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

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.

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

Here’s the Full Butowsky Court Filing:

.

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)

(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..

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.

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.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Cyber Security, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, Treason, Uncategorized, White House Coverup, Wikileaks. Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Pew-Anon says:

    Accepting some enhanced credibility now exists, the details contained within the lawsuit filing…are stunning.

    Honestly, the only thing stunning here is how long it’s taken to get even a shred of evidence for something we all strongly suspected from the get-go.

    Liked by 1 person

    • farrier105 says:

      Ellen Ratner is the sister-in-law of MARGARET RATNER KUNSTLER, who was really Julian Assange’s attorney after the death of Michael Ratner, Margaret’s husband. Michael Ratner was good friends with WILLIAM KUNSTLER, another Assange attorney. After Michael died, Margaret married Kunstler.

      Margaret Kunstler was the person who kept feeding RANDY CREDICO with “information” about Julian Assange’s plans to release what became the Podesta Emails by Wikileaks, which wound up getting Stone indicted after a SWAT raid on his home.

      It is all here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler

      And here:

      http://www.apfn.org/skolnicksreport/awm2.html

      Like

    • TexasMail2019 says:

      Anyone notice that in Gregg Jarrett’s book The Russia Hoax and in Dan Bongino’s book, Spygate, the name Seth Rich is NOT even mentioned once? There is so much pressure to cover up the Seth Rich thing and for Jarrett and Bongino to not even mention it, well, that says quite a lot.

      Like

  2. CM-TX says:

    Having read thru the Butowski’s complaint, 2 things jumped out at me.

    1. Seems like Ratner set Butowski up from the start. She used the brother angle (former Assange Lawyer) to gain access to Julian, & also his trust. She then sat on the info which makes no sense, only to dump it on Butowski (who was supposedly associated w/ PDJT, but not really).
    I see the familiar workings of another circle-jerk that involves the MSM, in trying to paint a faux-link between Trump & Wikileaks.
    It’s a bit disturbing Seth Rich’s parents participated in this plot.

    2. It says that FIB “unlocked” Seth’s deviceS. The claim has been that nothing was taken in the “botched robbery”.
    Yet despite being established he had his Laptop EARLIER that night with him… it was reported as NOT being found on him at the crime scene/hospital.
    So if they somehow RECOVERED his electronic devices later, as they obviously had these in their eventual possession to be able to access/unlock… wouldn’t they have to KNOW exactly WHO the “ROBBERS” (shooters) were that “STOLE” (confiscated) his LAPTOP initially??🤨

    Note: Don’t forget the report re. 2 stolen guns from a local Agent’s car on the same night. No idea if ballistics connected these.

    Like

    • CM-TX says:

      Also, Seth was said to have a Reddit account… with a user-name that had to do with “Pandas” (an animal he was fond of). It was noticed at some point after his death, someone had accessed his account making changes/deletions to his post history. I have no idea if those posts were relevant to whatever he uncovered. But there must’ve been a reason for doing so, & by somebody having access.

      Like

  3. jaquebauer says:

    There is great probability that Assange will die in captivity. He will have died of natural causes. The kind of natural causes people who possess secrets that can harm the Clintons are afflicted with.

    Like

  4. V says:

    In reading many of the Twitter posts on the Butowsky lawsuit’s Seth and Aaron Rich revelations, I came across this. I was aware of Craig Murray, but had not seen this so clearly described before. There goes another Deepstate-Mueller lie re “Russia hacking”:

    CRAIG MURRAY – DNC AND PODESTA EMAILS – 2 SEPARATE LEAKERS

    Steven Athearn on 15 April 2019 at 4:54 PM:
    (includes @Farrier105 who posts at Sundance)

    “Ex UK diplomat Craig Murray claims that the DNC and Podesta files were from two different leakers, both Americans, and hints that the former were from a DNC insider and the latter from someone in intelligence or law enforcement. See his interview with Scott Horton, Dec 2016.”

    Craig Murray’s reply:
    “Thank you Steven that’s the first tweet I have seen for years that actually understood what I said about the leaks!”

    Found in this tweet thread at “10:14 AM – 16 Jul 2019”

    Liked by 1 person

    • V says:

      Oh, I didn’t know the whole tweet thread would show.
      Anyway, it’s at https://twitter.com/ Ventuckyspaz/status/1151178225160077313.

      (That last item originally published on Jan 3, 2017 with Ellen Ratner on FoxNews, speculating about John Podesta being a registered FARA agent needs verification. IIRC his brother Tony Podesta was allowed to retroactively register under FARA by the Mueller group. Don’t think John Podesta was registered, but needs verification.)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. David K. Peers says:

    The full length recording of the Butowsky / Sy Hersch telephone conversation is available. It is clear Sy Hersch believes what he is telling Butowsky about Seth Rich’s contact with WikiLeaks given the amount of detail. Hersch also tells Butowsky (former Defense Secretary) Jim Mattis has Hersch’s information.

    The bombshell is Butowsky shares information with Hersch, the original tape edited so only Hersch was talking. Butowsky tells Hersch a female friend has met with Assange and Assange told her the leaks came from Seth and his brother Aaron Rich. Hersch is sceptical and says Assange is basically a creep and would tell her something like this just to get laid. Hersch clearly has a very low opinion of Assange. Butowsky counters and says that wouldn’t be the case as his friend is a lesbian.

    The bombshell: this video surfaced this week and obviously Ratner is the lesbian Friend Butowsky was telling Hersch about.

    Given Fox News, the law firm suing Fox on behalf of Rod Wheeler after Fox pulled the story, the Rich Family and Seymour Hersch have all rolled over – Hersch even told NPR that Butowsky was essentially crazy and making stuff up – even though Hersch confirmed earlier that was him in the taped conversation – there must be some pretty powerful threats being made and cash being soplashed around.

    Sure hope this is what Barr and team are working on.

    I’m actually started to worry that if this and the Epstein case goes the way they should the American society might not be able to withstand it.

    Like

    • V says:

      It’s most definitely the best thing for truth to come out. It can prevent a civil war.

      What are snowflakes going to do? Sit on the sidewalk and cry? Soon they’ll get hungry and go home for supper.

      Like

    • V says:

      Have you a link for the full audio between Butowsky and Hersh?

      Like

    • Boots says:

      “Sure hope this is what Barr and team are working on”

      And I hope I wake up 25 years old again with full head of hair. And a $100 million trust fund.

      Nice hope but it ain’t about to happen. Not with Barr. Google his anti-Second Amendment history.

      Liked by 1 person

    • newlife3.0 says:

      Barr is not our friend. He is, however, a long time Mueller and cabal friend. Involved deeply in Iran Contra. Defended the sniper at Ruby Ridge, (later sent to kill folks at Waco), and a laundry list of crap pola that I’m not going to dig out again in my bookmarks. Research him. Anyone who has their hopes set on Barr is foolish. Trump made yet another really bad pick – although the guy who was acting AG before Barr was good.
      Barr talks a good game. He’s not walking it.
      Way past expat time.

      Like

  6. Bogeyfree says:

    Can we agree that IF it is proven that Wikileaks got the DNC emails from a “source” WITHIN the DNC and NOT Russia, would not that proven fact blow apart the entire Russian Collusion frame job narrative spun by the media, the left and even the SC/FBI on a sitting President of the United States?

    And would this also not instantly and totally exonerate PT from the 3 years of BS and fraud applied to him and turn the tables and spotlight back on the perpetrators of this frame job?

    So if your answer to both of these are a big YES then wouldn’t this be very near the top of PT priority list to resolve once and for all?

    If yes again, then why doesn’t PT simply ask Barr to convene a grand jury and subpoena the 4 people who may know the truth? (Assange, Rohrabacher, Ratner, Butowsky)

    Have them testify under oath before a grand jury and IMO the truth will come out and if the allegations in Butowsky’s complaint are true then this entire fraud, frame job and possible sedition against a sitting President is destroyed in a split second.

    So my question is why if the truth is this close and within reach of exposing everything to the benefit of the President and the American people, why has AG Barr not engaged with these 4 people, if that is the case?

    It really seems to me to be pretty simple and easy.

    Ask the 4, under oath in front of a grand jury, who provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks? If it comes back as a DNC insider then IMO it is game, set, match and PT is totally exonerate and Barr and the boys can pursue the real perpetrators who carried out this fraud and frame job!

    Like

    • V says:

      Right.

      There would have to be provision made for Assange’s safety. He can testify from his prison cell in the UK via Skype or whatever, but he must be kept alive.

      Like

      • V says:

        If there is someone in the UK who has authority to pardon Assange for his current imprisonment in the UK for the offense of seeking asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy while out on bail due to the Swedish (CIA) frameup, the UK should do that to make up for the damage they did to Pres. Trump re the Steele Dossier, etc.

        Free Julian Assange to a place of his choice. No extradition to the US or Sweden.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Boots says:

      “….why has AG Barr not engaged with these 4 people, if that is the case?”

      That’s a rhetorical question, right?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Bogeyfree says:

    I noticed that Butowsky has tweeted some responses recently on his twitter page.

    I don’t tweet, only read but I wonder if Butowsky’s attorney’s filed for a 202 in Texas Federal Court?

    Rule 202 is a request for a pre-trial deposition in order to protect a witness’s testimony if they feel the witness’s testimony may not be available come the trial.

    Might be interesting if these guys were thinking that far ahead.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Massachusetts deplorable says:

    I well remember watching Rod Rosenstein during the news briefing when he and Mueller announced the indictment of the Russians for the hack. He looked really nervous. His body language and manner suggested to me that they knew the indictments were false allegations.
    I hope someone can find the video of that briefing and post it to the internet. Use it on Hannity.
    They knew they were lying or withholding vital information.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Massachusetts deplorable says:

    I well remember watching Rod Rosenstein during the news briefing when he and Mueller announced the indictment of the Russians for the hack. He looked really nervous. His body language and manner suggested to me that they knew the indictments were false allegations.
    I hope someone can find the video of that briefing and post it to the internet. Use it on Hannity.
    They knew they were lying or withholding vital information.

    Like

  10. Massachusetts deplorable says:

    I well remember watching Rod Rosenstein during the news briefing when he and Mueller announced the indictment of the Russians for the hack. He looked really nervous. His body language and manner suggested to me that they knew the indictments were false allegations.
    I hope someone can find the video of that briefing and post it to the internet. Use it on Hannity.
    They knew they were lying or withholding vital information.

    Like

  11. farrier105 says:

    If Ratner was willing to talk with Assange at the embassy despite it being under around-the-clock surveillance, and if she was willing to yap about it in front of cameras in November 2016, why didn’t she contact the Rich family herself? What would be the big deal about doing that? Why bother Butowsky, who obviously had problems processing this as he took a few months to think about it? This is another of these deals that make no sense.

    Ratner, in the video excerpt provided, does not name the Rich brothers, and also stumbles about where the source worked, at first saying the source worked in the Hillary campaign, which is separate from the DNC, or SUPPOSED to be separate. Assange has not hidden the fact that he has “sources within the DNC.” He told that to Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” on August 1, 2016 in the context that those sources were still informing to him. Could any of them have been behind the DNC Data Leak? Of course, but Seth Rich was dead three weeks before the interview. Could Seth Rich have helped them? Sure. Can we prove it? Not at this time.

    As I pointed out on another thread, this is the fourth July (2016, 2017, and 2018 before this) in which a “Seth Rich Bombshell” was presented to the public. There’s a method to this, especially with the Mueller testimony coming up and the Establishment taking real losses in other cases like Concord Management, Flynn, and Stone. It gets diverts attention. I have no reason to think THIS particular Seth Rich revelation will fair any better than the previous three, unless someone else has heard something from “Luke” the source who told Matt Couch and Never Trumper Jack Burkman that Rod Rosenstein had Seth Rich killed. Here is what this latest story is up against:

    1. Both major political parties are solidly in agreement about the Russians hacking the DNC. It is unlikely anyone will be able to get around that kind of road block without a major revelation backed by solid, irrefutable evidence. Anyone trying to get Republicans in the House or Senate to take up the Seth Rich cause now know why it hasn’t happened. They all believe the Russians did it.

    2. Some of the best evidence against the Crowdstrike report is in Donna Brazile’s book, HACKS. It raises serious questions about the competence of Crowdstrike and the reliability of their surveillance software, Falcon Overwatch. Punch enough holes in it, and you might have a new ballgame here, but I started urging this 18 months ago and more. Starting out with the unproven conclusion that Seth Rich, or anyone else by name, did this fails to achieve a knockout blow to the Crowdstrike report. The report has to be destroyed to get a new investigation. The Establishment’s and USGOV’s case sits on the Crowdstrike report, plus the claim the Russians incompetently logged their own keystrokes and stored them on one of their leased US servers. Only a new investigation can discover if Seth Rich or anyone else stole the emails AND gave them to Wikileaks, as both have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You don’t get that investigation without first destroying the Crowdstrike report. I’m sorry, but just saying “His name was Seth Rich” doesn’t do anything to overturn the Crowdstrike report.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. farrier105 says:

    If you watch and listen to the video carefully, Ratner tells us that the source is someone a lot bigger than Seth Rich. At 0:19 she lets us know the following:

    1. When she met with Assange at the Ecuadorean embassy–the Saturday before this event was taped.

    2. How long the meeting with Assange lasted–Three (3) hours, not six (6) hours.

    3. Who, by description, was named as the leak source–“It was an internal source from the Hillary campaign, or someone who knew Hillary in animus.” By “knew Hillary,” Ratner is describing an acquaintance/friend of Hillary who did not really like her, not someone like Seth Rich, who was a DNC employee who would have had limited, if any, contact with Hillary Clinton. Again, the Hillary Campaign was not the DNC.

    Like

    • farrier105 says:

      The three hours time for the meeting with Assange should get more weight than six hours as Ratner is describing something that happened the Saturday before this interview. Ratner waited around months before asking Ed Butowsky (?) to seek out the Rich family and tell them their sons were the ones who stole the emails and gave them to Wikileaks.

      Here we have two media people, Ratner and Seymour Hersh, passing up the biggest scoop of the new millenium—There was no Russian Hack of the DNC—to fill Ed Butowsky’s (?) head full of Seth Rich stories while the Scoop of the New Millenium goes unreported—by either one of them. In Ratner’s case, she keeps her mouth shut for months before petitioning Ed Butowsky (?) to tell the Rich family their sons were felons, regardless of their motives.

      Like the July 2017 Seth Rich Story with Ed Butowsky (?) at ground zero that devastated Ratner’s own network; like the July 2018 Seth Rich Story with the weird Jack Burkman press conference thrown by Gateway Pundit; this latest Seth Rich July story has holes in it. At the same time Isikoff is dredging up Seth Rich, we have Round 2 of Ed Butowsky. Let’s see where this one goes. If it goes nowhere, everyone should skip whatever the Establishment dredges up in July 2020. We should all be wised up by then.

      Like

  13. farrier105 says:

    WHO IS ELLEN RATNER?

    Some research into the Ratner family was necessary in order to get some kind of understanding about what lies beneath this story. When Michael Ratner, Ellen Ratner’s brother, died, his widow, Margaret, became Julian Assange’s lawyer, along with one of Michael Ratner’s close friends, WILLIAM KUNSTLER. Margaret Ratner later married William Kunstler, who also pre-deceased her.

    William Kunstler is known for being the radical left attorney for the New Left Anti-Vietnam War group known as the CHICAGO SEVEN in the late 1960s. During World War II, Kunstler was in the OSS, the precursor to the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA). During the Chicago 7 trial in Chicago, Sherman Skolnick, of Citizens Committee to Clean-Up the Courts, an anti-corruption watchdog/whistleblower group, kept an eye on Kunstler. It appears Kunstler maintained ties with old OSS hands who also served in CIA after WWII.

    “Chicago 7” trial attorney William Kunstler had been with the predecessor agency to CIA, namely OSS. During the “7” trial he used to eat lunch with Chicago U.S. District Judge Hubert L. Will who had been C.I.A.’s head of Counter-Intell igence in Europe. Kunstler ran away every time Skolnick or any of Skolnick’s associates sought to question the lawyer about his activities with the C.I.A. in the 1950s and 1960s. Kunstler was an expert on creating apparent fake scenarios with his expertise at writing radio scripts. (http://www.apfn.org/skolnicksreport/awm2.html).

    Ellen Ratner is Margaret (Ratner) Kunstler’s sister-in-law. If Kunstler was undercover CIA, he had a window into Assange’s operation as his attorney, or maybe this tells us something else about Julian Assange. Who knows at this juncture? What we do know is we have a whole set of connections to the background of the person who originated this story, as well as evidence of a leftist bent in the upper reaches of FOX News in the person of Ellen Ratner.

    In addition, a whole menagerie of Internet figures are involved in this as well through a Dallas-based “Company” called SHADOWBOX. A number of individuals involved in Shadowbox, hired by Butowsky, have already been deposed in the lawsuit.

    Like

  14. farrier105 says:

    Here is WIKIPEDIA report about Margaret Ratner Kunstler feeding Randy Credico which resulted in the legal woes of ROGER STONE.

    Margaret Ratner Kunstler is Julian Assange’s attorney.[69] Beginning in the summer of 2016, she revealed to Randy Credico that WikiLeaks would release information about the Podesta and the Hillary Clinton campaign in the near future.[69] On August 27, 2016, Credico sent a text message on to Roger Stone that “Julian Assange has kryptonite on Hillary.”[69] Through information from Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Credico continued to give Stone updates about the subsequent release on WikiLeaks of numerous emails stolen from Podesta and the Hillary Clinton campaign which were released beginning on October 7, 2016.[69]

    Like

    • farrier105 says:

      This tracks the DNC emails, Russiagate, Stone-Credico, the whole damn thing, through Kunstler (OSS/CIA) to Vietnam (Chicago 7, synthetic anti-war “protestors”/controlled opposition), to the Kennedy Assassination (rescued War in Vietnam, among other things).

      Full circle.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s