Republican California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher instigated a media furor last week after his meeting with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Soon after the visit, the congressman alleged that Assange had confirmed the existence of evidence which could ultimately disprove the Russian hacking narrative. This author has not forgotten that Assange explicitly wrote via Twitter that he does not speak via third parties, emphasizing that only statements made by himself or his lawyers should be considered authoritative. I take that very seriously and am offering only my opinion in the following article.

Rumors have swirled in the wake of the congressman’s allegations that proof may have been handed over during the visit with Assange. Charles Johnson joined Rohrabacher during the meeting. If either party received any type of evidence, it is critically important that they use an independent third party expert to authenticate this material.

Such information would be vital not only in negating the ‘Russian hacking’ narrative, but also may play an important role in securing Assange’s freedom. Assange has been illegally detained in the Ecuadorian Embassy for over seven years. It is vitally important that any information which could help free Assange or further disprove the Russian hacking be presented in an authenticated, politically unbiased manner.

The need for expert independent third party verification has been demonstrated by the establishment media’s  backlash to the congressman’s initial statements to the press after meeting with Assange. Virtually instantaneously, Rohrabacher was accused of pro-Russian sentiment by legacy media, including the Washington Post.

The congressman chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. He has also been a strong critic of the Russian hacking narrative; earlier this month he cited a VIPS report which cast further doubt on the veracity of claims made by the DNC, Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 persona that the DNC was hacked by Russia. Consensus has grown over the last few months that the DNC emails were most likely leaked to Wikileaks, not hacked by a foreign state.

However, it appears that merely questioning the Russian hacking narrative has resulted in immediate vitriolic attacks on the congressman. He has been referred to as ‘Putin’s favorite congressman’ by some establishment outlets.

With this in mind, it is clear that if Rohrabacher were to hold a press conference announcing potentially important proof debunking the Russian hacking theory, it would be dismissed outright by legacy news media unless it is properly and independently authenticated by a non biased expert.

Just after meeting with Assange, Rohrabacher implied to the press that he would ‘show President Trump’ any files before they would be released to the public. If the congressman or an associate did indeed receive any evidence which would debunk alleged Russian hacking, the utmost care must be taken that the publication of such information could not be dismissed by accusations of partisanship.

An expert independent third party must be used to authenticate the veracity of any evidence in this matter. The veracity and legitimacy of such important information must be impeachable in order that it not be dismissed. Wikileaks already enjoys an impeccable ten year record of perfect accuracy.

However, despite this outstanding reputation, establishment press has continually smeared Wikileaks with accusations of selective publication; since there is no flaw in the content itself, they must resort to criticizing what Wikileaks doesn’t publish. In light of this extreme animosity shown by legacy press towards Wikileaks and anyone who dares question Russian hacking, it is critical to make any presentation of important evidence from Assange as ‘bullet proof’ as possible.

The establishment will criticize important information no matter how sound it is. Congressman Rohrabacher should act accordingly and be as careful as possible to independently evaluate any proof he may have hypothetically been given. This would achieve a number of outcomes. First, it would further uphold Wikileaks’ record of perfect accuracy. Secondly, it would – depending on the data Dana may have received – potentially reveal the greatest scandal since Watergate. Russiagate would either be thoroughly debunked, or proven to be true. And no one should be afraid of what the truth will show.

14 Thoughts on “Opinion: If Rohrabacher Has Proof, It Must Be Independently Authenticated”

  • I guess some of us have forgotten that in the US, traditionally, the burden of evidence is on the prosecution, not the defense. The cyber experts and ex-intelligence officers say there is no evidence of Russian gov involvement.
    I’d say they are more knowledgeable than some losing, humiliated DC DEM hacks, but that’s just me.
    What is liberalism, progressivism and the left? Apparently some of those prefer war to peace, fake news to real. Lookin’ at ya, MSDNC!

  • From above: “The need for expert independent third party verification has been demonstrated by the establishment media’s backlash to the congressman’s initial statements to the press after meeting with Assange. Virtually instantaneously, Rohrabacher was accused of pro-Russian sentiment by legacy media, including the Washington Post.”

    They don’t like the message so they smear the messenger.

    They have offered no proof “of claims made by the DNC, Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 persona that the DNC was hacked by Russia.”

    “However, it appears that merely questioning the Russian hacking narrative has resulted in immediate vitriolic attacks on the congressman. He has been referred to as ‘Putin’s favorite congressman’ by some establishment outlets.

    With this in mind, it is clear that if Rohrabacher were to hold a press conference announcing potentially important proof debunking the Russian hacking theory, it would be dismissed outright by legacy news media unless it is properly and independently authenticated by a non biased expert.”

    I disagree. It would be dismissed outright by legacy news media even if it were properly and independently authenticated by a non biased expert.

    When they don’t like the message they smear the messenger, claim it’s “debunked” and claim the messenger is “discredited”.

    The entire “Russian hacking narrative” is an attempt to discredit president Trump.

    After all this time, there is no proof of the Russian hacking narrative. Schadenfreude when the “Russian hacking narrative” bubble bursts for good. I expect the establishment media will fail to report it.

    By publishing the DNC and Podesta’s emails, there is proof of collusion between the messenger (the establishment media) and Hillary supporters.

  • The credibility of Julian is unwavering. The skeptics and critics paint and smear him with lies in an effort to have his information debunked. He doublechecks and verifies all sources of information and ensures its veracity. One would be very foolish to believe his information is not credible because it is something you do not want to believe. Scott Adams and Tucker Carlson had a great conversation about this very concept.

  • It’s highly unlikely that Assange gave him anything. Rohrabacher was hoping to get something out of Assange; he wasn’t there to help him. If he was, he wouldn’t have taken Chuck Johnson with him. It’s also unlikely that WikiLeaks will reveal the source, but if they do it won’t be through an third party like Rohrabacher.

  • When exactly do we get proof of media accusations rather than anonymous sources. That is unacceptable. Already the Charlottesville, VA story is breaking down as well and the antifa as being the good guys. The media gains at first and them real evidence they didn’t think you would find hits the airwaves. Media is strictly propaganda now.

  • ASSANGE’s warning so soon after the congressman’s statement speaks very much to that point.
    Until Mr.Assange – or for that matter, Kim.com; presents the evidence, there is none.
    Murray, Hersh, Wheeler and the death of Seth RICH notwithstanding.

    Any decent court of Law would already find enough circumstantial and ‘co-incidental’ evidence to call a jury and contest the ‘hack’ as psyop anyway.

    Still, it will be nice when one or another of the proponents actually deliver.

  • WATCH WRONG MEDIA –IS YOUR BUTT GOING TO BE IN A SLING, WITH WHAT ASSANGE KNOWS ABOUT YOU IN THE MEDIA AND YOUR FALSE NEWS. IF SO TO DAMN BAD. IT IS TIME THAT THE TRUTH COMES OUT AND SINKS YOU.! WHEN IT COMES TO TRUTH TELLING I’LL TAKE ASSANGE ANY DAY OF THE WEEK OVER THE MEDIA.!!!!!

  • “The establishment will criticize important information no matter how sound it is.”

    This is the truth. There is sufficient evidence right now to disprove the Russian hacking narrative in any court of law. The one element missing in this debunking is the identity of the leaker in the DNC, the original source of the files that reveal the corruption of the DNC and the Clintons. All that is required now is to lay all this information out clearly before the American public and allow them to make their decision.

    In this case there are several credible named witnesses with sterling reputations, unbiased to any objective observer, who have testified that both the Wikileaks files and those released by Guccifer 2.0 were not the result of distance hacking but were downloaded at an East Coast location. i.e They were not “hacked” but leaked. In the case of the Guccifer 2.0 files further evidence was provided to show that signs of Russian hacking were added to these files in order to distract from the content of the files and to provide fuel for the ongoing Russian interference story. Here is a good summary of the evidence:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/russiagate-exposed-its-a-fraud-leaks-from-inside-the-dnc/5599665

    What must be done now is to present all this evidence once and for all and then turn the spotlight onto the content of the files, which should then result in criminal prosecutions of all those involved.

    To ask for more evidence from “non-biased, objective” parties is to play into the hands of the mob. They will never listen. They have their agenda and they will continue to scream and vilify and turn a deaf ear to the truth. This must surely be clear to anyone who has followed these events with any degree of attention.

    • This is the hill the Dems die on. So much political capital has been wasted on Russia and censure, racism and KKK epithets… the account is overdrawn.

      Plus, the left cannot nominate another white person for national office. They’ve painted themselves into a corner with low IQ blacks who will NEVER come out for another white for president.

      DNC needs black votes and – just like Africa – African voters don’t demand “results” – just optics.
      It’s a low IQ thing that keeps the 3rd world from successful governance.

  • “The establishment will criticize important information no matter how sound it is.”

    This is the truth. There is sufficient evidence right now to disprove the Russian hacking narrative in any court of law. The one element missing in this debunking is the identity of the leaker in the DNC, the original source of the files that reveal the corruption of the DNC and the Clintons. All that is required now is to lay all this information out clearly before the American public and allow them to make their decision.

    To protect a source is a principle of investigative journalism that has been adhered to by all the media, including the present hawkers of the Russian hacking narrative, with very few exceptions, for a very long time. Journalists have gone to prison rather than reveal their sources.

    In this case there are several credible named witnesses with sterling reputations, unbiased to any objective observer, who have testified that both the Wikileaks files and those released by Guccifer 2.0 were not the result of distance hacking but were downloaded at an East Coast location. i.e They were not “hacked” but leaked. In the case of the Guccifer 2.0 files further evidence was provided to show that signs of Russian hacking were added to these files in order to distract from the content of the files and to provide fuel for the ongoing Russian interference story.

    What must be done now is to present all this evidence once and for all and then turn the spotlight onto the content of the files, which should then result in criminal prosecutions of all those involved.

    To ask for more evidence from “non-biased, objective” parties is to play into the hands of the mob. They will never listen. They have their agenda and they will continue to scream and vilify and turn a deaf ear to the truth. This must surely be clear to anyone who has followed these events with any degree of attention.

  • “The establishment will criticize important information no matter how sound it is.”

    This is the truth. There is sufficient evidence right now to disprove the Russian hacking narrative in any court of law. The one element missing in this debunking is the identity of the leaker in the DNC, the original source of the files that reveal the corruption of the DNC and the Clintons. All that is required now is to lay all this information out clearly before the American public and allow them to make their decision.

    To protect a source is a principle of investigative journalism that has been adhered to by all the media, including the present hawkers of the Russian hacking narrative, with very few exceptions, for a very long time. Journalists have gone to prison rather than reveal their sources.

    In this case there are several credible named witnesses with sterling reputations, unbiased to any objective observer, who have testified that both the Wikileaks files and those released by Guccifer 2.0 were not the result of distance hacking but were downloaded at an East Coast location. i.e They were not “hacked” but leaked. In the case of the Guccifer 2.0 files further evidence was provided to show that signs of Russian hacking were added to these files in order to distract from the content of the files and to provide fuel for the ongoing Russian interference story.

    What must be done now is to present all this evidence once and for all and then turn the spotlight onto the content of the files, which should then result in criminal prosecutions of all those involved.

    To ask for more evidence from “non-biased, objective” parties is to play into the hands of the mob. They will never listen. They have their agenda and they will continue to scream and vilify and turn a deaf ear to the truth. This must surely be clear to anyone who has followed these events with any degree of attention.

Leave a Reply