The Nationwide Safety Agency has responded to a Freedom of Info Act (FOIA) request for direct communication between Seth Rich, former Democratic National Committee, and Julian Assange and / or Wikileaks. The Nationwide Security Authority issued a "Glomar Response", during which it decided not to affirm and, undoubtedly, request the knowledge as a result of its existence or "non-existence" as "properly classified".
The NSA response reveals that communication between Rich and Assang / Wikileaks is subject to classification legislation. Their release has vital nationwide security implications that immediately have an effect on US-Russian relations and may facilitate the detection of encrypted secret space-based technologies.
I submitted a FOIA request after a message with Ty Clevenger on October 10, 2017, filing a FOIA request for communication between Rich and Assange with many other people. In his unique FOIA letter to the NSA, Clevenger requested:
Any documents, data, or communications that confer with or include communications by 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 somebody outdoors america. (pdf obtainable right here)
The NSA wrote a last response to Clevenger on four October 2018:
Your request has been processed in accordance with FOIA laws. The Agency has reviewed the FOIA's requirements in accordance with 15 paperwork (32 pages) that match your request and said that they have been categorised immediately and properly in accordance with Implementing Order 13526. These paperwork meet the standards for classification set out in section © beneath 1.four and are nonetheless categorised as TOP SECRET and SECRET. (pdf out there here)
Clevinger's FOIA Request and NSA Response was in an article by Mark McCarty revealed on Medium.com on April 19, 2019, by which he analyzed the implications for those claiming that Rich was a real source of DNC emails handed over to Wikileaks. Unfortunately, Medium.com took out McCarty's article and was faraway from the writer's website, which appears to be a blatant censorship case.
On April 25, 2019, I wrote an article commenting on the issues raised by McCarty's article and NSA's response to Clevinger's FOIA request. Of specific curiosity was what a outstanding NSA whistleblower, William Binney, had stated concerning the NSA's response:
“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed info from the NSA, requesting details about both Seth Rich and Julian Assange.
they replied by saying that we now have 15 information, 32 pages, but they’re all categorised in accordance with government order 13526, so they do not have them.
The NSA has a document of communication between Seth Rich and Julian Assange I imply, the NSA is the one firm that copies human-to-device communications. "
When taking a look at Clevinger's request and the NSA's response, it remains unclear who Rich was in touch with 15 paperwork (32
This was as a result of Clevinger's first FOIA request was very in depth as a result of it requested several people which Rich was in touch with along with Assange / Wikileaks In principle, the NSA's reply, as talked about above, made it unclear whether or not it involved info it had on communications between Rich and Assange or Rich and some other designated parties
to limit the scope of Rich's communications. I submitted my FOIA request to the NSA on April 27, 2019:
I'm investigating the circumstances surrounding Seth Conrad Rich's dying ("Seth Rich, born January 3, 1968), who was murdered in Colombia on July 10, 2016. I request all paperwork, data or correspondence referring to or containing communication between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or Wikileaks. 19659017] Click on image to enlarge image. (p. 2 is here)
I acquired the following reply from NSA on Might 1, 2019.
We now have found that the fact that you shouldn’t have the materials you requested is presently and appropriately categorised in accordance with Rule 13526, as described in part 1.four (c). Thus, your request is denied beneath the FOIA First Exemption, which states that issues explicitly authorised in accordance with standards set by the Government Board to be stored secret for nationwide protection or overseas relations functions shall not be coated, and
Right here is the relevant paragraph 1.four, NSA refers back to the emphasis on (c):
p. 1.4 . Classification Categories. Info shall not be thought-about a classification until its unauthorized disclosure might fairly be expected to cause identifiable or descriptive injury to a national security in accordance with paragraph 1.2 of this Regulation and shall relate to a number of of the next:
) army plans, weapons methods or features
c) Intelligence (including covert actions), intelligence sources or strategies or cryptology
] d) US External Relations or International Activities, including Confidential Sources,
e) National Safety scientific, technological, or economic points
(f) US government nuclear security packages
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of nationwide security methods, gear, infrastructures, tasks, plans, or safety providers; or
(h) the event, production or use of weapons of mass destruction.
The response of the National Security Authority is called "Glomar Response", which differs from the regular prohibition of the request of official public registers. Nate Jones's rationalization of Unredacted.com:
Glomar Response is totally different from the standard FOIA ban – when the company finds it has data, however it doesn't release them. When the Agency solutions Glomar's response, it even refuses to admit that the paperwork exist; This makes the research (and the attraction process) rather more troublesome.
The choice of the NSA not to affirm or deny the existence of direct communication between Rich and Assange / Wikileaks confirms that the NSA doesn’t want to instantly grant such correspondence and makes it troublesome for investigators to acquire a definitive reply. Nevertheless, the NSA's response reveals that the alleged communication between Rich and Assange / Wikileaks is a matter of national safety
The NSA's reply was initially accepted, given what Rich had previously discovered about handing over DNCs to Assange and Wikileaks, as mentioned in my earlier Rich article. In precept, we all know that regulation enforcement sources advised reporters Seymour Hersh and Sean Hannity / Fox Information that Rich was the source of the DNC e-mail messages.
In addition, Binney was part of a gaggle of former US intelligence members who wrote a report revealed July 24, 2017 explaining why online hackers couldn’t download DNC information, and the almost certainly rationalization was an inner source that had direct entry to the DNC server , who leaked information with a thumb:  Forensic investigations of "Russian hacking" on individuals's delegation computers final yr revealed that on July 5, 2016, a person with physical entry to a DNC pc leaked (not hacked) . After learning metadata about Guccifer 2.zero's invasion of DNC on July 5, 2016, unbiased network researchers have decided that an insider will copy DNC knowledge to an external storage system.
The NSA's responses to Clevinger and my FOIA requests are much more necessary once we try to interrupt all of the alleged connections between Rich and Assange / Wikileaks just lately. Michael Isikoff, who wrote to Yahoo Information on July 9, 2019, insisted that the Russians have been an actual supply of leakage and not rich:
Russian state-owned media organizations RT and Sputnik repeatedly repeated allegations that Rich, a relatively junior worker, was for Wikileaks source of e-mails from leaked democratic parties. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who on August 9, 2016 announced a $ 20,000 award for Rich & # 39; s homicide, was an idea that "sources take risks."
Many mainstream information ran with Isikoff's story, which didn’t talk about Binney's intelligence evaluation, NSA's FOIA responses, and what Seymour Hersh was informed about Rich, a source of leaks. Plainly Isikoff's story was an try and create an evolving story as a result of Assange's # 39 threatening give up to america, and his anticipated testimony, which binds Rich to Wikileaks revealed DNC emails.
NSA FOIA Conclusion Answers and different researchers have proven that a deep state has developed Russia for the interior leak of a dissatisfied DNC employee, Seth Rich. The aim of the Deep State was to weaken Trump's presidential campaign and its subsequent administration via agreed Russian secret payments and stop Trump and Putin from significant cooperation on many international political points.
One in every of these international coverage areas considerations official publishing. America and Russia secretly they use unique aerospace technologies in area packages, in secret, which I have described elsewhere. Uncovering such methods might do a lot to unravel international security and power issues, however it might have vital consequences for the oil and pharmaceutical industries, which are depending on outdated fuels and medical applied sciences.
What has emerged clearly when DNC emails have been leaked is that the mainstream media, comparable to main social media corporations like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google, have all experienced the actual source of overwhelmed DNC emails from the US and the worldwide audience . When the reality is that Rich is the true supply of e-mails that Wikileaks leaked in 2016, the position and energy of the deep state is so terribly manipulating public opinion over two years. This exposure opens the door to unique know-how info that may revolutionize our planet's life
© Michael E. Salla, Ph.D. Copyright Discover
Word: Particular because of Ty Clevenger, who gave me permission to release the original FOIA request and NSA response.
Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Russia, Seth Rich, Vladimir Putin, William Binney
Trackback from your website.