Most people probably missed this intriguing blogpost by Publius Tacitus which appeared yesterday.:
Although this provides a good summary of what is currently known about the Seth Rich case, the intriguing new info in it is this:
“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.”
Although the letter cited here was dated October 4th, I had not seen any previous news about this, nor could I find this cited elsewhere on the web. When I and others queried the author (in the Comments section) about his source for this info, he responded:
“The source is the letter that the lawyer, Ty Clevenger, received from the NSA. I have seen the letter.”
Presumably Publius Tacitus knows Clevenger.
So the key question is this: why does the NSA have 32 pages of secret or top secret documents (which of course they refuse to release) pertinent to Seth Rich and Julian Assange?
The Deep State expects us to believe that Russian agents (presumably “Guccifer 2.0”) hacked the DNC and provided Wikileaks with the DNC emails they subsequently published. Hence, there would be no reason to think that Seth Rich was ever in touch with Wikileaks, and the NSA couldn’t have captured any correspondence between Seth and Wikileaks officials. Moreover, the FBI was at pains to deny rumors that they had examined Seth’s laptop soon after the murder. Though they didn’t say that specifically — rather, they said that they were not investigating the Seth Rich murder , as the FBI does not investigate murders. (After which the MSM had a good laugh at the absurd Seth Rich “conspiracy theorists”.)
However,.what if the FBI was investigating Rich for espionage — rather than probing his murder? The FBI did not flatly state that they had not looked at his laptop.
The Fox News report — withdrawn at the insistence of the Murdochs — which prompted public concern about Seth’s laptop, was evidently based on info which Sy Hersh supplied to Ed Butowsky in a phone call that Butowsky secretly recorded:
Although Hersh has refused to go public with this story (he likely has only one source for it), he had an opportunity to state that he had been BSing Butowsky — but refused to do so. Which likely means he was being honest when he told Butowsky about a source inside the FBI, considered highly reliable by Hersh, who described to Hersh seeing an FBI memo regarding an FBI analysis of Seth’s laptop. That analysis indicated that Seth had arranged with Gavin Macfayden of Wikileaks to provide DNC emails to Wikileaks via drop box in exchange for a payment.
Another pertinent issue has recently caught my attention. There is strong reason to suspect that Guccifer 2.0, far from being a Russian intelligence agent, is a Deep State creation meant to establish the hoax that Russian hackers were the source of the Wikileaks DNC releases….
Take a look at the van that the supposed perpetrator was driving. Very high production values, not a spot of dirt or wear or fading on either the van or the posters. This is right out of a hollywood script.
This was such an obviously fake production that I have to wonder if it was intended to be exposed. If so, the MSM will turn it around as a false flag of a false flag. The narrative would be that trumpsters set it up to be exposed as a false flag in order to indict the democrats for conducting false flags in the public mind. And who knows, maybe that’s what happened. Except it wouldn’t be trumpsters, it would be the faction of the intelligence apparatus which is arrayed against the globalists. When deception is the rule it’s hard to know what to believe.
But as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t whether it’s a false flag, a false flag of a false flag or a false flag of a false flag of a false flag! The underlying reality is that the NWO cabal has taken over the democratic party (and much of the republican party), and if the dirty tricks apparatus of the nationalist faction in government use their own tactics against them, it could be argued that it was a “necessary evil” given the cluelessness of the american public.
Anyway, the narrative that seems the most politically constructive to me is the simplest one: through sheer incompetence reflecting their own internal disarray and growing desperation, the “deep state” has managed, in one enormous blunder, to expose all of its biggest left-wing public deceivers in a very concise way for everyone to see. The supposed targets of the plot are the public faces of its primary authors. This position would seem to be supported by MSNBC’s clumsy attempt to pin it on the russians, implying that they are improvising around an unexpected development by muddying the water, that they have lost control of the situation. I mean really. Wasn’t that yesterday’s big lie?
October 26th, 2018
By Dr. Joseph Mercola
Known as “the Monsanto papers”, the evidence presented in legal cases against Monsanto includes email correspondence and corporate documents that create a comprehensive narrative of the corporation’s malfeasance and collusion with U.S. regulatory agencies.
The Australian documentary, “The Monsanto Papers” (featured below), reveals the secret tactics used by global chemical giant Monsanto (now owned by Bayer AG), to protect its bestselling herbicide, Roundup.
The film starts out with a quick history of Roundup and how its now-clearly absurd safety claims (such as “it’s biodegradable,” “safe enough to drink,” and “safer than table salt”) made it into the worlds’ most widely used weed killer, used by farmers and private gardeners alike. Indeed, it was at one time known as “the world’s most trusted herbicide,” but those days are now long gone.
Between 1974 — the year glyphosate entered the U.S. market — and 2014, glyphosate use increased more than 250 fold in the United States. Today, an estimated 300 million pounds are applied on U.S. farmland annually, and globally, nearly 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate are applied to some 70 types of farm crops each year.
Roundup Is Far From Harmless
Mounting evidence suggests Roundup is far from harmless, and evidence unearthed during legal discovery shows Monsanto has been well aware of its product’s toxic nature, and has been covering it up…
Monsanto Papers Reveal Company’s Efforts to Squash Evidence of Carcinogenicity
August 10, 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson — the first of 9,000 pending legal cases — claimed Monsanto’s Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma…
To read much more, including which health consequences have been linked to glyphosate, click here.
“Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects… 5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.”
– Dr. Sharon Goldberg
First they talk about the “big lie” propaganda technique, then russia attacks again. The irony is hard to miss, unless you have an MSNBC dependency.
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd says he “has this fear” that the bombs shipped through the mail to prominent Democrats “could be some Russian operation” to sow division in the US.
— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) October 25, 2018
Involuntary and uncontrolled dosages of random people with varying rates of excretion with a drug that that has a narrow margin for error and loads of cross-drug interactions and contraindications but which causes apathy (closely related to suggestibility) and male infertility. Don’t expect this proposal to go away.
In an article entitled “How our drinking water could help prevent suicide,” Vox highlights psychiatry professor Nassir Ghaemi and his claims that the practice would be beneficial for the American populace.
“High-lithium areas, he says, have suicide rates 50 to 60 percent lower than those of low-lithium areas,” Vox writes, citing a study co-authored by Ghaemi.
“In general, in the United States, lithium levels are much higher in the Northeast and East Coast and very low in the Mountain West,” Ghaemi said. “And suicide rates track that exactly — much lower suicide rates in the Northeast, and the highest rates of suicide are in the Mountain West.”
The article goes on to state that lithium advocates allege “tens of thousands of lives a year” could be saved with “small amounts of lithium, amounts likely too small to have significant side effects.”
Comparing such a move to “the way we put fluoride in to protect our teeth,” Vox adds, however, that countless studies prove lithium to not be effective whatsoever.
Vox argues that mass-drugging the U.S. citizenry, if alleged to be effective by scientists, should be done anyway.
“At the very least, I’d love for some governments to conduct real, bona fide experiments on lithium,” the article states.
Such a policy, Vox continues, would be ethically sound so long as the practice is deemed to be more good than bad.
“There are serious ethical questions about doing experiments like this that affect whole populations, but if lithium’s effect is real and we don’t pursue it because we lack compelling enough evidence, thereby endangering thousands of people — that’s an ethical problem too,” the article adds.
Vox even describes adding lithium to the water as a beneficial “mind-control plot.”
“The rap against fluoride, mocked in movies like Dr. Strangelove, is that it’s a mind-control plot. But putting lithium in the water would actually be a mind-control plot: It would be a concerted effort by the government to put mind-altering chemicals in the water supply to change the behavior of the citizenry,” Vox writes. “And I say that as someone who thinks that, if it works, that it would be a great idea!”
Listen to a 2010 interview between Alex Jones and board certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock on the dangers of lithium below: