By Ethan Huff | Natural News | January 5, 2019

An underground hacking collective known as “The Dark Overlord” reportedly announced on New Year’s Eve that it now has in its possession 18,000 documents related to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks – critical information that, because it could potentially blow the lid on 9/11 being an inside job, has prompted the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to launch an urgent investigation.

Even as this same corrupt FBI refuses to pursue justice against felonious traitor Hillary Clinton, federal authorities are now actively pursuing these anonymous, would-be whistleblowers, which claim they’ll sell the documents in exchange for Bitcoin.

According to “two people familiar with the matter,” The Dark Overlord group possesses both emails and non-disclosure agreements concerning 9/11 that were sent and received by insurers such as Hiscox and Lloyd’s of London, both of which deny that they suffered a security breach in relation to the theft. Also mentioned as one of the sources of the stolen documents is law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, now called Husch Blackwell.

The announcement by The Dark Overlord further invites ISIS, al-Qaeda, and various other nation states to “bid” on the documents online, insinuating that whomever offers to pay the most Bitcoin will gain exclusive access to the stolen documents.

“Pay the f*** up, or we’re going to bury you with this,” The Dark Overlord is vulgarly demanding. “If you continue to fail us, we’ll escalate these releases by releasing the keys, each time a Layer is opening, a new wave of liability will fall upon you,” the letter adds.




For more news about FBI corruption, Hillary Clinton and more, be sure to check out Clinton.news and Conspiracy.news.

The Dark Overlord tells politicians, law enforcement, and others to pay up or face repercussions

The Dark Overlord has already released a handful of decryption keys, which apparently unlock private conversations about the World Trade Center that took place among a cohort of entities that we’re guessing probably don’t want their identities publicly revealed – which would explain The Dark Overlord’s demands for bribery money in exchange for secrecy.

“If you’re one of the dozens of solicitor firms who was involved in the litigation, a politician who was involved in the case, a law enforcement agency who was involved in the investigations, a property management firm, an investment bank, a client of a client, a reference of a reference, a global insurer, or whoever else, you’re welcome to contact our e-mail below and make a request to formally have your documents and materials withdrawn from any eventual public release of the materials,” the demand letter adds.

“However, you’ll be paying us.”

Interestingly enough, The Dark Overlord says it’s been under investigation for many years now, particularly after it obtained key information about Larry Silverstein, the former owner of the World Trade Center complex who infamously stated on video that a decision was made to “pull it” before the buildings came down that fateful day.

The insurance industry took a major hit from the attacks, which cost the 2017 equivalent of around $45 billion, according to the Insurance Information Institute. This large amount of money prompted a series of lawsuits, at least some of the details of which are now allegedly in The Dark Overlord’s possession.

As for Silverstein Properties, the real estate development firm owned by Larry Silverstein that’s been tasked with rebuilding the World Trade Center complex, the company says it isn’t at all phased by the data breach.

“We have spent the last 17 years fulfilling our obligation to deliver a magnificent and fully rebuilt World Trade Center,” a company announcement reads. “We will not be distracted by 9/11 conspiracy theories.”


Originally published by Ethan Huff at NaturalNews.com


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | Dec. 27, 2018

You know, it’s way past time that the Robert Mueller investigation of the ever elusive Russian collusion that he’s been searching for at taxpayer expense for two years come to an end, and the only way that is going to happen is for President Donald Trump to simply put an end to it.  So far, the special counsel has spent in excess of $25 million of the people’s money and has basically turned up nothing that is actually tied to his mandated investigation.  However, government watchdog Judicial Watch is concerned that he has spent an enormous amount of the people’s money on his security detail.

On Thursday, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for records it continues to not turn over in response to FOIA requests that present both the costs of the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the logs maintained by the detail.

In March 2018, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ for the following:

• All records reflecting expenses incurred by, and disbursements of funds for, the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

• All logs maintained by the security detail assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.




The DOJ, as is becoming commonplace nowadays, failed to provide the documents in a timely manner and so on Thursday, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judicial Watch reports:

In a related lawsuit filed in October 2017, the Justice Department had refused to release the proposed budget of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Office, but later was forced to release details from the heavily redacted August 2 memorandum in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted broad authority to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three months after Mueller’s appointment. The initial appointment memo, controversially, was written in May 2017.

Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous additional FOIA lawsuits related to the surveillance, unmasking, and illegal leaking targeting President Trump and his associates during the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The Justice Department, the FBI, and Special Counsel Mueller continue to operate as if they are above the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is being thrown at Mueller’s massive investigation. Judicial Watch has never before seen this level of secrecy surrounding the operation of a special or independent counsel.”

Mueller has so far brought criminal counts against more than 30 people and three Russian entities, producing more than 100 criminal charges.  However, none of those seem to be about what his probe was actually about.


Contributed by Tim Brown of Freedom Outpost.

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, 

GunsInTheNews.com and 

TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | December 14, 2018

A US District Court Judge ordered Hillary Clinton to answer questions last month regarding her implementation and use of her illegal email server while she was Secretary of State.  She initially rejected providing answers, but ultimately submitted them.  In her answers, Clinton said she disregarded the law against her unlawful server for the “purpose of convenience.”

In 2016, Clinton was required to submit under oath written answers to Judicial Watch’s questions.  She refused to do so.

Those two questions she had to answer were:

  • Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
  • During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
  • At the time of the judge’s ruling, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “A federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system – which is good news.  It is shameful that Judicial Watch attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct.”

Now, Mrs. Clinton has responded.




In response to the first question, Clinton declared under oath via longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall:

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Secretary Clinton answers as follows: As Secretary Clinton prepared in late 2008/early 2009 to serve as Secretary of State, she was aware that President Clinton’s office had set up an e-mail system, but she had no role in this process. Secretary Clinton knew that President Clinton’s staff had recently upgraded that system. Secretary Clinton does not know what equipment that system used, how it was created, who decided that the system needed to be upgraded, or who else had accounts on the system. Secretary Clinton believes that one of the President’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the system. Secretary Clinton decided to use a clintonemail.com account on the system for the purpose of convenience. Secretary Clinton recalls that the clintonemail.com account was created in early 2009. Although Secretary Clinton does not have specific knowledge of the details of the creation of the account, the “domain,” or the “domain name,” her best understanding is that Mr. Cooper set it up.

Judicial Watch pointed out:

To another question regarding her October 22, 2015, testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, during which she testified that 90 to 95 percent of her emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so,” Clinton suggests she learned this from her attorneys, who seem to have guessed this answer.

In a separate Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that first led to the disclosure of the “private” Clinton email system, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth called the Clinton email issue “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” and ordered additional discovery into whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to “stymie” FOIA.

The answers now provided by Clinton are the latest development in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.

“Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that she used a separate email system as a matter of ‘convenience’ is simply not credible and is belied by evidence and testimony,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “We intend to pursue additional questions with Mrs. Clinton and others on this blatant attempt to hide her emails from Judicial Watch, the courts, Congress, and the American people.”

Of course, it wasn’t for convenience.  She had access to government email, and email is email.  Convenience is not the issue.  Hiding what she was doing is the issue.

Tom Fitton comments on the breaking news.


Contributed by Tim Brown of Freedom Outpost.

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, 

GunsInTheNews.com and 

TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | October 31, 2018

I told you there would be more in the case of Darren Huff, a Georgia man who was arrested and Robert Mueller not only oversaw the arrest, but also trumped up bogus charges against him, including having his Special Agent in Charge file an affidavit that contained lies about Mr. Huff being at the courthouse and having a gun there.  Below is audio directly from the FBI website, which I am archiving that demonstrates clearly that a precedent was set in finding Huff guilty for what he allegedly was thinking, his intentions.

For more on the background of the story, please read Documents: Robert Mueller Accused Of Framing Georgia Man On Gun Charge and Navy Vet Claims Robert Mueller’s FBI Agent Perjured Himself In This Affidavit While Framing Man On Gun Charges

The following audio was downloaded from the FBI website.

The transcript is as follows:

Mollie Halpern: The FBI prevents a group of militia extremists from taking the law into their own hands.

I’m Mollie Halpern of the FBI, and this is Gotcha.

Darren Huff, of Georgia, and his followers wanted to indict President Barack Obama and many other federal, state, and local officials for treason. When a Tennessee County grand jury refused them, they wrote up their own bogus arrest warrants. Case Agent Scott Johnson, of the Knoxville FBI Division, says Huff armed himself with a handgun, an AK-47, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and headed for the courthouse.

Scott Johnson: He thought he was going to ride in from out of town with the guns on his hips and right all the injustices.

Halpern: When Huff and others arrived, they found the FBI and its law enforcement partners waiting for them. Huff was sentenced to four years in prison for transporting firearms across state lines with the intent to cause a civil disorder. It was the first time this violation was successfully prosecuted.

Johnson: This case is monumental to the FBI because it will set precedent for case law in future domestic terrorism cases throughout the United States.

Halpern: This has been the FBI’s closed case of the week.

The problem in all of this is that Huff never was at the courthouse.  He never had a gun at the courthouse, and instead of anyone in local, state or federal law enforcement arresting him when they stopped him in Tennessee, they let him go, only to turn around and arrest him a full ten days later under bogus charges and an affidavit from an FBI special agent in charge who perjured himself.

Huff is a Navy veteran.  He was railroaded on charges connected to what the FBI thought he and other veterans were thinking and events that never happened.




According to Navy veteran Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, the entirety of the FBI Gotcha segment is a lie.

  • • The FBI did not-I say again-DID NOT prevent a group of “militia extremists” from “taking the law into their own hands.” No “militia extremists” are involved in this event in any way. Darren Huff was not, is not a militia extremist. Darren Huff had no “followers.” Besides Mr. Huff, the FBI did not categorize any other individual as a “militia extremist” nor did the FBI identify any group as an extreme militia as connected to this FBI manufactured domestic terrorist hoax.
  • • Neither any militia group nor Darren Huff as an individual ever petitioned a Tennessee grand jury in any cause. Ergo: No Tennessee grand jury ever “refused” them.
  • • No “bogus arrest warrants” were or are in existence as connected to events of 20 April 2010.
  • • None of the 31 people who came to Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday 20 April 2010 to either attend a court hearing or cover the hearing as press representatives were armed with weapons of any description. There were no guns!!
  • • No one rode into Madisonville, Tennessee with “guns on their hips” or in possession of ammunition.
  • • No law enforcement officer, from any state or federal law enforcement agency ever confronted any of the 31 people for any reason in Madisonville on 20 April 2010. NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER!!
  • • All of the 31 people represented as being in Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 were law abiding citizens. Many of them military Veterans. None of those folks violated any laws on that Tuesday.
  • • Mr. Huff was not armed with any weapon in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Mr. Huff carried no ammunition that day in Madisonville. No state or federal law enforcement officer made contact with Mr. Huff on 20 April.
  • • Mr. Huff was never physically present at the location Mueller’s FBI puppet, Special Agent Mark A. Van Balen, said Mr. Huff was present, carrying a gun, with other men carrying guns, all “intending” to take over the courthouse. No evidence exists in contradiction.
  • • The FBI arrested Darren Huff ten days later, on 30 April 2010, as Huff was traveling on I-75 near Knoxville, Tennessee. The FBI did not arrest anyone else afterwards, but tried very hard to do so. FBI agents, following the events of 20 April 2010, canvased the southeast, interviewing uncounted numbers of people who were present in Madisonville on 20 April, or neighbors of these folks.
  • Now, if you are a movie fan and you remember a certain film by the name of Minority Report starring Tom Cruise, you might remember this segment in which a man is arrested for a crime he did think about, but never committed.

    Isn’t this exactly what went on under Robert Mueller’s FBI against our veterans who simply wanted the law upheld but never violated it in the process?  I’ll let the reader decide.


    Article originally published by Tim Brown at The Washington Standard.

    Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


    SHARE:

    By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | October 22, 2018

    OK, so there have been several reports about the Las Vegas shooting that occurred on October 1, 2017, over one year ago.  Earlier this year, it was revealed that a noise complaint from alleged shooter Stephen Paddock’s room was issued to the Mandalay Bay Casino and Hotel for the room below him.  The issue is that Paddock, according to intelligence services, was not even in his room, but rather was at his home in Mesquite, Nevada.  So, who made the complaint?

    According to a report from US News from January 2018:

    Sept. 30: Paddock places a “do not disturb” sign on both Mandalay Bay rooms, travels twice to Mesquite, and rolls a total of six suitcases into the rooms. He declines housekeeping service and gambles for a couple of hours before driving home to Mesquite.

    Oct. 1: Paddock returns to the Mandalay Bay, gambles for several hours, takes two rolling suitcases and a third bag to his room, moves his vehicle from self-park to valet and orders two room service entrees in Danley’s name.

    According to an intelligence report obtained by Big League Politics, which was compiled by former high-level United States intelligence officers, Paddock was not in his room at the time, but rather at his home in Mesquite.

    So, consider the fact that the noise complaint occurred early on the morning of October 1 while Paddock was allegedly at his home in Mesquite.




    According to The Daily Mail:

    Albert Garzon, a restaurant owner visiting from San Diego, and his wife and friends, was staying in 31-135, directly beneath Paddock, when he says he got a knock on the door at 1.30am.

    It was security asking him to turn down the music after another guest had complained about the noise, the New York Times reports.

    When he asked who it was, he replied: ‘It’s the guest above you.’

    Garzon says they turned down the music, but half an hour later, they got another visit from a different security guard saying the hotel had received another complaint from the same individual.

    The restaurateur agreed and turned the music off.

    He gave it very little thought amid the ensuing chaos on Sunday, until early on Monday, when he looked up and saw a curtain flapping out of Paddock’s smashed out windows, and realized that the noise complaint had been made by the gunman.

    So, two calls came in of a noise complaint from Paddock’s room about an hour apart, the first one around 1:30am.  Yet, he wasn’t there.

    The obvious question is, who made the complaint?

    We know that the Las Vegas Metro Police have concluded that Paddock acted alone, which there is enough evidence that we are privy to that we know cannot be true.

    For instance, while we were told that his girlfriend Marylou Danley was cleared within hours after she was allegedly in the Philippines thought she had just been at the hotel prior to the shooting.  Could she have actually been in the room?  Perhaps.

    Then, we have the mystery of who locked the door to the adjoining room that was also in Paddock’s name.

    Then, we have the Islamic State making not one, not two, but three different claims that Paddock was a convert to Islam.

    That could be the actual Islamic State or it could be many of their handlers.  We commonly refer to them as the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Was it an Islamist?  Was it a federal agent?  Was it Paddock’s girlfriend?

    Was it perhaps that Australian that neither the FBI nor the Las Vegas Police decided to interview who claimed to know things only investigators knew about Paddock and his room and claimed he was in the room beside him?

    Will we ever be given the truth about the Vegas shooting?


    Contributed by Tim Brown of Freedom Outpost.

    Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


    SHARE: