Originally published Apr 19 2019

About six months ago, a blogpost by “Publius Tacitus” appeared regarding attorney Ty Clevenger’s FOIA request regarding Seth Rich:

“But now there is new information that may corroborate what the human sources quoted in the Fox article claimed about Seth’s role in getting the DNC documents to Wikileaks. Borne from a FOIA request filed in November 2017 by attorney Ty Clevenger, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October 2018 that: Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET. If NSA had come back and said, “No, we do not have anything pertaining to Seth Rich,” that would have been news. It would have been especially unwelcome news for those who believe that Seth was the source on the DNC emails. But now the opposite is true. The NSA says that it has documents that are classified TS and S. What do those documents say or prove? That remains to be seen.”

DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/10/dnc-emails-a...

At the time this appeared, I felt that it was of high significance, but I wasn’t quite sure what it meant. What is meant by “any information regarding Julian Assange and Seth Rich?” Reports generated within the NSA that mention both? Communications in which either mentions the other? Direct communications between the two? What was the actual language of Clevenger’s request?

The final sentence of the blogpost seems to muddy the waters even more:

Eighth, the NSA has confirmed that it has Top Secret and Secret documents responsive to a FOIA request for information concerning contact between Seth Rich and other people including Julian Assange.

“And other people”?

Although I was somewhat confused by the meaning of this revelation, I commented on its significance. At the very least, it meant that the view that Seth was the source of the Wikileaks DNC releases was more than the brainless and callous conspiracy theory that mainstream media were making it out to be.

So Why Does the NSA Have 32 Pages of Secret/Top Secret Documents on Seth Rich?

https://caucus99percent.com/content/so-why-does-nsa-have-32-pages-secret...

Fortunately, Bill Binney, one of the founding fathers of the NSA, and universally acknowledged to be one of the most brilliant people who ever worked for the U.S. government, has offered clarification on this issue in a brief interview with Ed Butowsky he gave two days ago.

https://vimeo.com/331034117

In this interview, he offers a devastating rebuke of the fraudulence of the Mueller report’s analysis of “Russian hacking”. But the truly fascinating part occurs at about 6:40, where Binney discusses Clevenger’s FOIA request.

Here’s what Binney says:

“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them. That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.”

If Binney is interpreting this correctly — and bear in mind that, not only is he extraordinarily bright, but he is sometimes referred to as “the father of the NSA” — this provides strong support for the hypothesis that Seth was indeed Wikileaks’ source for the DNC emails it published. Assange has strongly hinted at this, Sy Hersh claims to have a trusted informant inside the FBI who states that he has seen FBI documents verifying this, and Binney himself says that he has two sources inside the intel community vouching for this.

Julian Assange on Seth Rich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Seymour Hersh discussing Wikileaks DNC leaks Seth Rich & FBI report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYzB96_EK7s

Can Timing and Technology Shatter Russian Hack Fake News?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUoE8UecC0&t=579s

(Go to the 8:30 mark — Binney inadvertently refers to “Seth” when he means “Sy”.)

Consistent with the possibility that Seth (or some other DNC employee) leaked the documents, Binney and colleagues have recently demonstrated that the DNC documents passed through a thumbdrive prior to their publication. There would have been no obvious need for such a transfer if Russians had hacked them remotely.

Beyond that, as Binney makes clear, the Mueller report’s tale of how Wikileaks received the DNC emails from GRU agents styling themselves as “Guccifer 2.0” is absurd on its face to reasonable people who will examine the pertinent evidence.

Mueller’s New Indictment — Do the Feds Take Us for Idiots?!

https://caucus99percent.com/content/mueller%E2%80%99s-new-indictment%E2%...

Astute cyberanalysts such as Adam Carter, the Forensicator, and Binney himself have presented compelling evidence that, far from being a Russian hacker masquerading as Romanian, G2.0 has operated in US time zones, down-loaded some of his “hacks” via thumbdrive, purposely implanted “Russian fingerprints” in the meta-data of some of his releases, made amateur attempts to impersonate a Russian using intermittently broken English, and never himself published any documents denigratory to the Clinton campaign. The GRU, if indeed they had hacked the DNC, would have had no need for such a ridiculous figure — but G2.0 functions wonderfully as a vehicle for incriminating Russia as the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks, tarring Russia and Assange with the same brush. G2.0’s contact with Wikileaks shortly (too shortly!) before the Wikileaks DNC release was evidently an attempt to produce a false trail that investigators (i.e. Mueller) could point to as G2.0's hand-off of the DNC emails to Wikleaks.

And if you examine Mueller’s report carefully, you’ll note that he never actually states or demonstrates that the material which G2.0 passed along to Wikileaks consisted of the DNC emails which Wikileaks published, undoubtedly because Mueller has no evidence for this. Indeed, the Forensicator has now shown that DNC emails with attachments which Wikileaks published would require the transfer of a file far larger that the “1 Gb or so” transfer described in Mueller’s report.

The cyberanalytic findings pointing to G2.0 being a fraud masquerading as a Russian hacker are touched on in Binney’s video, and comprehensively discussed in the website of Adam Carter devoted to this issue:

Guccifer 2.0 : Game Over

http://g-2.space/

How does Mueller’s report deal with this countervailing evidence? Does he offer credible rebuttals to each of the findings? No, with consummate dishonesty he simply ignores this evidence in toto. And he feels no compunction to address this evidence because, with rare exception the stenographic MSM have done so as well, so that most Americans are wholly unaware of it. Mueller’s report on “Russian meddling” is simply intended to reinforce the Deep State’s preferred narrative, which he achieves by cherry-picking the evidence that he deigns to consider. This was the precise strategy that our Deep State — including Mueller himself — employed when they sold our nation on Saddam’s vast stocks of WMDs. Mueller’s gang of partisans reluctantly had to admit that that Trump’s campaign had not “colluded” with the Russian state, because to do otherwise would have obligated them to bring (unprovable) charges and then prove them in court. Whereas Mueller knows that the Russians he has indicted will never be brought to trial, so he can make up any claims he likes about them, laced with a smattering of alleged facts to give these claims a seeming credibility, without ever needing to prove a thing — and can expect people lacking in intellectual subtlety or integrity (i.e. most people) to automatically believe the claims.

And here’s another intriguing point. Crowdstrike’s co-founder Shawn Henry used to be Mueller’s deputy at the FBI, acting as head of the counterintelligence division. Adam Carter informs me that, while Henry headed that division, it made an attempt to destroy Wikileaks’ reputation by feeding it documents that had been purposely altered; fortunately, Wikileaks exercised its customary caution and refused to take the bait. G2.0 — very likely a creation of Crowdstrike — appears to have been another attempt to smear Wikileaks, one that has worked wonderfully well with much of the American public. Clinton’s incompetence was expiated, Wikileaks was smeared, and the Russia was further defamed, all in one stroke — the Deep State’s wet dream! Assange became, not a journalist working with an American whistleblower disgusted by the gross bias of the DNC against Bernie, but instead a tool of malign Russians intent on meddling in our democracy and saddling us with the ridiculous Trump.

And, as to Seth Rich’s mysterious death, ask yourself this: who would have been in a perfect position to destroy the “Russian hacking” narrative that Clinton’s campaign and Crowdstrike had decided to run with?

So let’s push to get the real story out. And, if it turns out that Seth was indeed the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks, we’ll need to apologize to Russia, and then decide whom to send to prison for the rest of their miserable prevaricating lives.

Update: Reader Leonardo Facchin has found the entire letter from NSA responding to Ty Clevenger’s FOIA request, which he has posted below. This indicates that Clevenger had asked for more than just communications between Seth and Assange, and that Binney might therefore be incorrect in concluding that all 32 pages consist of such communications. However, the fact that NSA has 32 pages of secret/top secret documents on Seth remains highly significant — and the other findings cited here pointing to Seth as the likely leaker, and discrediting Mueller’s claim that G2.0 is a Russian hacker who was Assange’s source, remain valid.