December 14, 2010 Steps: Daniel Domscheit-Berg (OpenLeaks) Bribery Allegations Against Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)



I sent the following to on December 19, 2010. I've left out the body in this update because it is redundant with what is below in the earlier updates, etc. is bouncing my email to you.

——- Original Message ——-
From: Tom Usher
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:41 PM
Subject: Fw: Daniel Domscheit-Berg bribery allegations against Julian Assange

That email did not bounce, meaning that it is highly unlikely that Syria Truth, and, did not receive the message. They never replied.

Since then, it has come out that Daniel Domscheit-Berg has denied ever having been interviewed by Syria Truth and ever having said that Julian Assange took money from Zionists to suppress cables covering Israel that might damage Israeli diplomacy or security.

Now, why would Syria Truth have published all of that in the first place knowing that Daniel Domscheit-Berg could deny it?

Will Syria Truth now "stand by it's article" and thereby call Daniel Domscheit-Berg a liar? Will they reveal as much as possible supporting such a claim?

If they don't and they are still on the Internet, then there is no way that they are a credible source. In which case, they should be completely discounted from here on out.

From my mail server:

Hi. This is the qmail-send program.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<>: does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17)
Giving up on

Here's a little info on the IP address:

City: Amsterdam
Latitude: 52.35 Longitude: 4.9167
Open in Google Earth (.kml)

Now, if isn't doing this themselves, who is?

So far, no one else that I've seen has even attempted to touch this with as much as a ten-foot pole.

There will be more to come, though.

Here's what Syria Truth says about contacting them (per Google's translator as of December 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM PST):

Addresses communication and publication policy

Editorial Board welcomes any messages it receives, and undertake to respond to them within a maximum period of three days (depending on the case). It also welcomes all opinion articles, studies and research sent for publication, provided it does not contain any expressions or opinions involving suggestive or discriminatory ideas (nationalism, religious attainments, etc. ..), or exposed to individuals in their personal capacity. And priority is always reserved for the material, which stem from secular backgrounds, democratic and left-wing, provided that the minimum acceptable for normal language and art.
Moreover, the editorial board welcomes the statements and attitudes of the organizations and bodies of "civil society" in Syria and abroad, whether in Arabic or other, provided that the start of the background referred to above. Note that these materials will be posted as we get in Page "Echoes of civil society" without any modification or editing.
Contact addresses (by purpose):
Material intended for publication (with the exception of data and versions of civil society organizations):
Material issued by organizations and civil society:
The rest of the correspondence:
For technical reasons related to the possibility of access to write the "encrypted" and unreadable, please send any material way "Otachmnt" (Word file). In order to facilitate the work of editing, and in order to Mwadkm, please adhere titles mentioned above as the subject. Note that the materials being sent to the address on the non-earmarked or are likely to be neglected.
Brussels / Belgium :
Gérard M. Stenier
15, Av. St. Augustine 1190

Rome / Italy:
Nidia Qassar-Dabaj (Fabiana Marzocchini)
Eight Via delle Terme Deciane ,
Rome , Lazio ,

The Hague / Netherlands:
Helena van Eeghen
The European Centre for Eastern Mediterranean Affairs Studies
Den Haag
The Netherlands
(The United Kingdom)

To me, that sounds like they can write anything they want and ignore all inquiries they want no matter how justified or important to the whole world. I can understand ending communications with people that prove to be going nowhere, but to dismiss the questions I've raised is not justifiable in journalistic circles deserving any credibility.

If their email is actually down (it doesn't appear to be because it's returning specific error messages), do you think they aren't monitoring where they are mentioned on the Internet? It's possible of course but how likely?

Where are Daniel Domscheit-Berg and/or OpenLeaks on this? Are they really going to let this hang out there without addressing it?

Where is WikiLeaks on it? Julian Assange is not in a position to handle it right now, but WikiLeaks isn't just Julian Assange. Doesn't anyone there know anything? Aren't they prepared to answer the charges leveled at Assange by anti-Zionists and others on this issue? WikiLeaks too could be swamped and not monitoring what's being written at the level of this blog, but what's a person to do to get their attention on such an important story?

It is important. The truth or falseness of the allegations that Julian Assange is a Zionist/Mossad agent who took bribes to suppress information damning to Israel is no small matter. Millions of people base their views on everything-WikiLeaks based upon this one unsubstantiated claim.

See for instance the following two instrumental posts:

Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, by F. William Engdahl, which was followed up with this: Who is Behind Wikileaks?, by Michel Chossudovsky

Those two don't use Gordon Duff's material, but the same people echoing Gordon are now echoing F. William Engdahl and Michel Chossudovsky on it.

I have agreed with all three of them on other matters before; but on this, not one of them is providing even slightly more than connecting dots where all their perceived connections can be easily explained by other possibilities. Assange is guilty until proven innocent here and these guys (except Gordon Duff flips back and forth) aren't even making clear that it's all circumstantial and unsubstantiated.

As I posed in an earlier post, I suspected then and before it that cables to and from Israel are not batched in with the rest. We all know the "special" treatment Israel and the Zionist receive from the U.S. Why should it be any different with the State Department cables? Zionists in the State Department would raise all sorts of red flags in the U.S. State Department and Israel's government if cables regarding Israel were plastered out there for some 2 to 3 million people in the U.S. government/military to read. It just would not be true to form at all that the Zionists would have stood for that.


I am now attempting to get through to via email directly to the editor:



Hi. This is the qmail-send program.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<>: does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17)
Giving up on

Well, that's one way to avoid being questioned; however, it could be an email address error on the site or a temporary system error or any number of other possibilities, including blocking by other entities that do not wish me to get to the bottom of this story.


I want it to be on the record what I am doing in an attempt to get to the bottom of the Daniel Domscheit-Berg (OpenLeaks) bribery allegations against Julian Assange (WikiLeaks).

At this point, we don't really know where Daniel Domscheit-Berg stands on this issue. We don't know in detail how he would characterize the whole affair. We need to know that and more.

This is a very serious allegation that cannot be allowed to remain vague or to go unchallenged. The geopolitical ramifications cannot be overstated.

Freedom of the press, freedom of political speech, the right of the people to discover evidence of war crimes and other crimes by their own and other governments and corporations and organizations are also all on the line and are extremely crucial.


From: Tom Usher
To: Leah Abramowitz
Subject: Daniel Domscheit-Berg bribery allegations against Julian Assange
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:28:07 -0800

Hello Leah Abramowitz,

I'm contacting you in connection with your article on at that concerns allegations that you allege were made by Daniel Domscheit-Berg to you against Julian Assange that Julian Assange accepted money (a bribe?) from Israelis (whose official capacity as representatives of the state of Israel remains undetermined) in exchange for not publishing Cablegate cables damaging to Israel's diplomatic efforts and/or security.

Your article/interview has created a bit of a stir in the United States such that I have taken it upon myself to write two central blog posts on the matter.

The latest of the two is entitled, "Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks," which may be found here:

I would appreciate it if you would read that article along with the background post(s) referenced in the article and then get back to me with your impressions.

My feeling is that any discussion between us be on the record unless specifically stated otherwise. When you say that you are communicating off the record, I will assume that we will remain off the record until you state that we are going back on the record. I expect you to extend the same journalistic courtesy to me.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.


Tom Usher

Real Liberal Christian Church

In addition to sending this email this morning, I've also taken steps over the last two days to bring this subject to the attention of people such as Paul Craig Roberts, John Pilger, and Paul Jay. Plus, I've Tweeted my post to both OpenLeaks and WikiLeaks. Lastly, I left a comment on each of the applicable IndyBay posts on this subject, one of which posts has been used as the spring board for crucifying Julian Assange as a Zionist agent (which is simply left unsubstantiated at best).

Please understand that I have a "day job" and very limited resources. I need help with this to get the answers and to either substantiate the rumors as true or crush them as false, as the case may be. This is too important to be left hanging out there.

Share this and otherwise spread it.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Alice Green





      • Thanks for the suggestions, Alice. The email for her was given on the site expressly for her. It didn't show up above in the post UPDATE because it was inside less than and greater than signs, which rendered it invisible except in the code. I fixed that.

        You can see that the address she had was lia.abramovitch@syria

        I'm splitting syriatruth in two so that people won't be clicking on those email addresses. They have to remove the blank space and take additional manual steps to attempt to send email. Note that Leah is spelled Lia in the email address. "Leah" came from a translation of the Arabic on the site.

        She does also show up as Lia Abramowitz on Google searches. I haven't yet followed up on any of that.

        If you find out any hard evidence or manage to get a dialogue going on this with anyone in a position to know, please let me know.


    • Alice Green

      She is Leah not lia. If, that is, she exists - a lot of smoke and mirrors surrounds Syriatruth -and has for many years, but unless your read Arabic and therefore the Arabic press you will only know the Western promoted media stories about this.

      • Just to clarify again, her name is Leah; but her email on SyriaTruth was lia.

    • Alice Green

      This is a good post about the article

      • Thank you, Alice, for your on-going interest and input.

        I had a computer glitch today that lasted several hours while I repaired the damage and updated a program; otherwise, I would have responded sooner.

        I read a post on that site days ago I believe and wondered at the time how the author knows about any Haaretz connection. I looked around to see what else might be out there on the Internet. I didn't find anything, but perhaps I'll make a direct inquiry.

        As you can see at the top of this post, I've updated the number of posts in this series.

        As another Alice once famously said, "Curiouser and curiouser!"

        If you are visiting other sites concerning this overall issue, perhaps you might leave comments linking back to my little series here. We really, really need hard answers, as I'm sure you agree. We need people asking.

        Now I'll go read the post to which you linked.

    • Alice Green

      This is from The Guardian

      I don't think Leah A works for Harretz, this was just more snowballing of the story as it circulated around blogs.

      If you look at the editorial board at the bottom of the home page on Syriatruth and click on profiles, you will see that one mentions his email as .net as well as info. I'd suggest trying this.

      The simple explanation, often the real one sans conspiracy theories, is that it's most likely that the embassy in Israel uses a different channel to send cables. Given the war in Lebanon at the time, this could equally apply to the US embassy there for this period.

      Why then did Domscheit-Berg allege what he did? If he did! And why has he not said this anywhere else? How would he know and if Assange did strike a deal with Israel, why would assange record this? None of it adds up.

      I hope you get to the bottom of this and I'll link your post to other sites I visit. Good luck!