street mugging. ALSO the implication looms some in the DOJ (Obamanistas & Clintonistas) insisted on a Russian hack as part of a path to perpetuate Trump/Russian Collusion in the 2016 Election. AND THAT implication indicates very dark government corruption in perpetuating a hoax as a coup against President Trump.

JRH 7/24/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

************************

VIDEO Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich

Posted by MyLegalHelpUSA

July 23, 2019

My Legal Help USA

Cross Posted from The Last Refuge/TheConservativeTreeHouse.com

By sundance

July 21, 2019

Not a Russian Hack…

A lawsuit filed a week ago by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleged that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron. [Full Backstory Here]

Due to the scale of ramification, there was some valid skepticism about the Butowsky assertion.  However, recently unearthed footage from Ellen Ratner talking about her visit with Assange in November of 2016 seems to validate what the Butowsky’s lawsuit alleges.

In the video [Full Video Here] taken during a November 9th, 2016, Embry Riddle University symposium, Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner, representing the left, and former Congressman now Fox political analyst John Leboutillier, from the right, discussed the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.  WATCH EXCERPT:

VIDEO: Ellen Ratner (Fox News) tells of her meeting with Julian Assange on Nov. 5 2016

[Posted by Baxter

Published on Jul 21, 2019

… READ THE REST]

The excerpt is taken from 01:01:00 of the FULL VIDEO HERE

[h/t Michael Sheridan for the excerpt]  The date of the Ratner symposium November 9, 2016, aligns with the time-frame of Ratner’s travel and meeting with Assange as outlined by Butowsky in his lawsuit.   As noted Mrs. Ratner confirms that she did meet with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that he did in fact tell her the leaked DNC emails came from inside the DNC.  It was not a Russian hack.

Hopefully this will spur the DOJ under Attorney General Bill Barr to launch an inquiry which must obviously start with the questioning of Ratner.

Accepting some enhanced credibility now exists, the details contained within the lawsuit filing (full pdf below) are stunning.

If this information is true and accurate, now bolstered by the video of Ratner, the DOJ claim of a Russian hack – based on assertions by DNC contractor, Crowdstrike – would be entirely false. Additionally the DC murder of Seth Rich would hold a far more alarming motive.

Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs...

(Source, lawsuit filing – pdf link, page 13)

Here’s the Full Butowsky Court Filing:

View this document on Scribd

The ramifications here are almost too large to describe.

If this information turns out to be true and accurate, the entire narrative around the DNC “hack” will have been proven to be intentionally manufactured.

Despite the FBI’s prior admissions about never reviewing the DNC servers; and despite their recent admissions about never actually seeing the forensic computer analysis, the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and former DAG Rod Rosenstein, cannot blame a simple investigative ‘mistake‘ for the wrong attribution of who gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016. If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses.

Mr. Butowsky is making a very serious allegation in this court filing.

Additionally, the previously discussed motive to arrest Julian Assange would now be further enhanced. Heck, the reason for Assange’ arrest would be brutally obvious.

♦Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when Boente actually left the DOJ-NSD or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) role.

On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Dana Boente had shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker) where Boente remains today. As Mueller was using 19 lawyers, and 50 FBI investigators, Boente was/is the legal counsel to FBI Director Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

[Remember, Robert Mueller never interviewed Julian Assange. Additionally, it is worth noting for the U.S. side of the legal framework, the charges against Assange are not related to Russian efforts in a hack of the DNC; nor is Assange charged with anything related to the 2016 U.S. election interference activities, the Podesta email release or anything therein as previously described by the DOJ.]

The April 11th, 2019, Julian Assange indictment stemmed from the Eastern District of Virginia. From a review of the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018: (The DOJ sat on the indictment for 13 months, until Mueller finished)

Assange requested more info from Manning...

(Link to pdf)

However, on Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to December ’17..

FBI-investigation-assange

The investigation of Assange took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.

Assange-indictment Under Seal

Why was there a delay?

Why did the DOJ wait until the Mueller report was complete?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

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 DNC [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.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

If you overlay the timing, it would appear the FBI took a keen interest in Assange after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).

To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report (needed for Obama – December 29th, ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story.

The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.

Right there is the FBI motive to shut Assange down when the Mueller report was released.

The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike.

Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.

Lastly, if we are to believe everything that is factually visible; including the admissions by the FBI and DOJ itself; and it is proven that Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails and there was no hack; well,… what does that say about Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, who would have had to know they were pushing abject lies in their dubious Russian indictments.

The ramifications of this court filing are huge.

Barr-Rosenstein-Sessions

IMPORTANT – Video Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich – Not a Russian Hack…

______________________

Intro to Butowsky Lawsuit, Seth Rich Gave DNC Server to Assange

Intro by John R. Houk

© July 24, 2019

_______________________

VIDEO Confirms Butowsky Lawsuit Claim: Julian Assange Told Ellen Ratner DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich

My Legal Help USA Homepage

Southwest vs Justin Smith

Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

Below is a relatively even-handed criticism of Justin Smith and my thoughts on Julian Assange being more a scoundrel than a hero. The Commenter goes by the pseudonym “Southwest” and the comments are derived from Groups on the USA Life Social Platform (incidentally to those interested, USA Life is extremely similar to Facebook yet so far – without the Left-Wing censorship used so wickedly on Facebook).

So for some full disclosure. I am quite the fan of Justin Smith. Also I was developing into a fan of Southwest. Unfortunately Southwest is a bit harsh (though respectful) of Justin’s perspective. AND knowing Justin, I suspect he’d be critical of many of Southwest’s assertions. The irony is, it is my sense the two are formed from the same metal of conviction and probably have more in common than not. The two just happen to disagree on some particulars.

Just for the sake of summary, Justin’s position (and to a large extent – my position) is Julian Assange’s indiscriminate publication of transgendered Manning’s purloined Classified data – mixing together both information that needed exposed along with information that risked exposing individuals to physical harm – makes Assange a scoundrel.

Southwest’s stand is a publisher has a right to publish comparable to say the questionable content of the New York Times. At this point I concur with Southwest UNLESS in some fashion Julian Assange was actively involved in the purloining of Classified data as in the now infamous word – collusion to commit a crime. AND either way – simple publisher or colluding criminal – Assange is a scoundrel for grouping people placed in harm’s way with infamous potentially war crime actions.

On the issue of DNC/Podesta email hack, if the data was dropped in his lap he should not be prosecuted for those publications exposing at the infamous character of Crooked Hillary and her Dem operatives.

It is my suspicion Justin and Southwest disagree on how Assange acquired the DNC/Podesta emails. It seems the majority opinion is the Russians did a hack and provided the data to Assange. I know that Assange vehemently denies a Russian connection.

Southwest makes a strong case that the DNC data came from a combination of Gucifer 2 and Seth Rich. Rich was murdered under suspicious circumstances with all the markings of a coverup. Adding to the mystery is Assange offered a reward for info on Rich’s murder adding to the suspicion Rich acted as a whistleblower by providing purloined emails to Assange. BUT to my knowledge, Assange has never confirmed a Seth Rich connection.

On a personal level, I lean to Seth Rich purloining DNC data and being murdered for it. I think but cannot say for certainty, that Justin Smith does not accept the Seth Rich connection to the exposed DNC/Podesta emails.

Whoever is correct, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My interests lay with the obvious culprits in the Dem Party – in and out of government authority – be investigated or re-investigated for crimes against Donald Trump prior AND after the 2016 election.

IF ASSANGE has anything to do with inspiring or speeding along that investigation, scoundrel though he is in my book, needs either immunity or a pardon or both for potential crimes he committed within the U.S. jurisdiction of law.

YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ Southwest’s position below. I’ll let you the reader corroborate or disprove his (or could it be her?) assertions – I have decided to not get in the middle of two bloggers whom I tend to both like. And Justin, don’t get to cranky with Southwest harshness. Like I said, it is my sense you guys are stamped from the same metal.

JRH 4/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*******************

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

USA Life Group Patriots_For_Trump

Posted 4/17/19

John Houk I do respect the fact that you are an honest seeker and because of that I'll comment on the post. I took the time to read it in its entirety. 

It is not that Water Gate papers and tapes did not compromise security, the fact is that it exposed the party that was not in favor of the deep state.

That is point number one which applies to all of the 'leaks' and publications the author refers to and

2) When the government becomes the enemy of the people , it needs to be exposed. No national security concept should cover up to the fact that NSA has been paid millions if not billions of dollars --and this is indisputably and proven-- to Google and had set up an scheme during the Obama administration--just look at the records of their visit to the Obama White House and remember that Obama was a scammer and didn't even record all the visits--it is staggering- to spy on people and to help to remove the president of the US without due process but through slander and fake news media and democrat operatives working in the shadow.

3) All publishers should be protected ...no one endangered national security more than the New York times but they were working for the shadow government and it was okay.

4) The crimes reported by Seth Rich via Hillary/Podesta emails need to be brought to light. To this day the so called 'elite' drink the blood of children they kill (this is another article that I don't have time to explore here but this is proven fact the substance they get during the torturing of children that sips in their blood is what prolong their lives notice that they live to be over 100 years old?

Please save this post John. When people start splitting words for content and this is what Justin Smith does and it is very appealing for people like me and you because it forces your mind to reason and we may be addicted to reasoning the problem with that is that the main point is lost.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS TO REMAIN FREE! If we split words to justify Assange imprisonment, then we will go down the path Hitler used to stop people from telling the truth.

Mueller and NSA cohorts and Google needs to go to prison, not Assange for telling on them. Noticed that no one is talking about the killing of children after molesting them and drinking their blood? Does it sound like legal or normal or decent? No, they talk about Assange who ONLY PUBLISHED what Seth Rich did And no one is talking about the hit job done by Hillary through the FBI to kill Seth Rich who went to the FBI to ask protection from Hillary and got killed by a weapon from the FBI who says that the weapon was stolen from their car when they went to meet Seth Rich.

Does it look like a set up to you? Does the FBI need to be investigated or Julian Assange? To be honest, no one can receive wisdom except from God. Intelligence is not enough, power to be argumentative is not enough and Justin Smith is lacking this wisdom that comes from God.

His articles are interesting but without wisdom he is a blind man leading the blind. I won't read any article from this man again because I know where he is coming from, he is trying to sort things out by rational without having a moral compass and that doesn't work.

+++++++++++++++

Southwest on The Watchers Society

4/16/19

John Houk - We are supportive because we know who placed the Gucifer 2, NSA and FBI. And we know who leaked the emails: Seth Rich. How do we know? I hope I’m not repeating this too much--this was a fat file and the forensics can determine and has determined that, meaning it was a physical transfer such as a USB or drive, so there was no break into the DNC computer.

Afraid of Hillary, Seth Rich contacted the FBI, as you may know Washington pays residents of certain areas to have a camera. Let me say this more accurately, Washington reimburses people who install cameras. Consequently everybody has a camera in that area and often two.

The camera that filmed the shooting of Seth Rich was removed, clean[ed] up. [An or The] Attorney sued the police to get a copy, to no avail. The FBI got some weapon stolen from the car ... the same weapon that killed Seth Rich. The story doesn't end there. It is long and I'll leave it for another time.

Just one more thing: the internist that took care of the shot behind Seth Rich's neck said it was not lethal and he would survive. He posted on Facebook that something strange had happened, a bunch of FBI agents came over and told the internist to leave the room and not to come back until he was told. So, he obeyed, not knowing who Seth Rich was, he posted the story Facebook that when he came back the man was dead.

When he found out the man worked for the DNC he removed the post, which other people have photographed. Nowadays the connection with DNC and Democrats may be a death sentence, unless you do as they please ... You remember what happened with the Judge against illegal immigration? His body washed on the shore and many other Bill and Hillary assassinations. But not everybody in the FBI is corrupted, just the Elite on the 7^th floor.

And no one can blame Assange for that. Why they don't prosecute the New York Times because it is doing their bidding and because it is against our laws to sue publishers.

______________________

Southwest vs Justin Smith

Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2019

__________________

Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

Edited by John R. Houk

Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2019

I am amazed at the number of Conservatives that are wholly supportive of Julian Assange as a hero in an age of corrupt government. In full disclosure, I am extremely grateful the old self-serving cad exposed the wickedness of the Crooked Hillary campaign for President. There were plenty of DNC secrets BUT there were ZERO Classified State secrets/documents that would harm Military or Intelligence personnel in their duties for the U.S. government.

When I posted Justin Smith’s “Julian Assange -- A Good End to America's Enemy,” (SlantRight 2.0 & NCCR) the majority of the Social Media Conservative comments were quite hostile for condemning the nefarious side of Julian Assange.

From those comments I was persuaded that the “Pentagon Papers” defense could apply to Julian Assange as much as SCOTUS sided with Daniel Ellsberg. At first reading the comments applying the Pentagon Papers/Ellsberg was compelling to me. Then I ran into an article by Harry Melkonian in 2013 in relation to Wikileaks and transgendered Bradley Manning which provides scope that obliterates the Assange/Pentagon Papers argument:

“Much has been made of the parallels between Manning’s situation and the plight of Daniel Ellsberg, a US military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War.

But there is a major difference: Ellsberg released classified information and he faced criminal charges for that act. However, the documents released by Ellsberg were only historical and could not seriously be thought to compromise the interests of the United States.

The Pentagon Papers revealed a lack of candor by Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration concerning the Vietnam War and subjected the US to ridicule, but it did not jeopardise security. The papers were released during the Nixon presidency but none of the documents related to events that occurred during the Nixon administration.

Ellsberg may have done something unlawful but no-one could claim that it compromised ongoing military operations. This point is clearly revealed by the Nixon tapes, in which the president and his aides were initially rather pleased by the leaking of documents that embarrassed Johnson. In fact, the Supreme Court refused to stop publication of the Pentagon Papers because they found that nothing in the documents could possibly be considered a military secret. The charges against Ellsberg were ultimately dismissed because of the misbehavior of Nixon’s infamous plumbers unit.

But Manning is charged with releasing many thousands of government documents and not just historical records. The US government contends that this distinguishes Manning from Ellsberg’s situation – Ellsberg simply released documents that he was not authorised to release, and there was not a serious claim that his conduct put any American interest at risk.” (WikiLeaks and aiding the enemy: the court martial of Bradley Manning; By Harry Melkonian; The Conversation; 6/5/13 4.42pm EDT)

Assange and Manning did expose potential war crimes committed by the USA:

“… The publication provided explosive evidence of human rights abuses in Iraq and Pakistani cooperation with the Taliban in Afghanistan — among many other revelations …

…

… A brief experiment with automatic redactions was aborted. The journalist-led redactions were abandoned too after Assange’s relationship with the London press corps turned toxic. By 2013 WikiLeaks had written off the redaction efforts as a wrong move.

…

Three Saudi cables published by WikiLeaks identified domestic workers who’d been tortured or sexually abused by their employers, giving the women’s full names and passport numbers. One cable named a male teenager who was raped by a man while abroad; a second identified another male teenager who was so violently raped his legs were broken; a third outlined the details of a Saudi man detained for “sexual deviation” — a derogatory term for homosexuality.

Scott Long, an LGBT rights activist who has worked in the Middle East, said the names of rape victims were off-limits. And he worried that releasing the names of people persecuted for their sexuality only risked magnifying the harm caused by oppressive officials.” (Private lives are exposed as WikiLeaks spills its secrets; By RAPHAEL SATTER and MAGGIE MICHAEL; AP News; 8/23/16)

To date there have been no public revelations of people who died resulting from the Wikileaks/Manning document dump, BUT lives were endangered according to the National Review:

“… Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange simply published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.” (Chelsea Manning Is Not a Whistleblower; By KYLE SMITH; National Review; 5/19/17 6:26 PM)

The DOJ is asserting that Manning did not act on his/her own volition in the once sealed indictment against Julian Assange. Evidently the DOJ believes it can prove criminal conspiracy with Manning rather Manning acting alone and dumping Classified material into Assange’s lap:

“In an indictment revealed Thursday morning, U.S. authorities say Assange conspired with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal and publish huge troves of classified documents. Prosecutors said Assange at one point tried to help Manning crack a password to access military computers where the information was stored. 

Over four months in 2010, Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of secret reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as State Department cables and information about detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Manning turned the records over to WikiLeaks, which passed them to journalists and published them on the internet.

Prosecutors said it was one of the most extensive leaks of classified secrets in U.S. history.

Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The charge, delivered by a federal grand jury in March 2018 but kept secret until Thursday, carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.” (Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, faces US hacking conspiracy charge; By Bart Jansen, Sean Rossman, Doug Stanglin and Kevin Johnson; USA Today; Published 5:50 a.m. ET 4/11/19 - Updated 12:29 p.m. ET 4/12/19)

Assange Indictment (PDF on Google Documents date-stamped 3/6/18

In fairness to Assange, he does have his supporters that pooh-pooh everything I just disclosed. For example Sharmini Peries of the Real News Network interviewed Daniel Ellsberg in correlation to Assange’s recent arrest. However Peries is a Leftist and her past association with Hugo Chavez may suggest she has a Marxist orientation. Which brings me to the mantra – Leftists lie.

This is what began these thoughts on, “Is Assange a criminal or hero,” is a submission by Justin Smith taking a stand that Julian Assange is an enemy of America and not a hero.

I’d like to think Justin’s submission resulted from a Facebook Messenger text I sent him yesterday about the pushback I was receiving from his earlier Julian Assange submission. As of this writing I have not gone back to Facebook to read my messages, but it’s at logical I’m not the only relaying feedback about his earlier submission (which Justin certainly submitted to other blogs and websites for publication as well).

In honesty I don’t like to share contributor’s post unless I can validate the info within the submission. As I began that process with Justin I ended up just adding my own response. I sense most of what I sourced in my thoughts corroborates Justin’s submission; ergo this is a rare time that I will not be adding corroborating sources. It may interest the reader that Justin provides a list of titles for me to choose from. I get to choose the title that I sense best fits. Enjoy and if you are in the camp Conservative that Assange is a hero, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If your politics are Left-Wing, I could care less about any hateful vitriol in defense of Assange.

JRH 4/15/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************

Assange -- An Enemy to America Our Republic

Assange Is No Hero

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/14/2019 10:54 PM

FOREWORD ___ No matter how beneficial one may have found Assange's information dump to be to Conservative America overall, he still cost American lives in the Middle Eastern theater and the lives of many who were working with our nation.

Of late, my tolerance for people who advocate for actions that subvert "the rule of law" and by those actions the republic has slipped to zero. Some things are just pretty black and white to me. No matter how one wishes to frame the picture, Assange is no friend to America.

Julian Assange was a hero for much of the American Left when he was undermining American national security and putting Americans and allies in jeopardy, but a villain when he helped Vladimir Putin damage Hillary Clinton. But hold on. Assange became a hero for many on the right for the very same reasons. He was a villain for working with then–Bradley Manning for a lot of people. But that was all forgiven when he helped Putin damage Hillary Clinton.

If it’s your view that Assange was noble for undermining the U.S. war effort or national security but evil for undermining the DNC or Hillary Clinton, then your standard for such things is entirely team-based. And if it’s your view that Assange was evil for undermining the U.S. war effort or national security but noble for undermining the DNC or Hillary Clinton, your standards are also entirely team-based.

What Assange did wasn't "journalism". If he had filtered the information that he helped steal and simply focused on the Bad Guys and actual misdeeds and corruption found, I might have been more forgiving, but he Lumped the Good Guys in with the mix and released ALL Their Information for all to see, DESPITE PLEAS FROM HUMAN RIGHTS organizations [Some of which actually funded by George Soros] for him to redact that info.

Assange is an enemy of democracy not just for publishing stolen political gossip, but for aiding and enabling Manning's espionage against the United States, in what far too many call an act of a "whistleblower"; Manning helped Assange publish far more sensitive, far more important, indeed life-endangering material.

Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange threw all caution to the wind and indiscriminately published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.

Many CIA operatives and many covert assets working in country in Afghanistan and Iraq were subsequently outed and murdered as a direct result of this info dump. The embeds who weren't killed, including several U.S. SOF personnel, report that the Taliban and Al Qaeda regularly poured over the information, sorting and sifting, to learn of U.S. tactics, strategic plans underway, and personnel strength and positions as well as armaments on hand.

The "benefit" from this information could have been achieved without the indiscriminate dumping of information.

If Assange thought there was criminal activity underway in the U.S. government, he should have simply released that criminal related information alone. His intention was to harm America, since the manner of his release didn't focus on the Bad Guys; and he released the UNREDACTED NAMES, addresses, phone numbers and everything else related to ALL the other Good and Decent Young Men and Women in Our Armed Forces WHO HAD DONE NO WRONG -- placing their information in the hands of the enemy, endangering them and their families.

Anyway one wants to look at it, if one is intellectually honest and views his actions through the prism of "the rule of law", Assange is absolutely an enemy to America and a criminal GUILTY of ESPIONAGE, who should be under a U.S. prison, if not executed -- the sooner the better.

~ Justin O Smith

__________________________________________

Forgive me if I think You are in error to take Assange’s side in this. That some benefit came from his crime of espionage doesn't absolve him of the crime and all the real world harm that came from it.

Julian Assange’s arrest and indictment should provide us with a moment of reflection. He is an awful man. He dumped American military secrets into the public domain without any regard for human life. He conspired with an American soldier to crack American security systems in the effort to deliver more secrets to the world public.

His co-conspirator, Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning, wasn’t a “whistleblower” — and neither was Assange. Manning didn’t carefully extract evidence of alleged wrongdoing from classified files and go to the press (a defensible, though still illegal, act). He just dumped hundreds of thousands of pages of classified files into Assange’s hands, and Assange posted them, en masse, on the Internet.

Any jihadist or enemy with Internet access could read the documents and not just learn about the identities of American allies on the ground (placing them at immediate, mortal risk) but also gain extraordinary insight into American military tactics and plans — including learning exactly how effective (or ineffective) their own weapons and tactics were.

Manning committed treason. Assange helped him. And there were Americans who celebrated both men. 

The First Amendment doesn't protect criminal acts and what Assange did wasn't journalism. He didn't write any story that focused on the Bad Guys and any of the wrongdoing in government. All he did was steal info that he later sold to the highest bidder; it's not remotely in the same ballpark as reporters reporting it in the NYTs and WaPo afterwards. You seem not to care that he dumped Good and Decent Americans UNREDACTED Names, Addresses and Phone Numbers along with the Bad Guys, and HE COST AMERICAN LIVES in the aftermath.

In 2010, everyone on both sides of the aisle saw Assange as an enemy to America. The Obama administration condemned him, conservatives called him a traitor, and Donald Trump said WikiLeaks was “disgraceful,” adding that there should be the “death penalty or something” for its actions. Fast-forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks enjoyed a reputational renaissance on the right. Why? Well, WikiLeaks was the same organization, but its target had changed. Rather than taking on alleged American imperialism, it was the conduit for an alleged Russian hack that was systematically embarrassing Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election. “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump declared to rousing cheers at a rally. Sean Hannity defended him during the election and even referred to Assange to advance his absurd Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Even worse, the special counsel’s office has alleged that a “senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign.” Trump “loved” Wikileaks, and his campaign allegedly endeavored to get information from WikiLeaks — the same organization that had just a few years before conspired with a traitor to place American soldiers and American allies in mortal danger.

HYPOCRITES ABOUND -- Julian Assange intentionally and deliberately works against American interests. Yet there are Americans who will intentionally and deliberately share WikiLeaks information, wield it as a weapon against their political opponents. There is no virtue in Assange. Those who celebrated his “transparency” in the Manning document dumps forget that responsible reporters who gain access to classified material carefully vet that material to make sure that their disclosures do not needlessly endanger innocent Americans, and they carefully weigh the value of the disclosure against the gravity of the harm.

Assange and Manning did not seem to care about the men and women they betrayed. Those who celebrated Assange’s role in the DNC and Podesta hacks forget that he was playing a willing and even eager role in a foreign plan to disrupt an election and divide our nation — a plan that worked beautifully in large part because of the very celebration of the hacks themselves.

In “Flight 93 elections,” I suppose, advancing Russian interests is a small price to pay for a news cycle or two that humiliates Hillary. And, by the way, if one is going to rightly denigrate the role that Russian hacking had in swaying the American election, how can one also then claim that advancing Russian interests and magnifying Assange was somehow important enough to be worth the costs?

Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States. Just because he is the enemy of our enemies as seen in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, and you now consider the enemy Assange to be your friend, that doesn't make your "friend" Assange any less the actual entity trying to undermine American security, divide American society, and even threaten American lives.

I have no problem whatsoever with TRUE Whistleblowers who take precise aim at SPECIFIC WRONGS and SPECIFIC Crimes they have found within the U.S. government. But even then, there are proven and viable methods within our government for just such cases, and Manning never made the first attempt to take his concerns to his superiors and the proper chain of military command, as outlined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice, and Assange never cared one way or another who got hurt by his actions; all he saw was dollar signs and fame, but what is anyone to expect from a narcissist and a rapist like Assange.

There is so much that stinks around this entire episode in our nation's recent events. Assange actually sought temporary relief and cover in Russia and regularly bashed America on his TV program 'Russia Today'.

One of his first guests was the High Cleric and Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Assange's motives were far from pure or noble. He's no "hero".

Julian Assange is an anti-American LEFTIST, and an ENEMY to America.

And, to tell the truth, I'd probably drop a hammer on him if I ever had him in my sights. 

God Bless You All and God Bless Our Beloved America. May He Keep Her Free For All Eternity and Damn Her Enemies Both Foreign and Domestic to the Hell They Have Earned and So Richly Deserve.

Your Friend Always ~ Justin

______________________

Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange

John R. Houk

© April 15, 2019

____________________

Assange -- An Enemy to America Our Republic

Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith

Julian Assange -- A Good End to America's Enemy

VIDEO: Julian Assange arrested at Ecuadorian embassy in London

I have looked on Julian Assange’s arrest today from Ecuadorian Embassy in London with mixed feelings. In one case Assange via Wikileaks exposed Classified and sensitive information related to U.S. National Security. On the other hand Assange’s release of hacked (or perhaps purloined) Crooked Hillary campaign emails might just contribute to exposing some of worst treasonous acts among American leadership since Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr.

Justin Smith examines the Wikileaks Classified material dump with quite correct anger at America’s betrayal.

Julian Assange 4/11/19 arrested Ecuadorian Embassy London

JRH 4/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************

Julian Assange -- A Good End to America's Enemy

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/11/2019 3:13 PM

If you think you’re having a rough morning . . . at least you’re not Julian Assange.

“Police entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London Thursday morning, arresting Assange and bringing the Wikileaks founder’s seven-year stint there to a dramatic close,” reports CNN [CNN has since updated original quote. Here is the same quote from wfsb.com – Eyewitness News 3 Hartford CT].

“Metropolitan Police said in a statement that he was ‘further arrested’ on his arrival at a London police station on behalf of United States authorities, who have issued an extradition warrant.

“Officers made the move after Ecuador withdrew Assange’s asylum and invited authorities into the embassy, citing the Australian’s bad behavior.”

Some people see Julian Assange as some sort of "hero" for joining Bradley Manning in espionage and the release of Department of Defense documents --- thousands of documents -- THAT COST THE LIVES OF AMERICANS SERVING OVERSEAS.

Even if Manning's and Assange's criminal hacking and espionage actions didn't result in anyone's death, that does not render them forgivable or harmless. If one sets his car in neutral and lets it glide down a hill toward a playground as he walks away in the other direction, he isn't blameless by any stretch of logic simply because no one was killed. Moreover, Manning violated several tenets of the basic military oath, such as his vow to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the handling of classified information. Think of all those military folks you have ever known, who you may have served with yourself, and consider how our good and decent young men and women, all military personnel, could have been -- or actually were -- exposed by Manning and Assange. Most patriots will find themselves grow angry as they reflect on these actions and those institutions that celebrate Manning's and Assange's criminal actions as "whistleblowing".

Consider if you published something controversial on the Internet and started getting death threats. How would you like being “doxed”? In other words, what would your reaction be if someone who didn’t like you tweeted out to the world your home address? And your phone number? And your photo? And photos of your children? And the address of their school? And information about when you left the house each day, the license-plate number of your car, and the location where it was parked?

Would you call someone who published this information a “whistleblower”? Let’s say the same person simultaneously published accurate information about wrongdoing by your neighbors or colleagues. Would that make you feel any better?

Picture such an information dump on a massive scale. That’s roughly what then-Bradley Manning did when he threw hundreds of thousands of secret military and diplomatic documents into the public square. Manning made no effort to filter out information that didn’t show evidence of wrongdoing. He indiscriminately stole as many classified documents as he dared and sent them off for publication on the Internet.

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Remember him? The one you blame for working with the Russians to subvert democracy? He doesn’t necessarily have America’s best interests at heart, does he? He never did. Assange an enemy of democracy not just for publishing stolen political gossip, but for aiding and enabling Manning's espionage against the United States, in what far too many call an act of a "whistleblower"; Manning helped Assange publish far more sensitive, far more important, indeed life-endangering material? Among the documents Manning turned over to Assange were war logs that contained the names of hundreds of civilians who cooperated with U.S. forces. Assange threw all caution to the wind and indiscriminately published those logs en masse, without redacting the names of civilians involved, placing those fighting for freedom in their countries in great peril.

It is most telling that Assange's first guest on his talk show on Kremlin-funded Russia Today was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Whether or not Americans received some other disturbing news that revealed government misconduct is beside the point. What he did was still a crime against America, in more regards than any that were "beneficial" to America.

Just as Americans have a wealth of information each individual keeps private, like Social Security numbers or bank account numbers or certain unknown events that occurred in their lives that revive hurtful memories and pain -- information they wouldn't want just anyone to have -- there is an abundance of information in government files that the average U.S. citizen doesn't have any real right to view, except and until they have gone through proper channels and/or a court process or FOIA requests. We have agreed to such channels, as citizens, to certain processes and oversights in matters of government.

There are men and women in place to provide oversight over government. And the problems we find too often today have resulted when those providing the oversight we less than trustworthy. If these people were immoral and untrustworthy, one doesn't simply throw open the vault and release everything, especially when it may reveal CIA operatives in foreign countries, resulting in their murders, or troop positions and capabilities, resulting in unnecessary U.S. casualties.

The failure is with Us as a society, in that so many men and women elected today are immoral and untrustworthy and they appoint people to positions of similar character. Nothing will change in the halls of government until things change in America and Her people return to the God and the principles that founded America.

Governments need to keep secrets, too. We can argue about just how many secrets it should keep, and there’s a strong argument that the U.S. government over-classifies a lot of information that could be released to the public without harm. But besides all the aspects of national security that need to be kept secret — where our forces are, what they’re vulnerable to, what we know about hostile states and terrorist groups, what we don’t know, the identities of agents, case officers, and covert operators, and so on — our government needs to be able to assess and evaluate these issues in secrecy. The public also needs to be informed of at least the general contours of the national-security issues that concern the government, which is why the House and Senate intelligence committees usually hold both public and private hearings.

Countries also need to be able to communicate with each other discreetly. Sometimes a foreign government will privately agree with a U.S. policy and be willing to cooperate but cannot acknowledge their stance publicly because of preexisting public attitudes. For example, in 2010, the United States wanted to launch drone strikes against operatives of al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. Because allowing U.S. airstrikes on Yemeni soil would irritate the Yemeni people, president Ali Abdullah Saleh told General David Petraeus, “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.” This was one of the secrets revealed in the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. The choice to reveal that conversation indicates that WikiLeaks finds the secrecy about the American bombing efforts more troubling that what those al-Qaeda members were doing.

Those of us who paid attention figured out early on that Julian Assange always seemed more interested in releasing information that harmed United States vital interests and national security than he was in helping the American people uncover the Traitors in their midst. Assange always seemed particularly angry with the American and Western European governments, and never all that bothered by the world’s indisputably brutal and despotic regimes, in Russia, Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria.

Some of us never discovered a newfound appreciation for Assange once he started leaking information from the DNC and John Podesta, and saw the same guy we always did -- as a SPY and an ENEMY to America.

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed in 1953 on slim evidence and for a whole lot less than the crimes committed by Julian Assange. Assange should be extradited to the U.S. and charged, prosecuted and executed.

By Justin O Smith

ADDENDUM: The Taliban and Al Qaeda both poured over these documents, sorting and sifting, to discover who was working with the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more troubling, it placed U.S. tactics, strategic plans and military strength and positions all in the hands of the enemy.

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith