The National Safety Agency has responded to a Freedom of Info Act (FOIA) request regarding direct communications between Seth Rich, a former staffer for the Democratic National Committee, and Julian Assange and/or Wikileaks. The NSA issued a “Glomar Response”, the place it selected to neither affirm nor deny the requested info because of its existence or “non-existence” being “properly classified”.
The NSA response reveals that communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are topic to classification laws. Their release may have main nationwide safety implications that immediately impression US Russia relations, and should facilitate disclosure of suppressed secret area program applied sciences.
I filed the FOIA request after speaking with Ty Clevenger, Esq., who had on October 10, 2017, filed an FOIA request relating to communications between Rich and Assange, together with many other people. In his unique FOIA letter to the NSA, Clevenger requested:
All documents, data, or communications referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and any of the following: Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, Rao Abbas, and/or any individual or entity outdoors of the USA. (pdf out there right here)
The NSA wrote a remaining response to Clevenger on October four, 2018:
Your request has been processed beneath the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) aware of your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have discovered to be presently and correctly categorized in accordance with Government Order 13526. These paperwork meet the standards for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.four and stays categorised TOP SECRET and SECRET. (pdf obtainable here)
The Clevinger’s FOIA request and the NSA’s response was the subject of an article by Mark McCarty revealed by Medium.com on April 19, 2019, the place he analyzed its penalties for those claiming Rich was the actual supply of the DNC emails being handed over to Wikileaks. Sadly, McCarty’s article was taken down by Medium.com and he was removed as an writer from the location in what seems to be a flagrant case of censorship.
I wrote an article on April 25, 2019 commenting on the problems raised in McCarty’s article and NSA’s response to Clevinger’s FOIA request. Of specific interest was what a outstanding NSA whistleblower, William Binney, had to say concerning the NSA’s response:
“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed info from NSA asking for any knowledge that involved each Seth Rich and in addition Julian Assange.
They usually responded by saying we’ve received 15 information, 32 pages, but they’re all categorized in accordance with government order 13526 masking classification, and subsequently you possibly can’t have them.
That says that NSA has data of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I imply, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between individuals and units.”
In intently analyzing Clevinger’s request and the NSA’s response, what is left unclear is strictly who Rich was communicating with that the 15 documents (32 pages) have been referring to.
This was because of the preliminary FOIA request by Clevinger being very broad in scope since it asked for multiple individuals that Rich was speaking with in addition to Assange/Wikileaks. Principally, the NSA’s response, as cited above, made it unclear whether the knowledge it had involved communications between Rich and Assange, or Rich and one of many different named parties.
With a purpose to slender the scope of the inquiry into Rich’s communications, I filed my very own FOIA request to the NSA on April 27, 2019:
I’m researching the circumstances surrounding the dying of Seth Conrad Rich (“Seth Rich, born January three, 1968), who was murdered within the District of Columbia on July 10, 2016. I request all documents, data, or correspondence referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or Wikileaks.
I acquired the next response by the NSA on Might 1, 2019.
We’ve decided that the very fact of the existence of non-existence of the supplies you request is a at present and correctly categorised matter in accordance with Government Order 13526, as set forth in Subparagraph (c) of Section 1.4. Thus, your request is denied pursuant to the primary exemption of the FOIA which offers that FOIA doesn’t apply to matters that are particularly approved underneath criteria established by an Government Order to be stored secret in the curiosity of national protection or overseas relations and are, the truth is correctly categorised pursuant to such Government Order.”
Here is the related Section 1.four referred to by the NSA with emphasis on subparagraph (c):
Sec. 1.4. Classification Classes. Info shall not be thought-about for classification until its unauthorized disclosure might fairly be expected to cause identifiable or describable injury to the nationwide security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to a number of of the following:
(a) army plans, weapons methods, or operations;
(b) overseas government info;
(c) intelligence actions (including covert action), intelligence sources or strategies, or cryptology;
(d) overseas relations or overseas activities of the USA, together with confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or financial matters referring to the nationwide safety;
(f) United States Government packages for safeguarding nuclear materials or amenities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of techniques, installations, infrastructures, tasks, plans, or protection providers referring to the nationwide security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.
The NSA’s response is called a “Glomar Response”, which is totally different from a daily denial of a request for official government data as defined by Nate Jones from Unredacted.com:
The Glomar Response is totally different than a daily FOIA denial—when an company states that it has the data but that it’ll not release them. When an company replies with a Glomar Response, it refuses even to confess that documents exist; this makes research (and the appeals course of) rather more troublesome.
The NSA’s choice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of direct communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks affirms that the NSA is unwilling to instantly admit such correspondence exists and makes it troublesome for researchers to succeed in a definitive reply. However, what the NSA’s response does reveal is that the alleged communications between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks are a matter of national safety.
The NSA response is a startingly admission given what has been previously discovered about Rich’s position in handing over the DNC emails to Assange and Wikileaks as discussed in my previous article on Rich. Principally, we all know that regulation enforcement sources advised journalists Seymour Hersh and Sean Hannity/Fox News that Rich was the supply for the DNC social gathering e mail hyperlinks.
In addition, Binney was a part of a gaggle of former U.S. intelligence officers that wrote a report released on July 24, 2017 explaining why it was unattainable for the DNC information to have been downloaded by online hackers, and the more than likely rationalization was an inside source with direct access to the DNC server who leaked the information by way of a thumb drive:
Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic Nationwide Committee computers last yr reveal that on July 5, 2016, knowledge was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical entry to DNC pc. After analyzing metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, unbiased cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC knowledge onto an external storage gadget.
The NSA’s responses to Clevinger and my FOIA requests take on even more significance given current makes an attempt to debunk any purported connection between Rich and Assange/Wikileaks. Michael Isikoff, writing for Yahoo News on July 9, 2019, insisted that the Russians have been the actual supply of the leak and never Rich:
Russian government-owned media organizations RT and Sputnik repeatedly performed up stories that baselessly alleged that Rich, a relatively junior-level staffer, was the source of Democratic Social gathering emails that had been leaked to WikiLeaks. It was an concept first floated by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who on Aug. 9, 2016, announced a $20,000 reward for details about Rich’s murder, saying — considerably cryptically — that “our sources take risks.”
Many mainstream news sources ran with Isikoff’s story which neglected to discuss Binney’s intelligence assessment, the NSA FOIA responses, and what Seymour Hersh had been informed about Rich being the source for the leak. It appeared that Isikoff’s story was an try and get in front of a creating story stemming from Assange’s looming extradition to the US, and his anticipated testimony tying Rich to the DNC emails released by Wikileaks.
The conclusion that emerges from the NSA FOIA responses and what different researchers have revealed is that the Deep State has framed Russia for a home leak by a disgruntled DNC worker, Seth Rich. The Deep State’s objective was to undermine Trump’s presidential marketing campaign and his subsequent administration via concocted Russia collusion fees, and to impede significant cooperation between Trump and Putin on a number of worldwide coverage issues.
One among these international coverage areas considerations the official disclosure of unique aerospace technologies secretly used by the US and Russia in their respective secret area packages, which I have described elsewhere. The disclosure of such applied sciences might do much to resolve international safety and power problems, however would have main repercussions for the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries that are depending on antiquated gasoline and medical applied sciences.
What has clearly emerged because the DNC emails have been leaked is that the mainstream information media, along with major social media corporations similar to Fb, YouTube, Twitter, and Google, have all colluded to deceive the US and the global public over the actual supply of the leaked DNC emails. As the reality emerges about Rich being the true source for emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2016, the position and energy of the Deep State in manipulating public opinion so overtly for over two years is about to be exposed. This exposure will open the door for unique know-how disclosures that can revolutionize life on our planet.
© Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Notice
Observe: Special because of Ty Clevenger who kindly gave me permission to release his unique FOIA request and the NSA’s response.
Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Russia, Seth Rich, Vladimir Putin, William Binney
Trackback from your website.