Sunday, February 23, 2020

DEVELOPING: Strange Admission Reveals Truth about Julian Assange, Lawyers, and the White House; What's really going on?

It was interesting to see the odd reaction from some audience members to the first article regarding Julian Assange. Some people appreciated the overall message about the disclosure of Seth Rich's murder while others seemed to miss the message altogether. I find it very likely that those who had such negative knee-jerk reactions to that particular post didn't actually read the article before choosing to comment on it. This would explain their response of rebutting other articles they read on the topic instead of addressing the actual DTM post.

Yet regardless of the missteps of some, the underlying message of that article is still valid, I think. My mistake was assuming that everyone would be able to receive it without the need for an in-depth explanation. So let's solve that issue.

Initial Reports

Not long after the original MSM story about Assange's lawyers and alleged White House correspondence was published, several sources began revealing the truth of the situation. As it turned out, the reports about alleged cooperation between Julian Assange, lawyers, and the White House were partially falsified.

Originally, it was reported that President Trump offered Assange a deal to pardon him if Assange was willing to cooperate in the investigation into the DNC. Some sources claimed that Trump wanted to erase any evidence that Russia was to blame for the DNC's compromised information during (and prior to) the 2016 election, while other sources made less inflammatory claims.

Some sources even reported that Assange made the offer to President Trump on his own. However, as things turned out, Assange did not receive any offer from the White House, nor did he make any offer to cooperate with the any investigation. In fact, there was no actual contact between Assange, his lawyers, or the White House at all. When the truth came out, we learned that one of Assange's lawyers made the entire story up. According to reports, it was this lawyer that made the offer to the White House without Assange's knowledge, but Trump's White House never responded.

Below is one of the most recent reports about this story (as of the writing of this article). It is unclear why this subject and the corresponding implications thereof were originally reported by mainstream news sources. We will discuss the possible reasons after this short review from the website, Zero Hedge.

* * * * *

Source: Zero Hedge

Published: February 19, 2020

By: Tyler Durden

Assange's Lawyer Flip-Flops - Admits He Offered Russia Exoneration Quid Pro Quo, White House Ignored

Update: The story appears to have changed dramatically. According to Assange's lawyer, Rohrabacher, it was him that informed Gen. Kelly that "Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon," but never heard back from the White House.

So, unlike Sky News entirely wrong fake news headline...

It was Assange's lawyer (not Assange) that offered a quid prod quo to expose the truth that Russia did not hack the DNC emails (none of which has been proven) in exchange for a pardon... but The White House never responded.

* * *

ORIGINAL REPORT: Attorneys for Julian Assange told a London court on Wednesday that they will provide evidence that the Trump administration offered to pardon the WikiLeaks founder if he was willing to say that Russia had nothing to do with leaks of Democratic Party emails, according to Bloomberg.

During the preliminary extradition hearing, Assange's lawyers said that former GOP congressman Dana Rohrahbacher offered the deal in 2017, one year after WikiLeaks published emails which were damaging to then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. At the time, the FBI's 'Russiagate' investigation was in full swing as the agency tried in vein to prove that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 US election.

At a preliminary hearing Wednesday, Assange’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald asked the court to allow more witness statements during the extradition hearing that will start next week. The new information includes a witness statement by Jen Robinson, another of Assange’s lawyers, that deals with the alleged offer made by then U.S. Representative. Dana Rohrabacher, he told the court.

The witness statement will address “Mr. Rohrabacher going to see Mr. Assange, and saying on instructions of the president, offering pardon or some other way out if Mr. Assange played ball and said the Russians had nothing to do with” the leaks, Fitzgerald said. -Bloomberg

Read more at:

* * * * *

When the original mainstream story about this issue broke, it turned quite a few heads, and understandably so. It's been well-known that the murder of Seth Rich was likely connected somehow to the revelations from Wikileaks prior to the 2016 election. These connections were actually part of what made the original mainstream reports—those regarding possible White House correspondence—most appealing to informed readers.

Yet now that we know the White House was not at all involved in the alleged bargain offered by Assange's lawyer, many questions still arise.

Was this overarching story simply designed to deceive the public—like so many other reports from the fake-news media—or was there something more to it?

It does appear that the original mainstream story contained the usual components of questionable activity while alleging that President Trump was at the center of said activity. With these two components (which are common in bias mainstream news), the original story could have received significant media traction. That is to say that if there were interests that initiated this story who intended to make the truth more obvious to the general public (namely, the truth behind Seth Rich's death), they would most likely frame it in a way which the corporate media would easily pick up. Hence, the use of buzz-words such as Trump and Russia.

This story seems to clearly suggest a connection between Julian Assange and the DNC. Though certain specifics in the original story were proven false, the suggestion of this connection is clear and could have easily been included in a typical MSM report. Simply put, the original mainstream report calls attention to the possibility that Assange and certain white hats may be working together to disclose the truth surrounding the death of Seth Rich.

The motives behind the release of the original MSM report are unclear. We do not know whether the story was published by dark hats, white hats, or just careless news personnel attempting to boost ratings. Yet regardless of the source, the original reports about the lawyer's claim offer a significant opportunity for diligent and observant audience members to bring greater truths to the public eye.

How does one shift an Overton window?

The Formula

Up until this point, the disclosure process of hidden truth has not gone the way many of us hoped it would. Most of us may have expected the hard-hitting stories to come out quickly and that we would see the resulting large-scale change in the shortest period of time possible. Yet instead, the disclosure process has been slow and gradual. Even still, this process has revealed a clear pattern within the overall revelation of once-hidden truth.

First, a new concept of disclosure is introduced to the public and then retracted as false (often times, by the same source that published it). Then some time down the road, the subject is reintroduced into the news stream, but is, again, reported to be a mistake or fluke. This pattern is repeated for a number of months (sometimes years) until at a certain point when the information is introduced without a following retraction. The story is then allowed to propagate throughout the news cycle and is no longer presented as fiction but as elementary fact.

We've seen this same pattern many times over in the past decade, as it's been applied to a number of topics. We watched it used in disclosures of 9/11 truth, UFOs, and global elitist pedophilia rings. We've seen it in the revelation of the Deep State and the nefarious attempts by criminal elitists to overthrow the United States government. Each of these topics has either reached the stage of factual acceptance and reporting in media or is progressing toward such acceptance.

To restate, we have seen this pattern repeatedly over the past several years. So then why does it become so difficult to consider the likelihood that we are watching the very same process within the disclosures about Wikileaks, the Russiagate hoax, and the truth about Seth Rich and the DNC?

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

We've already seen these same subjects discussed in mainstream media reports, and by all appearances, the latest disclosure-tease process is already well underway. Even though a lawyer reportedly lies about an alleged offer made by Julian Assange, the simple public exposure of the issue still assists the overall process of soft disclosure.

This false statement about the fictitious words of President Trump, Julian Assange, and a lawyer is yet another foot in the door for the truth of Seth Rich to come forward. Perhaps it was because this significance wasn't directly stated that some readers reacted so harshly to the first DTM post. Even still, many appreciated the post, as it serves as a reminder that continual progress is being made toward truth and revelation, if only we choose to acknowledge it.

Just as in every situation we've discussed here, it's important to remember that just because we see a principle or concept stated as false in mainstream news doesn't automatically make it worthless. On the contrary, usual this preemptive denial of certain topics typically occurs just before monumental truth is revealed.
Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. 

If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.

Thank you for your support.

1 comment: