Karma is a b****: Roger Stone responds to Steve Bannons arrest – The Independent

Former political consultant for the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, replied karma is a b**** when he was asked his reaction to Steve Bannons arrest.

Stone, a veteran Republican operative who has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, served as an adviser to Mr Trump during the 2016 campaign. He has been accused of collaborating with WikiLeaks to discredit Hillary Clinton in the build up to that election.

In November 2019, following Robert Muellers investigation into the Trump campaigns involvement in Russia hacking the 2016 election, Stone was indicted by federal prosecutors on seven counts, including witness tampering and lying to federal investigators.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

He was found guilty and sentenced to 40 months in federal prison, but on 10 July 2020, Mr Trump commuted Stones sentence after he publicly pleaded for him to do so.

Bannon, who previously served as the presidents campaign chairman in 2016, was indicted on Thursday, alongside two others, for allegedly funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the We Build the Wall online fundraising campaign to the founder of the organisation Brian Kolfage, who was also indicted.

We Build the Wall started as a GoFundMe campaign in 2018, and was created to help raise money from public funding to go directly towards building the the US-Mexico border wall at a time when the president was struggling with Congress pushback.

In a press release, acting US attorney Audrey Strauss said: As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalising on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretence that all of that money would be spent on construction.

After Bannon was arrested, New York Magazine asked Stone his thoughts, to which he replied: Karma is a b****. But I am praying for him.

Bannon, who worked with Stone during the 2016 election, testified during the former advisers trial in November 2019, and contradicted his testimony in regards to WikiLeaks.

Stone had denied to the investigation and to Congress about being in contact with WikiLeaks, prior to the group releasing emails of Ms Clintons campaign chairman John Podesta.

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

However, during his testimony, Bannon said: He had a relationship, or told me he had a relationship with WikiLeaks, and added: I was led to believe he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

In reaction to the arrests on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement, where she attempted to distance the president from the campaign and Bannon.

As everyone knows, President Trump has no involvement in this project and felt it was only being done in order to showboat, and perhaps raise funds, she said.

A follow up statement from the White House read: President Trump has not been involved with Steve Bannon since the campaign and the early part of the administration, and he does not know the people involved with this project.

However, Trump ally Kris Kobach told the New York Times last year that he had spoken to Mr Trump about the project, and added that the president said the project has my blessing, and you can tell the media that.

Link:
Karma is a b****: Roger Stone responds to Steve Bannons arrest - The Independent

OBrien: Bipartisan Senate report on Trump and Russia is a triumph for truth – The Denver Post

One of Trumpisms enduring scars will be the social fissures its widened by waging war on objective reality and public faith in bedrock institutions. Its also fostered a cult of personality around Donald Trump, allowing him to posture as the final arbiter of truth and guardian of the downtrodden. But division, chaos and disrepair and the corruption of the American experiment are the long-term consequences.

So its encouraging when a bipartisan group of federal legislators reminds us that facts matter.

A966-page Senate reportpublished Tuesday leaves no doubt that an extensive network of Russian operatives with intelligence ties workedwith Trumps operatives to torpedo Hillary Clintons campaign four years ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw the effort, including a successful hack of Democratic Party computer systems. Why? To smear Clinton and hobble her administration if she won, and to gain leverage with Trump if he won.

The Republican-led committee that produced the report said that Trumps former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was so steeped in the effort with Russia that he posed a grave counterintelligence threat. It said that Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, participated in a covert effort by the Russian government to help his father in 2016. It said the president himself may have been a possible target of Russian blackmail. It said that Putin was aware that Trump during his presidential campaign was secretly pursuing a deal to build a skyscraper in Moscow.

The committee also found that Roger Stone, Trumps longtime political hatchet man, made elaborate efforts to learn about Russian leaks of confidential Democratic emails through Julian Assanges hacking collective, Wikileaks. And in the course of that discovery, the committee learned that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone aboutWikileaksand with members of his campaign about Stones access toWikileakson multiple occasions. Thats interesting, because the president himself, in written testimony to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said he couldnt recall those conversations.

Mueller concluded his work last year by saying he hadnt found enough evidence to charge Team Trump with a criminal conspiracy. He clearly found evidence that the Trump camp tried to obstruct justice, however, and he left it to Congress to hash out the matter. For its part, the Senate report said that the Trump campaigns intersection with Putins underlings didnt amount to a coordinated conspiracy and that in some cases the sheer dimwittedness of the people working for Trump exposed them to manipulation.

You may remember that Trump and his GOP backers tried to spin Muellers findings by saying that no collusion meant that Trump and those around him did nothing wrong. Republicans on Tuesday resurrected the no collusion mantra, working hard to convey the idea that the Senate report somehow meant that everythings all right, everythings fine, and we want you to sleep well tonight.

But, of course, everything isnt all right. The Russia scandal wasnt a hoax. It was reality.

Even if the skullduggery the Senate documented didnt amount to a formal conspiracy, sabotage and malfeasance took place. Russia got its hooks into a presidential election, Trump used his campaign to try to make business deals in Moscow, the people around Trump invited foreign influence into an election, and the president apparently lied to Mueller. Its not a mystery why Trump has cultivated and coddled Putin throughout his presidency, even if the Senate didnt chart the money trail all the way to Russia. The president, who spent his business career consorting with mobsters, has always had an affinity with grifters and those, like Putin, who he thinks might help him grift.

Trumps supporters have worked overtime focusing on tangential aspects of the Russia scandal to keep Trumps presidency in play, confirm their own biases or soften any guilt they might feel for looking the other way in the face of overt corruption. Right-wing media and Republican apologists have argued that a minor piece of evidence used by federal investigators an unreliable dossier about Trumps Russia ties prepared by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele meant that the entire Russian probe was improper.

AsI noted at greater lengthlast year, the Steele dossier wasnt the reason the Russia probe began, and its shortcomings simply werent pivotal enough to demonstrate that the probe was ill-considered. The Senate report points out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation mishandled the Steele dossier and gave it too much credence. More important, however, the report doesnt dismiss the far greater weight of all the other evidence of Trumps corrosive and dangerous game of patty-cake with Russia.

Russias threats to American elections and national security are ongoing, and thats another reason the Senate report is valuable. Because facts are fundamental, and its impossible to make good decisions without them. Mother Nature has reminded us of this truth with the coronavirus pandemic. The Senates report teaches the same lesson in its assessment of Russia, the Trump administration and White House propaganda.

Timothy L. OBrien is the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Continued here:
OBrien: Bipartisan Senate report on Trump and Russia is a triumph for truth - The Denver Post

The nomination of Kamala Harris and the right-wing logic of identity politics – WSWS

20 August 2020

The Democratic Party concluded the third night of its convention on Wednesday, culminating in the official nomination of California Senator Kamala Harris as the vice-presidential candidate of Joe Biden.

Wednesdays proceedings were in line with the inane and insipid character of the event as a whole. Various reactionaries and multi-millionaires, from Hillary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi, declared the urgent need to elect Biden, the corrupt corporate shill from Delaware recast as a living saint, to right all wrongs and restore America to the path of prosperity and righteousness.

No actual program was advanced to deal with the massive social and economic catastrophe produced by the coronavirus pandemic and the bipartisan response of the ruling class to it. Everything was reduced to the fictionalized narrative of the life of Biden and his comrade in arms, Kamala Harris.

The selection of Harris was presented as a historic moment in American politics. This appraisal was based entirely on the fact that Harris is the first African American and Indian American woman selected by the worlds oldest political party to run for vice president. There were the inevitable proclamations that young girls throughout the country will conclude from this fact that they too can someday be vice president of the United States of America.

All of this is, if we can be permitted to use Bidens catchphrase, malarkey. Harris has already proven herself as a trusted servant of the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class. The Wall Street Journal wrote last week that Wall Street financers had breathed a sigh of relief at Bidens pick of Harris. Industry publication American Banker noted that her steadiest stream of campaign funding has come from financial industry professionals and their most trusted law firms.

Just before she ended her bid for the presidency in December 2019, Harris campaign boasted the most billionaire backers, including oil fortune heir Gordon Getty and vulture capitalist Dean Metropoulos.

As San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011, Harris pursued an agenda that included the implementation of a law to fine and jail the parents of truant students for up to a year. As Californias attorney general from 2011 to 2017, she warned parents across the state that they would face the full force and consequences of the law if their children missed out on too many days of school.

During her tenure, Harris also oversaw Californias resistance to a Supreme Court order that it release prisoners from the states overcrowded prisons. Her attorneys (for the people, as Harris put it last night) argued in court that releasing too many prisoners would deplete the cheap labor pool of inmates who fight the states notorious wildfires for less than $2 a day.

Serving as the junior senator from California since 2017, Harris sits on the committees overseeing the federal budget, the judiciary, homeland security and the intelligence agencies.

Through her position on the Intelligence Committee, Harris has been privy to the most sensitive information about American imperialisms criminal operations all over the world. In this role, she has backed the Democrats anti-Russia campaign aimed at pressuring the Trump administration into taking a more hostile posture towards Moscow.

She also supports the persecution of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in a US prison for exposing American military war crimes, declaring that the organization had done considerable harm to the US.

While feinting to the left as a proponent of cutting the Pentagons $750 billion-plus annual budget, in July Harris voted against a proposal by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that would have cut funding by a meager 10 percent, saying she supported the idea but that any cuts to the military should be done strategically.

Harris represents the Democratic Party, a party of Wall Street billionaires, the intelligence agencies and the military. Her nomination Wednesday came just one day after the Democrats paraded a number of Republicans who endorsed Biden, including Colin Powellthe first African American chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a chief architect of the 2003 war in Iraqand the widow of the notorious warmonger, Senator John McCain.

Harris closing remarks at the convention last night were preceded by those of Obama, of which we will have more to say later. Suffice it to say that Obama, the first African American to be nominated by the Democrats and win the presidency, proceeded to bail out the banks, continue the wars of George W. Bush, implement a policy of drone murder, and deport more immigrants than any of his predecessors.

It was the right-wing policies of the Obama administration that paved the way for the ascension of Trump to the presidency.

The Democrats hope that the endless celebration of the trite, empty symbolism of Harris candidacy will serve as a repeat of Barack Obamas run for president in 2008, deploying identity politics to cover over the right-wing content of her record and that of the Democratic Party. This is the logic of the reactionary politics of racial, ethnic and gender identity, promoted incessantly by the pseudo-left opponents of Marxism.

However, the elevation of an increasing number of women, African Americans and other ethnic minorities into positions of power, from city councils, to mayoral offices, police departments and the presidency itself, has done nothing to advance the interests of the working class. In fact, over the last four decades wealth inequality has grown most rapidly within racial groups, as a small layer of the population has been elevated into positions of power and privilege while conditions for those of all races and genders in the bottom 90 percent have deteriorated.

In addition to Obama, the likes of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, national security advisors Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice, and Secretary of State Hillary Clintonand, one might add, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and German Chancellor Angela Merkelhave shown that women and racial minorities can pursue the interests of the financial oligarchy as ruthlessly as any other representative of the ruling class.

There is something fitting in the selection of Harris to co-lead the Democrats ticket. The response of the Democrats to the mass multi-racial and multi-ethnic protests against police violence that erupted earlier this year was to divert them into the politics of racial division, using the reactionary and false claim that what was involved was a conflict between white America and black America, rather than a conflict between the working class and capitalism. This effort now culminates in the selection of the former top cop of California as the Democrats vice presidential candidate.

This is aimed at blocking the emergence of a powerful, united movement of the working class. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the criminal indifference of the entire ruling elite to the lives of the working class. As was shown with the near unanimous passage of the trillion-dollar CARES Act bailout, their concern is for their stock portfolios and corporate profits at the expense of more than 175,000 people who have now died and the more than 5.5 million who have been infected by coronavirus.

The fight to advance the interests of the working class will have to be waged through the methods of class struggle, in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans and the capitalist system which they defend.

Niles Niemuth

Go here to read the rest:
The nomination of Kamala Harris and the right-wing logic of identity politics - WSWS

US decision to file new charges against Julian Assange astonishing and potentially abusive – ComputerWeekly.com

A decision by the US government to lodge new charges against Julian Assange was slammed as astonishing and potentially abusive by the WikiLeaks founders lawyer today.

Assange, 48, is wanted in the US for allegedly conspiring with army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to expose military secrets between January and May 2010.

A US grand jury has indicted him on 18 charges 17 of which fall under the Espionage Act including conspiracy to receive, obtain and disclose classified diplomatic and military documents.

Assange will be re-arrested on the first day of his hearing at the Old Bailey on 7 September under a new indictment drawn up on 12 August.

The charge sheet contains further allegations that he conspired with others to obtain US government information by encouraging computer hacking.

The Australians psychiatric condition may have declined over the course of the last few weeks, according to a report described to Westminster Magistrates Court.

Assange, wearing a cream shirt and dark grey trousers, sat cross-legged on a red prison bench and confirmed his name and date of birth via video link from Belmarsh Prison.

He has been held on remand at the maximum security jail since April 2019 and has missed several recent hearings because of respiratory problems.

The case was delayed this morning as Assanges lawyers initially struggled to contact him at the prison in Woolwich, southeast London.

The court scrambled to find a US government prosecutor after wrongly listed the 10am hearing for this afternoon.

Florence Iveson, representing Assange, told the court that the WikiLeaks founder had not seen new material submitted by the US, including a 33-page affidavit.

We think it is astonishing and potentially abusive, abuse of conduct, to add a new requirement at the 11th hour seeking to expand the case while we have spent a year preparing, she said.

Iveson said the new material added a considerable amount of narrative background and collateral conduct to the earlier indictment against Assange.

She said the US had served evidence far too late, after the defence had already served its entire case.

The US government started assembling its case before December 2017. It delivered an opening note in July 2019 and opened its full case in detail on 24 February this year.

We strongly oppose them being given a third opportunity to open this case and expand it, said Iveson. Our position is that the new material could and should have been provided at a much earlier stage and the only just way forward is to exclude it.

Clair Dobbin, barrister representing the US government, said it was common practice for US prosecutors to continue investigating a defendants criminal conduct even after he has been arrested and charged.

They continued to investigate Mr Assanges criminal conduct, including conduct that was not originally alleged, she said. We respectfully disagree that it does not fundamentally alter the basis on which extradition is sought.

US prosecutors have added some further allegations that set out conduct that expands to some degree Mr Assange and WikiLeaks alleged conduct in relation to other hackers. It extends the group of people beyond Ms Manning that Mr Assange is alleged to have conspired with.

Dobbin added: It does go beyond adding mere narrative background to the extradition request. The court doesnt have the power to dismiss aspects of the conducts alleged.

Assanges lawyer, Iveson, said much of the new conduct in the superseding indictment was based on evidence of contemporaneous, publicly available material from 2010/11, including evidence on the WikiLeaks website available from 2010.

Its difficult to see how this could be the fruit of an ongoing investigation, she said.

District judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled: Whatever the reasons for this new request, this resumed final hearing is only a few weeks away and the part two request was served the day before yesterday and Mr Assange has not even been arrested for that request. This will take place on the first day of the resumed hearing.

The defence submits that fairness can be achieved by the court refusing to allow the government to rely on new evidence.

Whether the new evidence is mere narrative background cannot be decided without seeing the conduct as a whole and how it relates to the equivalent offences.

This court has no jurisdiction to reject the request.

The judge added: Ms Iveson argues that it was brought about in bad faith and is an abuse of the court process.

A number of issues regarding the abuse of process have been raised by the defence and any suggestion that this too constitutes abuse will have to be dealt with when all the other abuse questions are dealt with.

I offer the defence more time, knowing that the consequences of delay are extremely unattractive.

Iveson said: We will need further time to consider that and our wider legal response to that request.

Dobbin told the court that a psychiatric report received by the defence showed that Assanges condition may have declined over the last few weeks.

Obviously the US may wish to take that into consideration, she said.

The judge said that, in principle, the extradition hearing could use live-streaming video for specific individuals outside the jurisdiction who cannot come to court because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In principle, there is no objection to the use of the cloud video platform, but there are limited licences to use that platform and it is not generally something the court is involved in, she said. Applications must be made to the Old Bailey.

Addressing the defendant, she added: Mr Assange, if the defence do not apply for more time or to vacate the hearing, the resumed hearing will begin on 7 September this year. This will be the last administrative-type hearing of this kind and you will be physically produced on that date at 10am. Until then, you remain in custody for the reasons Ive given you before. Do you understand what Ive said today?

Assange replied slowly: I have heard most of your words.

Responding to a request from his legal team to talk with their client, the judge asked the defendant: Do you still have a jailer in the room with you, Mr Assange? Is it possible to arrange a post-court conference today?

The prison guard responded: Unfortunately not, because youve overrun by 35 minutes. It would impact on other cases due to lunch breaks.

Earlier in the hearing, Dobbin, representing the US, dialled in to the court, was cut off, accidentally connected to a different courtroom and re-connected back.

She said: I intended to appear in person at 3.30pm, according to the listing.

The judge replied: That may be the explanation, but nevertheless it was announced for 10am.

All right, now the most pressing issue is in relation to the defendants position to the new request.

Assange was granted political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 to avoid onward extradition to the US from Sweden for sexual offence allegations dating back to 2010, which he has always denied.

In November, Swedish authorities dropped the rape allegations, but he was jailed for 50 weeks last April after breaching his bail conditions when the asylum period granted to him expired.

Assanges defence team have until 21 August to decide whether to apply to postpone his extradition hearing.

If they do not, Assange will remain in custody until 7 September, when he will appear in person at the Old Bailey.

Go here to read the rest:

US decision to file new charges against Julian Assange astonishing and potentially abusive - ComputerWeekly.com

Despite all that is wrong, there is sweet soul music – Dothan Eagle

* 1948 Arabs blew up Latrun pumping station in Jerusalem

* 1954 Sports Illustrated was first published

* 1961 Martin Luther King Jr. protested for black voting rights in Miami

* 1962 Ringo Starr replaced Pete Best as Beatles drummer

* 1969 Woodstock (NY) Music and Art Festivals second day

* 1988 IBM introduced software for artificial intelligence

* 2008 American swimmer Michael Phelps won the seventh of his eight Beijing Olympics gold medals

* 2012 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange granted political asylum by Ecuador

Now then, since we wont be watching or listening to the EHS Wildcats Friday, Aug. 21, what is there to do?

Wish Greg Walls a belated 70th birthday, celebrate Hawaii becoming the 50th state in 1959, opening day of the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Grace Slick getting maced after calling police pigs in 1972, and the 1987 U.S. debut of the movie, Dirty Dancing, featuring one favorite song of Jimmy Carroll and the late Charles Henry DeJarnette, Cry to Me, by the incomparable Solomon Burke?

There were other fine tunes in Dirty Dancing, i.e. Be My Baby, Big Girls Dont Cry, Do You Love Me, Stay, These Arms of Mine, Hey Baby, etc.

Hey Baby first reached your scribes ears via a juke box in the old catfish camp on the banks of the Chattahoochee River in 1962.

A few years later, in the New Brockton home of 1968 EHS classmate Hamp Hogg, he and two more of our classmates, Burns Whittaker and Joe Bynum, and Joes younger brother, Dan, then-dba The Swingin Souls played the tune very well!

Originally posted here:

Despite all that is wrong, there is sweet soul music - Dothan Eagle

Free speech advocate, noted professor hopes media and public are better prepared to fight election disruption – Steamboat Pilot and Today

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS One of the worlds greatest free speech supporters and a devoted student in the science of communication told a Steamboat Springs audience that social platforms, the media and the U.S. government are better prepared to face election disruption by the Russians and other cyber soldiers during the 2020 election.

You could say the platforms have now put in place a lot of protections, said professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg School for Communication and co-founder of factcheck.org, a nonpartisan website that searches out inaccuracies in U.S. politics.

Theyre (social platforms) shutting down inauthentic accounts. Theyre increasing the likelihood that you cant buy advertising if youre a foreign national.

Jamieson is known for her diligent work in ensuring the integrity of facts in public discourse. Her much lauded career has been dedicated to promoting public understanding of complex issues.

Jamieson spoke on cyber hacking and the 2020 election during the Seminars at Steamboat on Monday, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that hosts Americas top public policy experts.

Jamieson also expressed support for an earlier Seminars speakers suggestion that the Trump Administration should create a centralized military cyber force to fight espionage.

Jamieson spent much of her talk explaining how Russia used hacking and fake media accounts to influence the 2016 election. Interestingly, she originally didnt believe the Russians influenced the 2016 election, but her scientific study of data eventually led her to author the award-winning book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President.

Jamieson made it clear that Russia didnt have to cooperate or coordinate with the Trump campaign to influence the election.

All they had to do was read our U.S. media, because our coverage is so tactical that if you read it carefully, you know what states to target and what voters to target and what the needs of the two campaigns are. Once you know that all you have to do is create a message imbalance that could shift votes on the margin, she said.

Jamieson pointed out how Russian-made social media accounts were used to suppress votes, even attracting more Black followers on a fake account than the legitimate Black Lives Matter account. One Russian account even told its duped followers to text a certain number to vote. She showed examples of Russian-made memes that focused on creating fear or memes that played on prejudices.

She also pointed out how the media was manipulated by the Russians who were behind WikiLeaks.

They were overwhelmed by Russian hacked content stolen from the democrats, said Jamieson who pointed out that the media ignored confirmation that Russians were behind the hacking, in part because of the overwhelming news cycle. On that day, Trumps Hollywood Access tape was also leaked, along with hacked emails from Hillary Clintons campaign chair John Podesta. She said the hacked emails were strategically leaked by the Russian-backed Julian Assange week by week to influence the news cycle.

She said the press will try not to repeat those mistakes, citing one award-winning journalist who admitted to failures in their coverage.

I didnt raise the possibility that wed become puppets in Putins shadowy campaign. I chose the byline, she quoted Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times.

When asked how she would balance free speech and fake content on social media, Jamieson fiercely defended the publics right to post and say what they want barring dangerous or egregious content that violates Americas social standards.

We draw boundaries, about what we should be able to see child pornography a clear boundary, shouting fire in a theater a traditional boundary, she said.

But I dont want to trust somebody else to decide what Im gonna hear, said Jamieson. Frankly, Id like to know what theyre saying and thinking, because frankly, Id rather know that and be prepared to deal with it rather than be surprised.

She also encouraged people to go to the fact-checking websitefactcheck.orgto keep abreast of whats being written or said on media sites and how accurate or inaccurate the reporting is.

For Jamiesons full speech and Q & A session, visit seminarsatsteamboat.org.

Frances Hohl is a contributing writer for Steamboat Pilot & Today.

Read this article:
Free speech advocate, noted professor hopes media and public are better prepared to fight election disruption - Steamboat Pilot and Today

Feds are treating BlueLeaks organization as a criminal hacker group, documents show – The Verge

The transparency activist organization Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) has been formally designated as a criminal hacker group, following the publication of 296 gigabytes of sensitive law enforcement data earlier this summer, known colloquially as BlueLeaks. The description comes from a bulletin circulated to fusion centers around the country in late June by the Department of Homeland Securitys Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The bulletins language mirrors earlier US government descriptions of WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and LulzSec.

A criminal hacker group Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDS) on 19 June 2020 conducted a hack-and-leak operation targeting federal, state, and local law enforcement databases, probably in support of or in response to nationwide protests stemming from the death of George Floyd, the bulletin reads. DDS leaked ten years of data from 200 police departments, fusion centers, and other law enforcement training and support resources around the globe, according to initial media and DHS reporting. DDS previously conducted hack-and-leak activity against the Russian Government.

The document was obtained by Lucy Parsons Lab researcher Brian Waters through an Illinois Freedom of Information Act request with the Cook County Sheriffs Office.

The BlueLeaks data was reportedly provided to Distributed Denial of Secrets by a hacker claiming ties to Anonymous, comprising 10 years of information from more than 200 police departments and fusion centers. The records include police and FBI reports, bulletins, guides, and technical information about surveillance techniques and intelligence gathering. A number of news organizations have used BlueLeaks data to publish stories about law enforcement tactics, including the counter-surveillance methods of Black Lives Matter protesters, a skewed analysis on the antifa threat to law enforcement, and worries about widespread mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic foiling facial recognition algorithms.

From the beginning, DDoSecrets has faced intense difficulties keeping the BlueLeaks material online. In late June, Twitter suspended DDoSecretss account in response to the leaks and mass-blocked hyperlinks to the leaked dataset, making it impossible to share on the platform. It was a remarkably draconian step for a company that has long allowed links to extremist content and active election interference efforts like DCLeaks to remain online. Last month, German authorities seized the DDoSecrets server that hosted the BlueLeaks data, effectively shutting down the organizations online repository of the records. The seizure was made on the request of American authorities.

The bulletins description of a criminal hacker group will only strengthen suspicions that federal law enforcement is building a criminal case against DDoSecrets, particularly combined with the recent server seizures. Emma Best, one of DDoSecretss founders, told The Verge that they absolutely believe the document shows that American authorities are investigating their organization in the same manner as it did WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, is charged with conspiring to steal and publish classified Pentagon documents.

Crucially, Best maintains that the group has never been involved in any intrusions to obtain documents and merely publishes files after theyve been obtained by others. Unlike WikiLeaks and Assange, we have no involvement in actual hacks and dont provide material support to hackers, they told The Verge.

It is not illegal to publish classified information in the United States, and most of the BlueLeaks data is marked For Official Use Only rather than classified.

Still, Best maintains that DDoSecrets is simply a publisher devoted to freedom of expression and transparency both at home and abroad. Calling us criminal hackers (while ignoring the numerous facts and evidence that undermines that accusation) gives them the excuse to circumvent the First Amendment, Best told The Verge.

One of the odder claims in the three-page bulletin is an assertion that Distributed Denial of Secrets conducted a similar hack-and-leak operation in 2019 on Russian government personnel. Russian media speculated the incident was a response to Russias hack-and-leak activities targeting the Democratic Party to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election the bulletin reads.

The January 2019 DDoSecrets release referenced in the bulletin, called the Dark Side of the Kremlin, included 175 gigabytes of information some previously released on Russian-language websites about the dealings of the Kremlin, the Russian Orthodox Church, and Russias war in Ukraine. It included a significant amount of hacked material from the Russian Interior Ministry that WikiLeaks refused to release in 2016. According to media reports, the Russian hacking group Shaltai Boltai and other Eastern European hackers were responsible for the materials referenced in the bulletin.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Feds are treating BlueLeaks organization as a criminal hacker group, documents show - The Verge

What Kamala Harris Really Thinks of WikiLeaks – Consortium News

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris wants a bright line separating WikiLeaks from big media, but there is only a political one, says Joe Lauria.

By Joe LauriaSpecial to Consortium News

During a September 2017 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee debate on an intelligence bill a line was inserted that said WikiLeaks resembles a non-state hostile intelligence service and that the U.S. should treat it as such.

This language would help investigators secure the authorization needed to surveil those U.S. citizens thought to be associated with WikiLeaks, a McClatchy report quoted a government lawyer as saying.

You need to show that someone is an agent of a foreign power, said the lawyer, Robert Deitz, who held senior legal positions at the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency.

Its possible that Assange has colleagues in this country that they need to focus on, McClatchy quoted Deitz as saying, noting that such action can only be done under court order.

The non-state hostile agency phrase was directly lifted from a scurrilous speech by Mike Pompeo in his first address as CIA director.

The language survived the committee and made it into the bill voted on by the full Senate. But before it did two senators raised objections to it. One was Ron Wyden of Oregon.

The other was Sen. Kamala Harris of California, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential candidate in Novembers election.

According to the McClatchy report,

Harris declared that she is no supporter of WikiLeaks, which she said had done considerable harm to the United States. But the clause on the group is dangerous because it fails to draw a bright line between WikiLeaks and legitimate news organizations that play a vital role in our democracy, according to her remarks for the record.

Harris left no doubt that she is an enemy of WikiLeaks, as is her running mate, Joe Biden, who agreed it was more like a high-tech terrorist organization that Daniel Ellsbergs release of the Pentagon Papers.

Harris made clear she cared only about establishment media (which almost universally undergirds aggressive U.S. foreign policy) and was worried about it getting caught up in a WikiLeaks dragnet.

She said she wants a bright line between publications such as The New York Times and WikiLeaks.

Except, there can be no such legal line drawn as both establishment papers, like the Times, and WikiLeaks have done the exact same thing: possessed and published classified material.

Because there is no legal distinction, the Obama administration, which desperately wanted to indict WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, backed away citing its New York Times problem. The Trump administration had no such qualms and had Assange arrested in April 2019 and indicted on conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and 17 counts of the Espionage Act.

The only bright line that can be drawn is political: a decision by the Department of Justice to not prosecute big media but to prosecute WikiLeaks for the same crime, which conflicts with First Amendment press freedoms.

This is what Harris was calling for: Protect the state-managed corporate media but go after a serious publication that dares to reveal crimes of the U.S. government, which Harris wants to protect. In other words, for the same activity, the Times is afforded First Amendment protections, but WikiLeaks is not.

In an answer last year to this question from The New York Times about the Trump administrations prosecution of Assange: Are these charges constitutional? Would your administration continue the Espionage Act part of the case against Assange?Harris said:

The Justice Department should make independent decisions about prosecutions based on facts and the law. I would restore an independent DOJ and would not dictate or direct prosecutions.

If she stuck to that, it would mean Harris would be in favor of also prosecuting the facts and the law as it applies to the Times for publishing the Iraq War Diaries, just as WikiLeaks did, and for which its founder faces 175 yearsthe rest of his lifein a U.S. super-max prison.

That it was a political decision by the Trump administration, and not a legal one, to go after Assange but not the Times, further bolsters the argument of Assanges lawyers that the U.S. extradition request is for a political offense, and thus forbidden by the U.S.-UK Extradition Treaty of 2006.

Not that his extradition for a political offense would much bother Kamala Harris, judging from her remarks.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

Link:
What Kamala Harris Really Thinks of WikiLeaks - Consortium News

The Return of Anonymous – The Atlantic

At the end of May, as protests against the police killing of George Floyd got under way, reports started to circulate that the shadowy hacker group Anonymous was back.

The rumors began with a video depicting a black-clad figure in the groups signature Guy Fawkes mask. Greetings, citizens of the United States, the figure said in a creepy, distorted voice. This is a message from Anonymous to the Minneapolis Police Department. The masked announcer addressed Floyds killing and the larger pattern of police misconduct, concluding, We will be exposing your many crimes to the world. We are legion. Expect us.

Justin Ellis: Minneapolis had this coming

The clip generated a wave of renewed enthusiasm for Anonymous, particularly among young people. Twitter accounts associated with the group saw a surge of new followers, a couple of them by the millions.

At the height of its popularity, in 2012, Anonymous had been a network of thousands of activists, a minority of them hackers, devoted to leftist-libertarian ideals of personal freedom and opposed to the consolidation of corporate and government power. But after a spate of arrests, it had largely faded from view.

Now a new generation was eager to join. How does one apply to be a part of Anonymous? I just wanna help out, Ill even make the hackers coffee or suttin an activist in the United Kingdom joked on Twitter, garnering hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets.

Anonymous stan (super fan) accounts remixed the video on TikTok to give the shadowy figure glamorous nails and jewelry. Others used the chat service Discord to create virtual spaces where thousands of new devotees could celebrate the hackers with memes and fan fiction. One of the largest Anonymous accounts on Twitter begged people to stop sending us nudes.

A series of hacks followed the release of the video. News outlets speculated that it was Anonymous who had hijacked Chicago police scanners on May 30 and 31 to play N.W.As Fuck tha Police and Tay Zondays Chocolate Rain, a 2007 song that served as an unofficial anthem for the group. Likewise, when the Minneapolis Police Department website went offline from an apparent DDoS attacka hack that overwhelms a target site with trafficsocial media credited Anonymous.

Three weeks later, on Juneteenth, a person identifying as Anonymous leaked hundreds of gigabytes of internal police files from more than 200 agencies across the U.S. The hack, labeled #BlueLeaks, contained little information about police misconduct. However, it did reveal that local and federal law-enforcement groups spread poorly researched and exaggerated misinformation to Minnesota police officers during the unrest in May and June, and made efforts to monitor protesters social-media activity.

I had recently published a book that detailed the tangled origins of Anonymous, and until last month, Id thought the group had faded away. I was surprised by its reemergence, and wanted to understand how and why it seemed to be coming back, starting with who had made the new video. It didnt take me long to find out.

The video was watermarked, which is uncharacteristic for Anonymous. The mark is blurred out in copies, but appears in the original post in white font: anonews.co. That URL led me to a news-aggregation site, which brought me to the sites Facebook page, where the first iteration of the video had been posted on May 28. A British company called Midialab Ltd. controlled the page. I wrote to the email listed on the page, and the companys owner replied the same day. This person requested anonymity but was willing to put me in touch with the creator of the video.

I suspected I was chasing the tail of some Russian troll farm whose business it was to promote radical division of all stripes. The first place to report on the video, on May 29, had been RT, the state-owned Russian media outlet. And the millions of new followers flocking to Anonymous Twitter accounts? As the accounts themselves pointed out, many were bots.

Within an hour of receiving the email, I got a call from a suburb in Harford County, Maryland, just north of where I live. The man on the line told me his name was John Vibes. Hey, man, he said. Surprised Im local? I made the video.

Vibes told me he had worked as a party promoter organizing raves in Baltimore and Philadelphia for the past decade, which had led him into countercultural thought and, eventually, activism. I had been writing things about police brutality and I was contacted by the guy that runs anonews.co, a tech entrepreneur in the U.K. who agreed with Anonymouss politics and wanted to support it. Vibes is a freelance writer who writes and produces videos for the Facebook page, which functions as a news hub. Mostly we just cover news about what Anonymous would be interested inthe banking system, corruption, he said. A couple of times a month well look at the big stories and well aggregate the general sentiment into a video.

Indeed, the Facebook page releases Anonymous videos regularly, many of them made by Vibes. But he was not the masked figure speaking to the camera in the most recent viral video. The page often recycles the same footage and simply uses new audio.

Vibes emphasized that he wasnt a hacker, but a journalist who was echoing the sentiment of Anonymous members on social media and chat rooms. The purpose of the Facebook page was to create an outlet for that message. To be clear, were not a Russian troll farm, Vibes said.

Read: Russias troll operation was not that sophisticated

Still, my conversation with Vibes left me feeling uncertain about whether Anonymous was really back. The new hacks in May and early June were tied to the group largely through rumors. And the video wasnt put out by Anonymous hackers, but by an activist who supported their message. In some sense, Vibes was simply another fan, remixing a remix. Was it all just smoke and mirrors?

But when I spoke with a variety of current and former Anonymous hackers over the past month, they all insisted that Anonymous was indeed reactivating. To understand why, and what that really means, its helpful to keep in mind the two somewhat-competing interpretations of Anonymous.

In one sense, Anonymous is a decentralized community of tech activists who collaborate in small groups on projects they call operations.

But then there is the second definition of Anonymous. Anonymous members will tell you that Anonymous has no members, that it is not a group, but rather a banner. People rally to it. And like a pirate flag, anyone can run it up their mast and start doing deeds in Anonymouss name.

Its the vigilante, Gregg Housh, one of the creators of a 2008 Anonymous anti-Scientology video, told me. Anonymous was designed specifically to be that way. In its initial founding, it existed as trolls people doing whatever they wanted, with that hint of vigilantism. It was designed to be totally open. Anyone can be Anonymous.

In the new video Vibes made, Anonymous represents extrajudicial justice, the superhero entering to right what the normal course of the law cannotan idea that can seem deeply appealing now that the ordinary enforcers of justicethe policeappear to some to be the source of the crime.

My sources affiliated with Anonymous all told me the same thing: People were flowing back into the chat rooms to coordinate new operations. This is how Anonymous has always worked. A viral video generates a wave of enthusiasm. Then the leaderless collective debates what to do. Sometimes it settles on performative acts of protest, such as hacking police scanners or briefly downing a website. But as occurred with BlueLeaks, oftentimes more skilled hackers steal and leak documents intended to buttress a political cause with substantive evidence.

However, both the group of people and the movement have changed over the years. And to track Anonymouss trajectory, its necessary to understand how the entire project began: as a joke by teenagers.

In the mid 2000s, Aubrey Cottle was part of a crew of online pranksters who called themselves trolls and orbited two anarchic online message boards: Something Awful and 4chan. Thousands of users were on these boardsalmost all young menbut among them was a more die-hard band who hung out in the same chat rooms, feuded online, and met up in real life. They called themselves Anonymous. The name was derived from the way 4chan presented usernames. If none was specified, the site displayed Anonymous by default.

In 2007, a man appeared at Cottles door. Cottle was 20 and still living with his mother in Toronto. As Cottle tells the story (confirmed in part by a friend of his), the man was from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the nations equivalent to the CIA. Curious, Cottle led him to his room, which was littered with hard drives, server equipment, and old copies of the 90s hacker magazine 2600.

Would you be willing to use your abilities against al-Qaeda and terrorist groups? the agent asked him. A number of thoughts flashed through Cottles mind: Is this guy for real? I would never work for the feds. Should I delete everything? But mostly he felt like a fraud. The man thought he was something he wasnt.

You want me to raid internet forums for you? Cottle asked.

Anonymous trolls loved to conduct raids on other sites, flooding online games and chat rooms with their army of users to disrupt the space. Like cruel older brothers, they often picked the easiest target they could findyounger kids. They loved raiding a childrens game called Habbo Hotel by lining up their avatars to block access to the online pool.

When 4chan began cracking down on organizing raids, Anonymous migrated to Cottles copycat site, 420chan, which hed created to discuss his principal interests: drugs and professional wrestling. And Cottle became the de facto leader of Anonymous, a role he relished. It was during this time, Cottle told me, that he codified a set of half-joking rules for the group that became known as the infamous Rules of the Internet. They included 3. We are Anonymous 4. Anonymous is legion 5. Anonymous never forgives.

Cottle and his friends also were the first to start using the Guy Fawkes mask. They chose it simply because they loved the movie V for Vendetta, a 2005 film adaptation of a dystopian-fiction comic book. V, the films protagonist, dons the disguise to fight a future fascist police state by firebombing buildings, inverting the story of the original Guy Fawkes, who is vilified in English folklore for attempting to blow up Parliament in 1605.

Read: The misunderstood legacy of Guy Fawkes

Cottle told CSIS hed think about its offer (which he later declined) and went back to cyberbullying. But not long after the authorities came to Cottles door, Anonymous would make the news. A Fox affiliate in Los Angeles had run a segment on the group, framing them as hackers on steroids. The report implied that Anonymous was perhaps a terrorist organization, overlaying the segments narration with stock footage of a van exploding.

The segment delighted Anonymous. Hacking was something its members did for their own amusement. Now in the eyes of the mediaand the governmentthey were a shadowy and powerful cabal, capable of anything. It was something people wanted to believe about them, something they could use.

Anonymous spent much of 2007 harassing Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi radio host, not because the group was at all political during this period, but because Turner proved to be an easy target. Each week, Anonymous would clog his phone lines, down his website, or order hundreds of pizzas to his house. But the fun ended abruptly when it hacked Turner so thoroughly that it discovered he was an FBI informant.

After Turner, Anonymous needed a new target. They shifted to the Church of Scientology, a recurrent enemy of hackers and freedom-of-information activists since the early 1990s. The catalyst for the new operation was a video, the one made by Housh. It used the Fox news piece as inspiration, hinting that Anonymous was a powerful ring of international hackers. Over the years we have been watching you, it announced in a text-to-speech computer voice. We are legion.

When the video went viral, enthusiasm hit an all-time high. Anons flowed into the same chat rooms they had once used to coordinate raids, this time channeling their numbers into a series of street protests against Scientology in major cities around the world. (Anonymous accused Scientology of bilking its adherents with pseudoscience and of illegally silencing critics.) Several hundred people attended a protest I reported on in New York, almost all of them dressed in Guy Fawkes masks.

For many, the cynicism of trolling was shattered when they realized they could effect change in the real world. To the surprise of even themselves, Anonymous had inherited a conflict that had been raging since the 1980s. On one side were hackers who wanted to employ the internet as a tool for personal empowerment; on the other stood governments and corporations, who used it as a panopticon for personal-data collection.

Presently, the Anonymous movement split into competing factions of trolls and activists. Cottle led the trolling side, but his contingent soon lost control.

The watershed moment came in late 2010, when an Anonymous operation to support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks snowballed into a massive attack against PayPal and Mastercard for blocking WikiLeaks donations. Once again, following media attention, thousands of Anons flooded into chat rooms they had previously used to coordinate invasions into computer games, this time in an attempt to disable corporate websites.

Read: The radical evolution of WikiLeaks

Before long, Anonymous had uncovered plans for HBGary Federal, a security company; Palantir, the tech-surveillance giant; and the private security company Berico Technologies to embarrass WikiLeaks using Nixonian dirty tricks. The story of the HBGary leak became front-page news. And Anonymouss ranks swelled even more.

The Anons involved in the hack formed a splinter group, LulzSec (Lols Security), and went on a high-profile hacking spree, targeting major corporations like Sony and several government agencies whenever they felt that these organizations were trampling individual freedomsor simply to show that they could. But in 2012, the FBI arrested one of LulzSecs members, Hector Sabu Monsegur, a 28-year-old man living in New York City public housing. Sabu became an informant and the center of an elaborate sting operation that resulted in the arrest of many of the groups principal participants. (Monsegur has denied being responsible for those arrests, though does not deny being an FBI informant.)

Anonymous never fully recovered. Small groups of Anons remained, but the energy behind the banner dissipated.

Anonymouss most high-profile hack in the following years came in support of the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In response to the police-shooting death of Michael Brown, the group downed the citys web servers and publicized the home address of the police chief. When officials were not forthcoming about the details of Browns death, Anonymous leaked audio recordings of emergency dispatchers discussing the incident. However, when Anonymous announced the name of the shooter, it named the wrong person, damaging its reputation.

Then Anonymous weathered another blow: the alt-right.

Fredrick Brennan was 12 years old when he discovered 4chan in 2006. When I interviewed him for my book, It Came From Something Awful, he recalled the fun and camaraderie of the days when Anons piled into chat rooms to attack PayPal and Mastercard. But he spent his late teens struggling financially, bouncing between low-paying jobs in the gig economy. Eventually, he decided that he was doomed to forever be on the bottom as an incel (involuntary celibate) dropout. The copy of 4chan he founded in 2013, 8chan, became a wildly popular breeding ground for far-right extremism. However, Brennan managed to shed what he described as the toxic ideology of the chans; his tipping point came last year, when a wave of mass shooters who self-identified as fascist incels all cited 8chan as their inspiration. Since then, hes been working to shut down 8chan, now known as 8kun.

The seeds of the alt-right had always been a part of Anonymouss culture. Though Anonymous troll armies had started out by harassing neo-Nazis in 2007, theyd also coated sites in swastikas and racist slurs for shock value. And eventually, the neo-Nazis they targeted began using 4chan in their online recruitment efforts.

So by 2016, Anonymous hacktivists had turned back to the places where they had once organizedchat rooms and forums that are adjacent to 4chanand begun to fight a rearguard action. In 2018, Anonymous declared war on QAnon, a bizarre alt-right conspiracy theory that had been started on 4chan the previous year by far-right trolls but has since spread into mainstream Republican discourse.

From the June 2020 issue: The prophecies of Q

Some Anonymous hackers now spend their time tracking and outing alt-right organizers, often in the same networks they occupied in the mid-2000s trolling era.

What does all of this mean for the future of Anonymous?

Some members have shifted their modus operandi. Several told me they now work quietly, rarely if ever repeating the mistake that had landed many of them in jail: publicizing what they do. (This has not been the case with BlueLeaks, however. A hacker involved in the leak identified as Anonymous, and other Anonymous groups were happy to adopt the hack under their banner.)

They are more wary than ever, often openly wondering who among them are police or informants. They no longer organize on the archaic Internet Relay Chat (IRC), believing it to be compromised, instead preferring more modern end-to-end encrypted chat clients, such as Wire, Gajim, or Signal. For social media, they almost exclusively use Twitter, feeling that other companies do not do enough to protect users privacy.

And age has brought temperance. Weve grown up a lotat least I havesince the beginning of all of this, an Anonymous activist who runs the Twitter account @Anon2World told me. Back in 20102012, we would have decimated anything we could to make a point; now we realize how we could inadvertently affect people in negative ways.

This time around, many members emphasized, they would like to play a supporting role to Black Lives Matter, as they had during the 2014 Ferguson protests, when despite their stumbles, their presence was appreciated by some BLM activists. And in the long term, it now appears that Anonymous might be with us perennially, blooming in revolutionary moments, when it feels as if one big push might effect change.

But there is another possibilitythat once again Anonymous will be recast.

Anonymous began with teens hanging out in chat rooms. They put on the mask of the anti-fascist superhero for fun, but over time learned to play the role first with style, then conviction.

When teens began hanging out in Discord chat rooms last month wondering how they could join Anonymous, the answer from the largest Anonymous Twitter accounts was simple: Do it yourself.

Many of the new Anonymous stans had come from TikTok and the K-pop (Korean pop) community. At the end of May, the K-pop stans clogged the Dallas Police Departments tip-line app with dance videos. Then, spurred on by Anonymous Twitter accounts, they reserved hundreds of thousands of tickets to Trumps ill-fated rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in which the president found himself addressing largely empty seats.

Read: The hackers who hate Donald Trump

The pattern felt familiar: a group of teens meeting online to consume media, then realizing that their numbers were so strong, they could pull some epic pranks, or become a political collective, or maybe both. As the former Anonymous member Jake Davis put it on Twitter, the TikTok/Kpop stuff feels like a more viral version of old 4chan invasions/raids Fully expecting Fox News to make some spooky video calling them hackers on steroids.

In V for Vendetta, after a pandemic leads to a fascist dictatorship in the year 2020, everyone puts on the Guy Fawkes mask to topple the regime.

Thats at least how the movie version ends.

And if there were ever any difference between our world and the other side of the screen, it feels as if it were effaced long ago.

See more here:

The Return of Anonymous - The Atlantic

BREAKING: New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian …

A New York magistrat judge is requesting testimony from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in a case involving slain DNC voter data director Seth Rich.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn requested the international assistance in order to get the testimony.

The parents of Seth Rich are suing FOX News and Judge Netburn wants Assange to testify on Seths role in the leaked DNC documents.

Julian Assange has repeatedly said the documents did not come from Russia. And Robert Mueller interviewed hundreds of witnesses in his anti-Trump witch hunt but never got around to questioning Julian Assange who was the source of leaked DNC documents.

The parents of Seth Rich believe he had nothing to do with the leaked documents to Wikileaks.They may not like what they find out.

TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: Killer Cuomo Not Only Murdered Thousands of Elderly In Homes, He Also Targeted Adult Care Facilities and Group Homes for People with Disabilities

On November 9, 2016 Ellen Ratner admitted publicly that she met with Julian Assange for three hours the Saturday before the 2016 election. According to Ratner, Julian Assange told her the leaks were not from the Russians, they were from an internal source from the Hillary Campaign.

Rich was murdered before the election in 2016 late at night in Washington DC.

The Epoch Times reported:

A federal magistrate judge in New York requested assistance from a UK court on Aug. 5 in obtaining testimony from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for a U.S. civil lawsuit brought against Fox News and others by the parents of slain Democratic National Committee voter data director Seth Rich.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn requested the international assistance in accordance with the Hague Convention.

In the proper exercise of its authority, this court has determined that the evidence cannot be secured except by the intervention of the English courts and that assistance from the English courts would serve to further the international interests of justice and judicial cooperation, the judge wrote in a memorandum for the senior master of the Royal Courts of Justice.

Joel and Mary Rich, Seth Richs parents, sued Fox News in March 2018 nearly a year after the news network published and retracted an article titled Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources. The Riches claimed the network inflicted intentional emotional distress on them by slandering their son. The case was dismissed in August 2018, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal more than a year later.

The case has since entered the discovery phase and the judge determined that Assanges testimony is crucial for determining the central dispute between the partieswhether the article was a sham as the Riches claim, or substantially true as maintained by Fox News.

Mr. Assange, as founder of WikiLeaks, is exceptionally suited to provide testimony that will be highly relevant to these issues. Therefore, Fox News, by and through this letter of request issued by the District Court, is formally requesting the testimony of Mr. Assange for use at trial, the request to the UK court states.

Read this article:
BREAKING: New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian ...