Kim Dotcom Claims Evidence Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks’ Source.

By Jerry Alatalo

nternet personality Kim Dotcom has delivered a statement on his website asserting he has evidence showing the late Clinton campaign staffer Seth Rich was involved in the leak of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails to WikiLeaks. Kim Dotcom said he is prepared to testify before the United States Congress and provide proof.

His highly anticipated announcement was made on Tuesday May 23, but lost nearly all media coverage after the Monday May 22 bombing event in Manchester, United Kingdom grabbed 24/7 worldwide attention. Some have theorized the Manchester bombing might have been engineered to divert world attention away from what would have been a major, front-page category global news event – at least on independent media platforms and the internet.


Either Kim Dotcom has genuine evidence or he does not.

The question becomes: “Why hasn’t there been a response to his proposal from the Trump administration or Democratic members of Congress, and why haven’t arrangements been made to facilitate Kim Dotcom’s testimony?” When somebody offers evidence on one of the most consequential, controversial and divisive political situations in recent U.S. history, how can responsible government leaders ignore that offer?

It would be a simple and very inexpensive matter to allow Kim Dotcom to testify before Congress via electronic communications and live-stream, so refusal to allow his testimony because of exorbitant costs associated with travel to and from New Zealand where he resides have no merit. Such a format for his testimony is an excellent option, spares the U.S. government from possible embarrassment, and prevents wasted expenditure if Mr. Dotcom has zero evidence.

But… What if Mr. Dotcom does have credible evidence as he asserts, and that his potential witnessing does indeed prove Seth Rich – not the Russian Federation – was the WikiLeaks source? Here is the problem. If Mr. Dotcom does not receive the go-ahead, arrangements and/or other legal, manifested successful steps to hear him out from U.S. officials, then perhaps the only option for him is going it alone and publishing his information (testifying) on the internet.

Thus far, after 10 months since allegations of Russian involvement in the WikiLeaks DNC situation began, no U.S. intelligence agency has provided any evidence proving the allegations of Russian involvement. In a recently published book, “Shattered”, authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes describe how 24 hours after Hillary Clinton’s concession speech Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and staffer Robbie Mook led engineering of the Russian-hacking narrative to deflect attention away from DNC’s stealing of the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s poor campaign.

Kim Dotcom wrote on his website…

Corporate media has seemingly gone far out of its way to discredit the Kim Dotcom story and those who advocate for his testifying before Congress. The following screenshot comes from “CNNMoney” YouTube channel, and its video trying to downplay, and even ridicule as a “conspiracy theory”, that Seth Rich was part of the WikiLeaks revealing of DNC emails.

Please take note of the number of likes (156) and dislikes (3,523) on this video, in what seems a clear indicator of where people around the Earth stand on this matter.

Were Kim Dotcom to testify before the U.S. Congress and prove Seth Rich had involvement in transferring DNC emails to WikiLeaks – defeating an incessant “Russia-gate” narrative that has lasted 10 months – the ramifications would be of historic, worldwide magnitude.

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)


Green Party’s Ajamu Baraka On Syria Crisis.

By Jerry Alatalo

Baraka-1Alphabet If not mistaken, in their first presidential debate neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump became questioned on, or voluntarily presented, their views on the globally important situation which is Syria. In the debate Americans found non-opinions on Syria by the two major candidates in what everyone routinely sees as the every-four-years battle of ideas on vital domestic and international issues of the day, and finding the two persons believed to hold the power for winning the election not even discussing the greatest military and humanitarian crisis on Earth.

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of Americans watching the debate (estimated at 100 million) either didn’t notice the omission/non-discussion of Syria or didn’t care because they know zero about what’s really been going on there since 2011 – because Western corporate media has fed them virtually nothing but lies or distortions. Whether the American people have no awareness of Syria because of media omission (as illustrated with the debate) or routine, incorrect facts, misinformation etc. received through their corporate “news” sources, the way events in Syria become reported in America and the West compared to the rest of the world, the severe difference in narratives, is astonishing.

If one had to place a bet both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump know precisely the truth about Syria, had the chance to tell the American people the full disturbing truth, but consciously chose not to. The truth they intentionally kept from Americans watching their debate is that the U.S.’ role along with its Middle East and European allies has been nothing less than one long, horrific, military and psychological operations crime against humanity – in particular against the men, women and children of Syria.

Unfortunately the situation in Syria has become so dangerous that there is no time for delay in putting the truth on the table for all to see. For a peaceful resolution of the Syrian crisis to become reality, there is no other possible route to get there but that the nations and leaders who’ve, since 2011, been sponsoring (state-sponsored terror) the mercenary soldier/terrorists destroying Syria and its people will have to confess to humanity for their crimes. The hard, brutal and terrifying fact about the current situation in Syria is that there are two (2) possible outcomes: 1) the just described mass confession by the state sponsors of terrorists who have since 2011, and are now, operating in Syria or 2) escalation of violence, likely leading to world war.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s lying by omission in the debate by not telling the American people the full (any) truth about Syria makes the preferable option, universal confession of state crimes, unfortunately, look unlikely. The seeming committed unwillingness of the Obama administration, America’s European and Middle East region allies to “find God”, their stubbornness in recognizing that their massive pretense is evaporating with each passing day as more people are coming to know the truth… are more reasons for people to feel pessimistic.

Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein and her vice-presidential running mate Ajamu Baraka call for a Middle East “peace offensive” that includes a weapons embargo, firm measures restricting the flow of money to terrorists, sanctions against nations sponsoring terrorism, strict adherence to international law, and high-level, intense diplomacy.

Despite the deeply negative implications of the personal moral shortcomings of those responsible for the catastrophic conditions in Syria and their seemingly impossible-to-reverse personal positions, considering the exponentially harsher – unimaginable – reality of world war brings about an intensifying of sobriety, concern and sense of urgency rarely felt or experienced in all of world history. There seems no other way of describing the state of Syria and the world today but to say humanity has arrived at an existential, immeasurably important moment of decision, perhaps most clearly conveyed in the words of the 35th President of the United States John F. Kennedy (1917-1963):

“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.”

(Thank you to Press TV News Videos at YouTube)

Sanders Offers Clinton $225,027 For New York Debate.









By Jerry Alatalo

Alphabet The only contract stipulations the Sanders campaign demands to transfer the $225,027 “speaking fee” to Clinton is that the debate is held in public (not behind closed doors), the transcript becomes available on the internet so every American can read it (not withheld until “everybody does”), and Clinton agrees to return the funds if caught lying about Sanders’ political record during the debate.

So… it’s come to this. Clinton media operatives are trying to spin Sanders’ request for a New York debate before the vote as “going negative”, and at the same time feigning some type of contrived moral indignation for media viewers that Sanders is turning to underhanded, political “dirty tricks”. It’s clear the Clinton campaign is running scared after Sanders’ convincing victories in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah and Washington.

Clinton takes this politically awkward – in reality, self-defeating – stance when a debate between her and Sanders in New York is seen as a completely normal/routine, automatic exercise, done all the time and at every turn, in all previous presidential elections in America. Of course Sanders and Clinton must debate in New York; how else will New York voters gain the information they need about the candidates upon which they base their vote? …Sanders’ “tone”? Are Clinton and her media experts for real?

If Clinton and her campaign experts are “for real” they’ll immediately accept Sanders’ invitation to debate in New York, not as a political move to halt building negative perceptions in the minds of voters over her refusal but, – because that’s what Presidents of the United States of America do.

Hillary Clinton remains oblivious to the historical record of every presidential candidate’s taken-for-granted participation in fiery debates for the benefit of voters at her own political peril. …Maybe another force – overwhelming temptation – will impel her to climb on to the debate stage in New York City; in perhaps the irony of ironies for election 2016, there in NYC one finds the main offices of global financial giant Goldman Sachs… and Wall Street.

Goldman Sachs only gave her the paltry sum of $225,000 per speech. Sanders’ proposed deal to Clinton far surpasses, is much more generous than, her speaking contracts with the boys and girls of Goldman Sachs – by $27.

(Thank you to The Young Turks at YouTube)

Sanders: Alaska 82-18, Hawaii 71-29, Idaho 79-21, Utah 78-22, Washington 73-27…

By Jerry Alatalo

Rocky Top - 1

Alphabet For the Clinton campaign and its supporters there are statistics and then – after they come to the full realization of just how soundly they were rejected at the polls in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah and Washington – there are “damn statistics”.

While corporate media outlets continue attempts to spin the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton toward her “inevitability”, going so far as only days ago insinuating Sanders should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, the American people have seemingly taken such media propaganda for Clinton as a personal offense, and acted to produce a Sanders 5-state landslide.

In sports jargon, when one team starts running on all cylinders and performing beyond expectations people talk about the team’s “gaining momentum”, or “the Big Mo'”. After Sanders sweep of Clinton by truly remarkable blowout margins in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, and despite media attempts to downplay those lopsided, momentum-swinging victories, using the word “inevitable” means one is much less aligned with the political reality.

With more than a week until residents of Wisconsin travel to the polls on Tuesday April 5, people in that state and those still upcoming will have time to absorb the transformation and how competitive the Sanders-Clinton just became. The “inevitability factor” after Sanders’ blowout victories over Clinton may have just actually, tangibly shifted or been transferred away from Clinton’s and into Sanders’ campaign.

In sports, dramatic comeback victories and unimaginable upsets that defy the odds represent the most exciting and memorable experiential moments of them all for players and fans alike. The same applies in the current moment of political competition – the “game” of politics – between Sanders and Clinton, and the American people are becoming excited while observing their battle.

While in sports the physical strength and conditioning of athletes is a large factor along with coaching and team strategy, the game of politics doesn’t require the competitors to lift weights or workout in the gym, but comes down to who in the minds of voters has the best ideas, speaks truthfully, and when elected will bring about societal conditions which better serve the highest number for overall health and well-being.

One senses the American people are now effectively all referees watching the competition between Sanders and Clinton on the political “athletic” field, and that from here on in the campaign will require squeaky clean, adhering to the rules, honest efforts from both. Since entering the field for President of the United States some 11 months ago Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has “played by the rules”, and nobody has come forward with any evidence of dirty tricks on his part. This is one of the qualities, if not the main one, Sanders supporters most admire in him.

Ms. Clinton has on several occasions thus far in the campaign been caught and called out on intentionally misrepresenting Mr. Sanders’ history and positions. If she continues overlooking that the American people are now in a real sense each refereeing her match with Sanders and blowing the whistle when any foul becomes committed, Ms. Clinton’s support will rapidly evaporate, Sanders’ momentum will only increase, and he will win the Democratic nomination.

And that’s the way it must be – fair and square. The people of Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, California and remaining states are quickly coming around. Millions of Americans are fully understanding this.

(Thank you to TheRealNews at YouTube)