Vindicated: cryptome.org Reports: "Daniel Domscheit-Berg Denies Rumor of Assange-Israeli Deals"


WIKILEAKS SERIES Information


I hope my pressing this issue was instrumental in getting people to work toward real answers to intelligent questions. (continued below the following block quote)

Daniel Domscheit-Berg writes [with permission to publish]:

21 December 2010

I have been notified about the general rumour a few weeks ago, and shortly after about the appearance of me as involved in those allegations. I have never spoken to anyone at syriatruth or that reporter that is making these claims, nor do I know anything about any deals JA has allegedly made with Israelis.

Given what is appearing in the Scandinavian area with the involvement of Shamir and Wahlstrom I wouldn't actually expect that to happen either. In any case, this latter statement is just my personal judgement.

I once received a test mail from a nizar.nayouf@syriatruth.net, and then a followup regarding OpenLeaks questions. A contact request to him after hearing of the allegations was not replied to.

In the last week or so I have been contacted by Israeli TV about this, as well as French Le Point today. Those are the only media outfits so far that seem to have taken interest. Other than that it seems to be mainly spreading via weird Russian and religious forums, at least from as much as I am aware of.

As I read somewhere that this alleged reporter I allegedly talked to works for Hareetz, I have asked the folks from Israeli TV if they could help find out who that is, and how to contact her. They replied that there doesn't seem to be anyone by that name. So obviously, which was my gut feeling also, that person does not exist. Why that rumour is circulated, I dont know. I have my feelings about that and think we should give it some more time to uncover itself.

via Daniel Domscheit-Berg Denies Rumor of Assange-Israeli Deals.

It would be wise to yet obtain answers to all the questions I've posed that remain unaddressed. Answering those questions will go a long way to clearing the fog and remove some of the reasons people have been writing wild, unsubstantiated allegations such as that Julian Assange took bribes from Mossad.

Believing that this message came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg and therefore that Cryptome is reliable even though we can't verify it other than by waiting for others to put it to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, which I am sure will happen, is at this point a matter of faith. My sense is that it is genuine. If so, I congratulate Cryptome and Daniel Domscheit-Berg for helping to shed light on this matter and to quell the wild anti-Assange, anti-WikiLeaks rumor mill. Cryptome has gone up a notch in my estimation, and that means John Young.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Julian Assange had a conflict over management style. It would have been better had the dirty laundry not be aired in public. I trust each has grown from the lesson.

Peace,

Tom Usher

Donate


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.
    • I just read this "Ed Abington, former US consul-general in Occupied Jerusalem, mentions ‘a special channel US embassies use for very sensitive information’ which WikiLeaks has not had access to."

      I had seen the substance of it before but never put quite so clearly. I believe it, as you no doubt have gathered from my posts and comments.

    • Old European

      Hi, thank you for your inquiries. Just in case there is still any doubt that the denial published by cryptome was genuine, i point you to the following recording of a speech that Daniel Domscheit-Berg gave on Dec 28 at a conference in Berlin. In the Q&A, he is asked about the topic and repeats what he said in the mail to John Young:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305A1MBdsnk

      You'll also see why he didn't answer immediately to the allegations - he is trying hard to get work done that will be extremely useful to all of us who want the truth to prevail.

      • Yes, the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305A1MBdsnk) does show that he is maintaining in public what the Cryptome post says. In any case, if the post were not genuine, he certainly would have said that.

        I am not anti-Daniel Domscheit-Berg. I still though want answers to those questions I posed that have yet to be addressed.

        "Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks"

        If you know him or can get it right in front of him, tell him to answer me. Doing so would go a very long way in the interest of truth. It would allay much speculation (idle and otherwise). It would be very much worth his time right now (more than he apparently realizes) even though he has many other high-priority things he's working on.

        He can post his answers to me directly on the OpenLeaks site and simply let me know that they are there. It would help me immensely in my efforts to stop the rumor mill were he to hyperlink to the questions. That's not asking too much, especially under the circumstances of others trying to crucify Julian Assange and WikiLeaks with him. Those same crucifiers hate Daniel too, and now they hate me if they didn't already.

        Many of them refer to him as "Daniel Dumbshit-Berg."

        Even though he's had a falling out with Julian, he needs to help stop the lies about Julian being a Zionist/Mossad agent or the like.

        I know he knows the questions are there and is procrastinating hoping they will simply go away. That's a terrible attitude. If he continues to refuse to answer, it will work against him.

        Answering (no ducking or dodging) would garner exactly the right kind of publicity with the people who care the most about exposing governmental, corporate, and other evils.

        Lastly, I am not for invading privacy without due cause. The standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause must be raised.

        Regardless, evil has no rights.

    • Old European

      I don't know Daniel but i know a little bit about the way of thinking of the people involved in WikiLeaks.

      With all due respect, you are overestimating the importance of the US internet rumor mill. Everybody is a zionist agent in some people's mind and you will definitely not stop the allegations against Assange and his associates.

      Your first 14 questions were answered and the rest are about personal opinions. Completely irrelevant because even if he would answer them to your satisfaction, how would you know that he isn't lying?

      By now you can only use your intuition to find out if the guy talking there is a zionist agent, and in the future you will be able to judge him/them by the fruits they bear.

      Until then let him do his work, do your work and let people talk what they want.

      Peace.

      • The rumor mill was sufficient to cause many people to condemn Assange and WikiLeaks who would not have otherwise. The rumors were started and driven hard by a small group that hasn't stopped yet.

        If not for the efforts of a very, very small handful of people, those rumors would have much greater traction.

        In addition, stopping the allegations would mean 100%. It's not necessary to not work at something simply because there won't be 100% success.

        I'm not worried about allegations where people have legitimate questions. I'm concerned about the people who are turning thousands and thousands into rabid judges who have already tried and convicted Assange based upon a load of extremely weak so-called evidence. The longer the hardcore goes unchallenged, the greater the harm.

        A number of the questions are answered. Those that are not yet answered are not, contrary to your view, all personal opinions. Even those that are, are not irrelevant at all vis-a-vis the Zionist issue.

        There are many people who are legitimately upset that people are still being severely oppressed in Gaza and Palestine and that, that oppression was more than sufficient reason to raise the issue on Julian's and WikiLeaks' list of priorities.

        I understand much of why releasing documents is time-consuming and must be done with great care; however, not to release them from WikiLeaks regardless of the NYT and the others really was not a smart move. Anticipating the result of sitting on them should have been more important.

        In terms of global geopolitics, there is no greater sore spot on Earth than Palestine; and anti-Zionism in the US contains a group of militants who would fire up the gas chambers and be about as discriminating as Robespierre.

        Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

        There are people to whom I can turn to continue attempting to get Daniel especially (but also Julian) to wise up a great deal more on this issue, but I thought to ask you in case you have Daniel's ear right now. You don't. So, that's that.

        Please don't though go about minimizing the dangers, even though we both anticipate WikiLeaks releasing cablegate cables related to Israel and the Mossad, as Julian has promised.

        Anyway, thank you for the link to the video.

        Peace to you also,

        Tom