By Douglas J. Hagmann
It was precisely three years ago when I wrote that World War III will begin in Syria. I wrote that Syria, not Iran, will be the flashpoint between the United States and Russia, based on information given to me by a source within our own intelligence community. I wrote that we were seeing the final acts of a carefully choreographed play being performed on the world stage, where the script was written long ago by the globalist playwrights. (CFP Oct. 8, 2012)
I warned that “if left to proceed as written, the entire geopolitical world and balance of power could, and most likely will, change with this next curtain call. No one will be left untouched by the coming events. We are at the precipice of World War III.” That was in October of 2012. Today, we are now seeing the final curtain call for the next act by the current headline in the corporate controlled mass media:
Russia has begun airstrikes in Syria, the West is disputing their targets, and Putin has told the U.S. and the West to stand down.
For those who have been paying attention to the machinations of the globalists, this headline should come as no surprise. World war is looming and getting closer by the minute.
We are now at the scene where it should all be making much more sense, even to those who continue to cling to their normalcy bias and refuse to see the breadth and depth of the lies we’ve been told. We’ve been gamed by the globalists, lied to by the corporate controlled media – including the pseudo-intellectual pundits who relentlessly push the “coincidence theory” of history while depicting those who understand the script in the most pejorative of terms.
Perhaps now, as global conflict appears inevitable, the mouthpieces of myth, the purveyors of the putrid lies and the architects of the ultimate Hegelian Dialectic and their facilitators will be exposed for who and what they are. They are a group of globalists that include Fabian Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Fascists and Islamic Socialists entrenched within the U.S. and the West.
They are responsible for the imminent confrontation between the U.S., NATO and the West and Russia and their allies in Syria.
As I have previously written, the road to World War III travels directly through Damascus. The road to global conflict was paved by the selection of Barack Hussein Obama II in 2008, and was further widened by the Clinton State Department as it went through Libya, specifically Benghazi, by a rogue crew of globalists acting at the behest of the Saudis.
Further Reading:
Lemmings… At the precipice of WWIII
Death Race Damascus: “13 days in October”
Obama’s real world game of Risk
As I have always asserted, the attack at Benghazi was a critically important hinge moment in history. It was a warning from Russia by proxy to Obama, Clinton and the globalists in the U.S. and the West, against overthrowing Assad and changing the balance of power in the Middle East on behalf of Saudi Arabia. It was a warning by Russia to stop arming the Islamists. It was a warning that went unheeded.
Those who continue to adhere to the “coincidence theory” of history might not understand just how perilous the events taking place today really are until they see a mushroom cloud in the distance. Perhaps not even then will they see exactly how we’re being gamed by the globalists, for in addition to being intellectually impaired to the truth, they will be left visually impaired by the blinding flash.
Meanwhile, the political pundits continue to entertain us with the bread and circus of the upcoming elections. These are the same Trojan horse operatives who have called those of us who questioned the bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama II, questioned the facts about the Benghazi attack, and strived to expose the nefarious agenda of the “new world order” in pejorative terms.
They are the ones who characterize the missing emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a non-scandal, either out of ignorance or intentional malice, for they know that within these emails exist the blueprints for war. They contain evidence of complicity, and for this reason, they will never see the light of day. Such exposure would show that we’ve been gamed by the leaders of both political parties, and the leaders of both parties were in on the treasonous conspiracy to push us to war.
Perhaps it will all become moot, for the push toward global governance through orchestrated chaos, depopulation through war, and the subjugation of our national sovereignty to international control appears to be not just continuing, but accelerating.
When all of the dots are connected, the picture will reveal the agenda of destruction and the perpetrators of peril. Through our inaction, we have been brought to the doorstep of destruction.
Prepare. Pray.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Executive Summary
Based on my extensive 18-month investigation, it is my professional conclusion that the Internet video known as Innocence of Muslims, the video allegedly responsible for Middle East violence and more importantly, the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans can be directly tied to a covert intelligence operation and operational assets of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Additionally, the individuals and entities responsible for the Internet promotion of the video of that name can be traced not just to an intelligence operation contemporaneous to the attacks, but to previous events of historical significance and current relevance.
Investigation found that the video cited as the cause for the attack in Benghazi and riots in the Middle East underwent at least four name changes, includingDesert Warrior, The Innocence of bin Laden, The Real Life of Muhammad, and finally, Innocence of Muslims. Investigation also found evidence that the primary individual behind the film worked as an operational asset for the FBI in exchange for leniency due to his criminal past. Indications of a possible association by one or more of the individuals responsible for the film to U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, are also suggested.
This investigator also found evidence that suggests that the Internet promotion of the video is linked to at least one entity with ties to government subcontractors. That is, an analysis of electronic footprints of the video trailer under the title Innocence of Muslims, which existed in virtual obscurity for a significant period from its production until September 11, 2012, has been traced to a now defunct Internet YouTube news channel that appears connected to the company formerly known as Stanley, Inc., a subcontractor to various agencies of the U.S. Federal Government that provided products and services to the U.S. military, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, among others. Stanley, Inc. was acquired by the CGI Group in 2010.
It is relevant to note that Stanley, Inc., based in Arlington, Virginia, was awarded a $164 million contract to print new U.S. passports in 2006. It is even more important to point out that two employees of Stanley, Inc., along with a third individual employed by another defense contractor identified as The Analysis Corporation, were identified as the perpetrators who breached the records of the U.S. passport office on three occasions in 2008 and “improperly accessed” the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The breaches occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008.
Investigation verified that the CEO of the Analysis Corporation at the time of the passport office break-in was John O. Brennan, who served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and foreign policy. Brennan also contributed to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and had a 25-year career in the CIA. John O. Brennan is now the head of the CIA under Obama.
It is here that we must recall that at the time of the passport office break-in, Barack Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of the last intrusion, and a week later, on March 21, 2008, Obama was asked for his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper while campaigning. Obviously, Obama now officially knows that the public has been informed about the level of the breach, and that Obama’s personal and confidential biographical information, in addition to his international travels was apparently “accessed.”
It is important to note that that the files accessed included Obama’s personal passport and not limited to his diplomatic passport.
On April 8, 2008, Obama continued to comment on the fact that the confidentiality of his passport records were apparently compromised. It was on this occasion when Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. It is reasonable to wonder whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time had it not been for the uncertainty that the information was already “in play.”
Even ABC News appeared surprised at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. Research shows that Obama did not disclose this trip at any time during any policy discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach.
It is also important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the passport office records, the Washington Times reported that “officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, however, so did the leaks. It was reported that at least one employee within the U.S. State Department shared passport information with a man identified as Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.
My investigation suggests that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from the State Department employee, but received more than what he bargained for. When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also began to talk with investigators and ultimately, made a deal with federal prosecutors.
Before he could make good on his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot in the head.
The murder of Harris remains unsolved, and the official narrative of that murder is that Harris was either a victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone bad.”
Clearly, investigation into the video and those individuals and entities behind the video known as Innocence of Muslims has found tentacles that reach far beyond the Benghazi attacks. There seems to be a connection, borne out of electronic footprints, to our own intelligence agencies in the creation and promotion of this video as outlined above.
Following the announcement to establish a Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi and in response to recently released documents to Judicial Watch, numerous government officials and media pundits have “doubled down” on the narrative that an anti-Muslim movie ultimately titled Innocence of Muslims was the proximate cause for the attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, that killed four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador. To stipulate that the video played a primary role in the attack and murder in Benghazi, therefore, is to require it to be properly characterized as critical evidence in a criminal act of international terror. Accordingly, the video, and anyone involved in its funding, production and dissemination must be subjected to extensive investigation as it must be classified as evidence in a multiple homicide stemming from an attack on U.S. property located on foreign soil. To date, no meaningful investigation has been conducted.
Since the Benghazi attacks, officials at the highest levels of our government, supported and even in some instances, facilitated by many in the media and political pundits, have identified the film as the primary and sole motive behind the attack and the murders. As referenced above, evidence of such facilitation was further confirmed in a series of 41 documents secured by Judicial Watch pertaining to Benghazi on April 18, 2014.
Among those documents include a recently declassified e-mail originating from then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials “attempting to orchestrate a campaign to ‘reinforce’ President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being ‘rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”[1][emphasis by this author]
It is relevant to point out that Ben Rhodes, now Obama’s deputy national security advisor, is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. As the e-mail ‘thread’ details, Ben Rhodes was instrumental in changing the talking points used by administration spokesmen immediately following the attack in Benghazi. It would appear that a prima facie case now exists that places the origins of emphasis and blame on an Internet video originated at the White House level, pursuant to the instructions or with the imprimatur of Obama or one of his stand-ins. The message was merely conveyed by Rhodes, who would likely lack operational authority to make such a decision, according to multiple sources interviewed for this investigation.
In criminal cases and in modern popular culture that includes television, movies and detective novels, motive is one of three aspects of a broader summation of a crime that is used to establish, in part, the determination of guilt of a suspect or suspects. We often hear of “motive, means and opportunity” as a “three-legged stool” on which the guilt or innocence of suspects might rest. With respect to Benghazi, the motive for the attacks has been persistently identified as the creation and distribution of the film Innocence of Muslims.
For the specific benefit of anyone who maintains the belief that the film was the motive behind the attack and murders, the following represents the findings from my research and investigation. For the benefit of anyone who believes otherwise, the following should serve as confirmation that the film was a convenient, albeit planned cover story that had its origins deep within the mechanics of covert intelligence operations.
Based on extensive investigation and research in my capacity as an investigator and investigative journalist, it is my professional opinion that blaming the Internet video for the attack at Benghazi is plagued by at least three major irreconcilable inconsistencies that appear to lack any credible explanations in the context of motive:
Several investigations have already been performed by various oversight committees, including the often cited Accountability Review Board (ARB), yet none of the issues listed above have been addressed or investigated in any meaningful depth or fashion.
It is important to note that while the primary issue of focus has been that of inadequate security at diplomatic facilities (i.e. embassies and consulates) particularly in the Middle East, the attack occurred at an unmarked, nondescript location that effectively served as a CIA operations center and logistics facility for the covert transfer of arms and personnel throughout North Africa.
There were no American flags flying outside of the compound, and nothing iconic was overtly displayed that would readily identify this location as official U.S. property conducting normal embassy or consulate business. Therefore, to suggest that this site would be a logical target for a demonstration by Muslims upset over an insulting video is disingenuous at best, and represents an intentional deception that could only be purveyed by individuals who fully understood the precise reason for the existence of this compound.
The initial descriptions of the attack occurring at an embassy, then a consulate, and finally a “mission” were deliberately misleading. The compound was none of those, and this fact was known from the beginning. The false descriptions were used to (1) hide the true nature and use of the CIA compound in Benghazi, and (2) to reinforce the government’s position that the video caused sufficient and spontaneous violence beyond what could be reasonably anticipated or controlled.
While the issue of security failures and lapses might indeed have merit in the broader context of U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, to apply those talking points to this compound is an intentional redirection and sleight-of-hand deception designed to focus attention away from the real issues.
Addressing the first of the three major irreconcilable inconsistencies listed above, investigation found strong evidence of a direct and lengthy working relationship between the creator of the video, the FBI and possibly the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies. The man who federal authorities claim created the video was identified as California resident Mark Basseley Youssef, 57, a/k/a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Sam Bacile and a dozen other aliases.[2] Youssef was born in Egypt and emigrated to the United States, where he ultimately settled in Cerritos, Los Angeles County, California. He was the owner/operator of at least two gas stations until running into severe financial problems in the mid 1990’s that ultimately led him to file for bankruptcy in 2000.
In 1997, meanwhile, Youseff was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department after he was found to be in possession of ephedrine, hydroiodic acid (a DEA List I Chemical linked to the production of Meth), and $45,000 in cash following a routine traffic stop. He was charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty in 1997 and was sentenced to one year in the Los Angeles County Jail and three years probation. According to court records, he violated probation in 2002 and was re-sentenced to an additional 12 months in county jail.
In 2010, Youseff again found himself in legal trouble, pleading no contest to federal charges of bank fraud in Southern California. He opened numerous bank accounts under fictitious names and stolen Social Security numbers, using the different identities to “kite checks.” It is at this point that Youseff worked with the FBI and testified against the alleged ring leader of a much larger fraud operation in exchange for a lighter sentence of 1 year and 9 months in a federal prison, followed by five years of probation. He was ordered to pay $794,701 in restitution and fines, and was released from supervised custody in June of 2011 under conditions that included that he not use any aliases or false identities, and was prohibited from using the Internet without prior permission of his probation officer.
Immediately after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Youseff reportedly called the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, stating that his name was Sam Bacile and that he had produced the movie causing the riots in Egypt. According to both sources, the cell phone used by Youseff was traced back to his home in Cerritos, California.
Accounts pertaining to the funding of the movie differ. Youseff initially claimed that the video was funded by $5 million in donations from 100 Jewish donors, although he told authorities that he invested $50-60,000 that he obtained from his wife’s family in Egypt. Additionally, Youseff claimed to have written the movie script while incarcerated.
On September 27, 2012, two weeks after the Benghazi attack, Youseff was arrested by U.S. federal authorities in Los Angeles and charged violating terms of his probation for using an alias and allegedly making false statements to investigators. On November 7, 2012, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year in prison and four years of supervised release. He is presently out of jail, on probation, and reportedly “in hiding.”
Following the arrest of Mark Basseley Youssef, a/k/a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a/k/a Sam Bacile, etc., a California licensed insurance salesman and self-described “unsophisticated James Bond operative” identified as Steven Klein, 64, came forward and proclaimed himself to be the spokesman for the movie maker, who he referred to as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an admitted false name. This author interviewed Mr. Klein on a special segment of The Hagmann & Hagmann report on September 23, 2013 for 90 minutes.
Steven Klein is a Vietnam Veteran and an outspoken critic of Muslim violence. It was allegedly Klein’s public anti-Islamic position that caused Nakoula (Youssef) to seek him months before the production of the film, ostensibly for advice on First Amendment issues. During my off-air interview with Mr. Klein, he was reluctant to explain exactly how Youssef was drawn to him, or how they knew met each other. He also declined to identify others who might be involved in the video, or anything beyond a very narrow set of talking points that appeared polished and rehearsed. He referred to Youssef and others he dealt with as Coptic Christian refugees who were, at that time, concerned for their safety.
Steven Klein claims that he first heard from Youssef once before the actual production of the movie, then again when the movie was completed and ready for a theater showing. He claims that at the point that the video was ready for a theater showing, it was the idea of the “filmmaker” to change the name of the video to The Innocence of Muslims to entice militant Muslims into seeing the video, thereby “brainwashing” them into converting away from Islam.
It was in June 2012 that Klein and Youssef set up two showings at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles. It is important to note that the statements of Klein and Youssef are inconsistent with the actual dissemination of the video, and further investigation pertaining to the promotion of the YouTube video does not comport with the statements of either Youssef or Klein. Investigation suggests yet another party (or multiple parties) involved in the electronic dissemination of the video.
14 July 2011: A “casting call” was posted to Craig’s List, soliciting actors and actresses to appear in a movie under the working title Desert Warrior. Research published by various websites such as gawker notes that key in the video’s production was 65-year-old Alan Roberts, a/k/a Robert Brownell, a film director and editor of films such as Young Lady Chatterly, The Happy Hooker goes to Hollywood, and Karate Cop.
Roberts directing role was the result of a request by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. However, the actual identity of Roberts, a/k/a Robert Brownell, a/k/a Robert Alan Brown, remain in question. He is described as a Caucasian male in his mid 50s, and reportedly worked directly under Nakoula as the director. The problem, however, according to at least two of the primary actors of the film, was that Roberts did not anything about film directing. Accordingly, this investigator questions whether the man identified as Roberts is, in fact, Roberts or has any association to the film industry.
According to several cast members who appeared in the video, they were told that they were appearing in a historical drama set in the Middle East under the working title Desert Warrior, however the end product was a dubbed, spliced and edited version of their performance. It should also be noted that some of the scenes were shot in the Cerritos home of Mark Basseley Youssef, a/k/a Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
June 2012: The video, now titled The Innocence of Bn Laden[sic], was scheduled to be shown at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, California on 30 June, 2012 under that new title. It is important to note, however, that this street title is different than the title that appeared on the Internet before, during and after this date. Two-(2) The Innocence of Bin Laden screenings were scheduled to play at the Vine Theater, and thousands of flyers written in Arabic were created and passed out in advance of that date.
29 June 2012 (Friday): A regular to the Los Angeles City Council meetings, a man identified as John Walsh, Hollywood resident and operator of a local blog site, participated in the general public comments. His appearance begins at the 2:30:15 mark in the archived footage of the Los Angeles meeting at City Hall. Rather cryptically, he simply asks rhetorically whether the “neo-Nazis are coming to Hollywood and directs the council members to his blog that references the Vince Theater showing.
30 June 2012 (Saturday): Accounts of the scheduled showings vary somewhat by publication, but based on the assertions of Steve Klein during the September 23rd edition of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, the second showing was cancelled when no one showed up to watch the video. The theater reportedly “closed” the screening without incident.
1 July 2012 (Sunday): ONLINE: Interestingly, the title of the video that was published online was changed from The Innocence of Bn Laden to The Real Life of Muhammad on the YouTube channel hosted under the name Sam Bacile, now known to be Mark Basseley Youssef.
8 September 2012: On or about September 8, 2012, the video trailer was forwarded to television Sheikh Khalid Abdullah, an Islamic Cairo who aired just over two minutes of the trailer during his broadcast. Although it has not been established who forwarded the trailer to Abdullah, it is reasonable to believe that he would publicly televise the footage. This is ostensibly the cause for the violence in Cairo, which was forcibly associated with the attack in Benghazi by the Obama administration.
Otherwise, traffic to the video (and shorter trailer) remained relatively dormant.
Until September 11, 2012, the video and trailer existed online on YouTube channels as The Innocence of bin Laden. Based on forensic examination, however, the name of the video was inexplicable changed from The Innocence of bin Laden to an expanded trailer known as Innocence of Muslims on a YouTube channel operated by an entity known as NewsPoliticsNow—most significantly, of all dates, on September 11, 2012. Channels affiliated with NewsPoliticsNow include numerical channels 1 through 3, as well as NewsPoliticsLeaks and FirstLeaks.
As I noted in my initial investigative report of this matter on September 24, 2012, I found an Internet video titled Proof Positive—In My Opinion posted by an individual on the YouTube channel under the user name “Montagraph.” Interestingly, I found that many of his findings mirrored mine (or mine his), as we both traced the Avatar image metadata used by the NewsPoliticsNow channel that changed the name of the video during the early morning hours of September 11, 2012, and hosted the video to then government contractor Stanley, Inc., since acquisitioned by CGI.
As an aside, it should be noted that CGI played a significant and very controversial role in the rollout of the Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare) website. They were awarded a $678 million no-bid contract to build the ObamaCare exchange web portal, which failed miserably. Also notable is the incestuous relationships between CGI Federal executives to both Barack and Michelle Obama, and that CGI enjoyed routine White House access.
In summary, process of changing the name of the video and disseminating it during the very early hours of September 11, 2012, corresponding with nearly the exact local time in Libya when the attack on the CIA compound was beginning, appears to be legitimately traced to an Internet entity tied to government contractor Stanley, Inc., based on detailed forensic examination.
Based on the above, it should be reasonable to conclude that the official assertions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Barack Hussein Obama that the controversial video was the proximal cause of the attack in Benghazi is a deliberate fabrication.
It is interesting to note that following the attacks in Benghazi, the White House and the U.S. State Department curiously stated that the U.S. Government “has absolutely nothing to do with this video.” A person of reasonable sensibilities might ask why such a statement would be made without any charge that the video was created by the government. Why deny an act that lacks any current accusation?
The week of the attack, the U.S. then bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denouncing the anti-Islamic video any denying any U.S. involvement in its production.[3]
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” – Albert Camus, 1957 Nobel Peace Prize winner for Literature
[1]http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-jw-finds-benghazi-smoking-gun/
[2] Other aliases, according to court documents, include: Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Kritbag Difrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Mark Basseley Youssef; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi; P.J. Tobacco.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
It will be exactly 40 years ago this May 17th that the Senate Watergate Committee, a special, broad committee convened by the United States Senate, began hearings to investigate the Watergate burglaries and a criminal cover-up of those activities. At the epicenter of those hearings was then-President Richard Nixon.
A year later, the committee released its 1,254-page report of findings. When the dust settled, forty administration officials were indicted, and several of Nixon’s aides were charged and convicted for obstruction of justice and other crimes.
A cover-up pointed directly to the White House. Facing impeachment proceedings, then-President Richard M. Nixon resigned, assuming his place in American history as the only president ever to resign. It was described as the worst scandal in U.S. history… perhaps until now.
If history tells us anything, it tells us that it’s not just about the crime, it’s also about the cover-up. It’s about seeking the truth but being stonewalled at every turn and being treated as subjects undeserving of the truth rather than citizens asking reasonable questions but being denied answers.
The same level of inquiries that unraveled the complexities of the Watergate cover-up are required to unravel the ball of lies that surrounds the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including a sitting U.S. Ambassador. Within this ball of lies, however, exists not only the covert agenda of an administration, but the fate of the world. Unraveling this ball of lies will reveal official government actions that have been and continue to be performed in our name but without our consent. It will reveal a government agenda that has have spun wildly out of control, leaving no one accountable as we stand at a very critical moment in world history. It’s about a cover-up of monumental proportions that is reminiscent of, but hardly in league with, the cover-up of a generation ago.
Today, the stakes are much higher, as we stand at the precipice of a global conflict because of deeds being done in our name under a level of unprecedented and unchecked deception. Ultimately, it’s about getting the truth, which has been kept from each of us through lies of commission and omission, clever semantics, and outright refusals to provide answers to important questions. We were force-fed a preplanned lie from day one, much like the thinly veiled cover story of the Watergate burglary, but with much greater consequences.
All investigations, however, must have a beginning. On May 8, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will conduct a single, day-long hearing on the events that took place in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador. Interestingly, the hearing is being conducted under the title Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage.
This one-day hearing is being convened to “examine evidence that Obama Administration officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments” and will include some witness testimony. That seems to be a fairly ambitious agenda for a single day of investigation in Washington. It is, however, a start and an opportunity for all Americans to see just how deep the lies go.
The hearing is a result, in part, of the “interim progress report” released by the House committee on Benghazi last week. Clearly, the information contained in this and other reports illustrates that there is a much deeper, much larger, and much more sinister plan that is being covered up by administration officials.
Forty years ago the cover-up of the motives behind a burglary produced some 319 hours of televised testimony. By comparison, one day of testimony is hardly enough time to conduct a serious investigation, considering what is at stake for our nation.
The events in Benghazi must be understood in the context in which they occurred. A thorough, in-depth investigation will reveal that attack was the result of our broader foreign policy of taking down the leadership of other nations, especially in this case, Libya and Syria. An agenda that has ignited the fuse for World War III. An agenda of militarization of the diplomatic-military-industrial complex that puts us on the road to Damascus at excessive speeds and with reckless abandon.
Given the significance of events, a broader investigation is needed, much like a generation ago. The reason a broader investigation is necessary must also be understood. So too, must the limitations of a single day of hearings.
We know that the operations in Benghazi and throughout Libya were coordinated by a number of different government agencies and sub-agencies. Coordination of the activities of these agencies most likely occurred at the behest of persons outside of any individual agencies at an administration security council level. This results in compartmentalization, where one individual, group or agency only has information specific to their part in the operation.
Additionally, the money for the contractors involved in the operations in Libya might have come from one agency or program, although the administration of the contractors might have been directed by officers or agents of yet another agency. When understood in this context, we see that there can be little accountability of the larger operation, especially within the limitations of a single day of testimony.
Due to this operational compartmentalization, various individuals involved in Benghazi have only a single piece of a much larger puzzle. While they might want or feel the need to come forward, they are hamstrung by not having the complete operational picture. Coming forward in a limited venue, without the benefit of inter-agency operational plans, would prevent the pieces of the larger puzzle from being connected. Given such limitations, the testimony of such witnesses could be improperly questioned or even impeached.
To be certain, this administration is very well aware of this compartmentalization and will fight any call for a broader inquiry of all the agencies involved. A broader investigation, or the seating of a Select Committee on the attacks and subsequent handling of Benghazi, would provide a proper venue where all agencies can be assembled and questioned so that the components of the bigger picture can be gathered.
What are some of the questions that need to be asked and answered in this hearing? To fully understand the nature of these questions, it is important to understand that Benghazi served as a logistics hub for weapons transfers out of Libya and into the hands of anti-Assad terrorists. Weapons were collected under a buyback program of sorts, to remove them from the hands of the terrorists. Is that what really happened? Important background about Benghazi can be found in the compendium of articles listed at the end of this report.
Meanwhile, here are but a few important questions that need to be asked and completely answered:
This administration would be well advised to keep in mind the fact that lawyers in a courtroom setting know better than to never to ask questions to which they don’t already know the answers.
Forty years ago, investigative reporters and journalists sensed blood in the water and chased the blood trail until the bitter end. They operated with less information than today. Yet today, investigating exactly what transpired in Benghazi seems to be limited to the intrepid nature of Adam Housley and Jennifer Griffen, both of Fox News, and perhaps a few others. They are leading the pack, however, and seem to be the only modern day investigative journalists who could unravel the cover-up that is Benghazi, rivaling those who broke the Watergate cover-up a generation ago.
The differences between Watergate and Benghazi are as many as the years that separate the two events, and even more significant. The fate of not only our nation, but of all nations, hang in the balance.
24 September 2012: Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack
5 October 2012: Diplomatic Deception
8 October 2012: Lemmings… At the precipice of WW III
23 October 2012: Death Race Damascus: 13 Days in October
26 October 2012: The hidden real truth about Benghazi
29 October 2012: Obama’s October surprise – exposed by Benghazi?
1 November 2012: Abandoning America’s honor
5 November 2012: Obama’s real world game of Risk
10 November 2012: Cover-up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
11 November 2012: The “secret” information by Paula Broadwell
13 November 2013: Sex, Lies and Obama Ben Ghazi – A Shakespearean tragedy
27 November 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part I)
29 November 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part II)
11 December 2012: Benghazi explained: Interview with “Intelligence Insider” (Part III)
2 December 2012: Behind the lies of Benghazi
4 December 2012: Chemical weapons reports in Syria, exactly as warned
19 December 2012: The wretched absurdity of the Benghazi Report
8 January 2013: Flashing red lies of Benghazi
24 January 2013: Running down the clock on Benghazi
21 February 2013: Brennan: From Barack to Benghazi
25 April 2013: Benghazi Report: Trinkets of Treason
By Douglas J. Hagmann
21 February 2013: Benghazi. Few Americans ever heard of the city in Libya until the murder of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, on September 11, 2012. Fewer still heard of the movie Innocence of Muslims, until it was suddenly blamed for a non-existent protest outside of a non-existent embassy in Benghazi within hours of the attack.
For two weeks in our nation’s history, the obscure and amateurish video was persistently and very publicly cited as the cause for the protests and murders in Benghazi by the highest ranking officials in the Obama administration. Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, and others blamed the little known video for the attack on what was deliberately mischaracterized as a U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Even today, the majority of officials in power don’t seem to want to talk about what happened in Benghazi, and Obama and Clinton repeatedly stonewalled all legitimate investigation of the incident. Why? Because any honest investigation into the activities taking place there would confirm a secret CIA operation intended to arm anti-Assad rebels, including the Iranian and Syrian backed Ansar al Sharia terror group. The purpose of this operation, the objective of which remains in place, is to topple Assad and replace him with a Saudi backed leader. Based on research and investigation, it appears that somewhere amid the magician’s fog of this illegal “black op” overthrow is John O. Brennan.
The Arabic-speaking John Brennan, who serves as Obama’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and is the choice to head the CIA, has seen his share of exposure in the alternative media lately. Most recently, former FBI agent John Guandolo alleged that Brennan, while working as the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 1999, converted to Islam. According to agent Guandolo, Brennan visited Mecca and Medina during the Hajj, which are traditionally off limits to non-Muslims during that period. Former agent Guandolo cites Brennan’s presence and his comments about his visits as evidence of his conversion.
Beyond his possible conversion to Islam, however, Brennan’s other actions are much more troubling, particularly as they relate to his past history with Obama, and more recent history related to Benghazi, drone warfare, and his involvement with an administrative “kill list.” It appears possible that, by nominating Brennan to be the nation’s top spy chief, Obama might be tying up loose ends that are shrouded by controversy. One loose end is the Benghazi operation and the manner in which an obscure Internet video was immediately blamed. Yet another loose end relates to Obama’s passport records while he was on the campaign trail in 2008. These two significant incidents involving questions and controversy, lies and murder, are like bookends to a four-year stint in a star chamber.
Based on extensive investigation by this author, the former might well relate to the latter, as determined by the “digital footprints” and historical digital records of both incidents. Investigation of both incidents finds common digital forensic factors that suggest that the same person or persons involved in the 2008 passport office break-in (or at least the same entities) might be involved in the dissemination of the video Innocence of Muslims immediately following the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Or, it would appear that way.
It is the professional opinion of this author, holding certification in Internet Profiling, that both incidents, despite this four-year span, appear to involve companies associated with corporate entities serving, or otherwise connected to, the U.S. government. This was determined through analysis of the IP addresses used to upload and change certain characteristics of the video, among other investigative indications.
Based on this research and investigation, the one person identified as seeming to have some level of involvement in the midst of both incidents is John O. Brennan.
2008 Passport office break-in
It has been reported and confirmed that computer files maintained and managed by the United States Passport Office were illegally accessed on three separate occasions in 2008 as follows: 9 January 2008, 21 February 2008, and 14 March 2008. Although the initial story broke in The Washington Times on Thursday, 20 March 2008, an article containing additional information was published two days later, on Saturday, 22 March 2008.
At that time, it was disclosed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack that three (3) employees of two (2) separate government contracting firms were suspected in the “break-in,” and that the files access included those of then-Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain. The motives for the accessing of records was unclear, according to investigating officials. The firms that employed the suspects were identified as Stanley, Inc., a firm that employed two suspects, and The Analysis Corporation, that employed one suspect.
Of note is that, according to published reports, in 2006 the firm identified as Stanley, Inc. was awarded a $164 million government contract to print new U.S. passports. Despite the security breach, Stanley, Inc. (currently a wholly owned subsidiary of CGI Federal, Inc.) announced on 17 March 2008 that they were awarded a five-year, $570 million contract to continue support of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs/Passport Services Directorate.
The contract services include the production, operational and business process support training, procurement, administration and evaluation of critical supplies, and facilities management support at the four Passport Centers, and 14 Passport Agencies nationwide, along with the Headquarters’ support offices.
The Analysis Corporation (TAC), based in McLean, Virginia is a wholly owned subsidiary and the intelligence division of Global Defense Technology & Systems, Inc. (GTEC), a defense contracting company that is “focused on mission-critical, technology-based U.S. national security solutions.” It has been since renamed Sotera Defense Solutions.
Founded in 1990, the Analysis Corporation has been working on counterterrorism and national security projects, including (but not limited to) maintaining national “watch-listing” activities. According to open source reports, the intelligence part of GTEC is staffed by former senior officials from the intelligence community. They are operationally involved with nearly every branch of the intelligence community, including the U.S. Department of State, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
It is important to note that two employees working for Stanley, Inc. were fired. A third employee of The Analysis Corporation was the primary focus of the ongoing investigation. At the time of the break-in, the Analysis Corporation was owned and operated by John O. Brennan (CEO from November 2005 to January 2009). It is also important to note that during this period, John O. Brennan served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and foreign policy. Following a 25-year career in the CIA, Brennan also worked with the campaign to elect Obama during his first presidential campaign.
With regard to the breach of the passport office files, revelations regarding the results of the government investigation appear to have fallen into a deep, black hole in terms of any publication of investigative findings. Aside from the termination of two of the three suspects, the legal disposition of their cases (including the employee of Stanley, Inc.) remains unknown.
Unintended consequence?
At the time of the passport office break-in, Barack Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of the last intrusion. A week later, on 21 March 2008, while Obama was campaigning, he was asked for his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper. It is obvious that Obama became officially aware that the public had been informed about the level of the breach, and that his personal and confidential biographical information, in addition to his international travels on his diplomatic and personal passport, were apparently “accessed.”
On April 8, 2008, Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. It is reasonable to ask whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time had it not been for his uncertainty about whether or not the information had already been made public.
Even ABC News appeared surprised at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. It is critical to understand that Obama never disclosed his Pakistan trip at any time during any policy discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach.
Mysterious death
Deeper investigation into the break-in found evidence that, in addition to the passport files, ancillary documentation of Obama, Clinton, McCain and several others was also compromised. Information that would facilitate identity fraud was also breached, as was the credit header information of various individuals. Based on this author’s most recent investigative findings, it is the professional belief of this author that this additional information provides the link between the break-in and an individual known as Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. [Author’s note: “Lieutenant” (and all known spelling variations) is the individual’s given name, and does not represent any “rank” in any military or law enforcement agency.]
It is also important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the passport office records, The Washington Times reported that “officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, so did the leaks. It was learned that at least one employee at the U.S. Department of State was a co-conspirator in the break-in.
According to published reports, that employee might have shared credit card information obtained during the breach with a man identified as Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr.
Based on the continued investigation of this author, it appears that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from a State Department employee also involved in the breaches, but he received more than what he bargained for. When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also began to talk with investigators, and ultimately he made a deal with federal prosecutors.
Before he could make good on his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot once in the head.
The murder of Harris remains unsolved, and the official account of the murder is that Harris was either a victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone bad.”
2012: Innocence of Muslims explained
In many ways, the video Innocence of Muslims can be compared to the bloody glove found at Rockingham, a reference to a piece of evidence in the infamous O.J. Simpson murder trial. The video is critical evidence in the murder of four Americans – men who died in a dusty land on the dark continent. Due to the lies perpetuated by those in office, they will be denied earthly justice as Americans continue to passively accept the contemptible hubris of those spinning such tales. In this investigation of multiple murders, felonious and even traitorous activities, however, the video provides important clues in the form of digital bread crumbs. These digital bread crumbs have left a trail directly to doorstep of agencies involved in playing a supporting role in U.S. counter-terror operations, and those in government they serve.
The video is the Achilles heel that serves to expose their nefarious cover-up.
Many perplexing questions remain unanswered about the video that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney and others blamed on the attack and murders in Benghazi. Although I’ve carefully documented the history of the video that ultimately came to be known as The Innocence of Muslims in a previous report, a few key issues to summarize new and significant findings, however, need to be addressed.
First, it is the professional opinion of this author, based on extensive investigation, that the video was a “made-to-order” production by orders from – and payment by – our own intelligence community. The alleged producer of the video, publicly identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was associated with an individual known as Eiad Salameh, the cousin of Walid Shoebat, a man well known in counter-terrorism circles. According to Shoebat, Salameh was the subject of an extensive FBI investigation relating to a large scale fraud operation several years ago.
According to Mr. Shoebat, his cousin Salameh was in the sights of the FBI for three decades, had reportedly committed numerous federal crimes during this period known to the FBI, but was never arrested. This author was able to confirm that Salameh was connected to Nakoula, specifically for the purposes of this video, and that the activities of both were well known to the FBI at the highest levels. This author also confirmed that the facts presented by Mr. Shoebat in his 23-page report titled Anti-Muhammad Film “Innocence of Muslims” has a terrorist financier connection that includes major failures at the FBI, although disputes some of his conclusions based on evidence unavailable to him.
To be precise, it is the contention of this author, based on an examination of numerous court documents and the totality of evidence, that the video was created and produced by individuals who were acting as operational assets for the FBI. If this type of activity sounds familiar, it should as it is the same template that is commonly and frequently used by our government. It is the same template used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and numerous “terrorist” operations since.
It appears possible that the FBI had enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Salameh and his associates to send him to jail indefinitely. Because Salameh and his associates had contacts and were communicating with terrorists in other countries, the CIA became involved as well. Based on the evidence reviewed, it is the professional opinion of this investigator that the casual conduit between the FBI and the CIA was John Brennan, who was acting at the time as the assistant to President Barack Obama for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism operations. Brennan also had numerous contacts within the burgeoning world of private counter-intelligence companies and operatives.
From my investigative findings, it appears that the “order” for the video was placed in 2011, at the time the Arab Spring was gaining momentum. It was also a time when anti-Muslim sentiment and “hate speech” was gaining worldwide attention in the U.S.
A video to incite and inflame Muslims for the dual purpose of causing violent outbreaks for specific times and to create a catalyst to stifle any criticism of Islam was desired, although no legitimate film producer wanted the job nor could be trusted in this “black op” assignment. Accordingly, the FBI appears to have given Nakoula, who was associated with Salameh a choice between cooperation and prison. It appears that he chose the former option.
Using a combination of willing participants and people duped into co-operating, Nakoula used his connections to involve some more well-known members within the “anti-jihad” movement, many who would sign on to any such project without performing any due diligence investigation of the people behind the endeavor. While seeming to serve his handlers within the intelligence community, Nakoula was also working for his own personal gain. Despite its actual low budget, the cost to the intelligence agency funding it was high.
The production of the video began about 14 months before the Benghazi attack in July of 2011. The initial name of this production was called Desert Warrior, but was changed on 30 June 2012 to The Innocence of Bn [sic] Laden. The following day, it “premiered” at The Vine Theater in Los Angeles under that name in order to provide legitimacy. Promotional flyers, written in Arabic, were provided in advance of (and at) the opening. According to public accounts, however, no one showed up to watch the movie and it was quickly forgotten.
The roughly 14-minute video later appeared on the YouTube channel of a man known as Sam Bacile under the title The Real Life of Mohammed on 1 July 2012. Clearly, the video had been digitally manipulated in an obviously amateurish manner from the original filming to the final incarnation. Replacement of the original dialogue to obviously antagonistic and insulting lines was clearly evident in the final video that appeared online.
If Nakoula had an operating budget provided by the CIA, why was the video such an obvious amateurish production? The reason, I was told by sources with knowledge of this video, is that much of the money was used by Nakoula and Salameh, who both had criminal histories involving fraud. Essentially, the FBI and the CIA were “out-conned” by a couple of convicted con artists.
Meanwhile, the U.S. operations in Benghazi were being shut down as the job had been mostly completed and the U.S. was getting pressure from the Turkish and Russian governments. The operatives in Benghazi needed a diversion to finish their operation. A large scale anti-U.S. demonstration in Tripoli, Cairo or elsewhere would serve as cover to wind things down in Benghazi and would divert and otherwise occupy the press.
Despite being poorly done, it is important to understand that the video already had its “legend” established. This explains the curiously odd “premier” at the Vine Theater, which was done not for public consumption, but to establish its fictitious pedigree. In the spy world, “legends,” or well-prepared synthetic histories of a person, or in this case a video, is vital.
Although far from perfect, the video Innocence of Muslims, having been virtually dormant on an internet channel for months, was suddenly “discovered” by Egyptian television host Sheikh Khalid Abdulla, who first aired the video on 9 September 2012. Well known in the world of counter-terrorism, Abdullah acted as the Middle East conduit for the otherwise useless video. Due to the persistent promotion of that video, protests broke out in Cairo and more importantly, at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
How did Khalid Abdulla even find the obscure video? It is the professional opinion of this author that the answer might be found by identifying the YouTube channel (or channels) on which it was uploaded. Tracing the digital fingerprints of the various incarnations of the video from the first casting call when it was named Desert Warrior to its final birthing as Innocence of Muslims, there is an apparent connection to the IP address associated with Stanley, Inc., the company previously referenced in the passport office break-in. From there, the fingerprints get somewhat “smudged,” but a connection is possible to others in the counter-terrorism and defense industry serving the U.S. government. In short, Abdullah was “given” the video by our own intelligence community.
The motive was not only to cause a diversion, but to also facilitate the First Amendment rights of all Americans, especially as they relate to the criticism of Islam. If this sounds too far out or convenient, take a look at the background of John Brennan, who spent time throughout the Middle East, including Egypt. Furthermore, the U.S. intelligence agencies were heavily influencing the media within Egypt following the toppling of Mubarak and the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood backed regime.
“Too much free speech is a bad thing”
Even deeper investigation of John Brennan has taken this author to his 1980 graduate thesis titled Human Rights, A Case Study of Egypt he wrote while at the University of Texas at Austin. Based on an extensive review of his published thesis, it appears that Obama will have, as his top spymaster, someone in favor of government censorship, or media manipulation for government purposes. His thesis offers valuable insight into his thinking and logic, especially as it relates to his personal experiences in Egypt. Using such personal experience, Brennan seems readily able to justify government censorship actions as in the case of Egypt under Anwar Sadat. It is important to consider that in his thesis, Brennan argues that too much uncensored or unchecked freedom could be detrimental to Egypt’s political environment.
Brennan’s overtly pro-Islamic position is evident in the counter-terrorism policies within the U.S. intelligence community. One would be remiss not note the revisions performed to our internal counter-terrorism training manuals that removed all criticism of Islam under Brennan’s direction.
Given Brennan’s obvious pro-Islamic bias, the views he argued in his graduate thesis that include favoring government censorship under certain conditions, his history with the CIA, and his close ties to Obama, is it not reasonable to question Brennan’s activities while National Security Advisor to Obama during the Benghazi attack even in the absence of evidence already offered? Specifically, is it not possible that the blueprint for use of the video not only to cause a necessary diversion, but to create a case against our First Amendment rights originated with Brennan at the behest of Obama?
Putting it all together
John Brennan, Obama’s pick for top U.S. spy, has recently come under fire for his stance on drone killings, secret kill lists, and in some circles, his alleged conversion to Islam. Some will consider Brennan the obvious choice to head the CIA, given his history with the agency. Few see a different side, a side possibly connected to unseemly activities involving crimes and cover-ups.
Those who object to John Brennan’s nomination are doing so on the basis of the obvious. Such examples include his support for enhanced interrogation techniques, drone use and the maintenance of a secret “kill list” from the star chamber of the White House.
There are many more important questions about Brennan that need to be asked and answered, but few will meet the challenge.
I believe I’ve identified questions about his role in the 2008 passport office security breach in which the file of Barack Obama, among others, was accessed. In that case alone, it is reasonable to wonder what information having significant political capital about Obama and others might be known to this spy legend? Has the spirit of J. Edgar been resurrected in Brennan?
How about his role in the murderous attacks in Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up? Or perhaps greater still, his role in the Saudi intelligence operation known as Arab Spring?
America has a history of creating great spies. America also has a history of turning out some who are adept at working all sides of an agenda, including the opposing sides. At this point in our nation’s history, can we afford to be anything except absolutely certain about the loyalty to our country, our Constitution, and our future of all of our appointees? Not until every question is asked, answered and verified.
Prepare. Pray.
