Comprehensive Investigative Report
24 September 2012: By now, it is well known that something is very wrong with the official narrative pertaining to the controversial video known to everyone as The Innocence of Muslims. The official government script we are asked to believe is that this video supposedly caused the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate in Libya and ignited the ensuing violence and death across the Muslim world that continues without abatement today. Officially, the video was cited as the primary motive in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. There are more than a few problems with this narrative. First, aside from the trailer, the video does not exist anywhere in any public forum. Not now, not ever.
Based on my findings from a lengthy and extensive investigation that is ongoing, the trailer (which will be referenced interchangeably in this report as “the video”) was not a motive, but a means to an end not yet seen. In fact, I believe that the entire story is even deeper and more sinister than that.
Because easily obtainable evidence exists that the video was not the cause of the violence but a made-to-order excuse for it, most investigative journalists representing the right side of the political spectrum have long stopped any meaningful, deeper inquiries, while the left-leaning press doubled down in the face of such evidence. It is obvious that the perpetuation of the longstanding right-left paradigm is still actively serving the larger agenda nicely in providing a suitable smoke screen for the truth. The truth of this matter, however, seems to be located deep within a rabbit hole straight out of Alice in Wonderland, as all is not what it appears.
Investigation leads to disturbing discoveries
During the course of any complex investigation, detectives are always searching for that elusive “ah-ha!” moment, or the point at which a breakthrough of a case is achieved. Often, that moment never arrives, or is considerably less than dramatic when it does. In this case, the truth appeared to be so adeptly hidden and convoluted that it took me a long time before I realized that many of the puzzle pieces were actually in plain view, but they were just not readily identifiable. The reason, I concluded, was that I was looking at this entire situation all wrong. That’s when the “ah-ha” moment turned into an “uh-oh” moment.
First, I made the erroneous assumption that I knew who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are, much like someone watching a vintage movie with “cops and robbers” where the good guys wear the police uniforms and the bad guys wear masks. I did not anticipate that some of the so-called good guys might actually be the perpetrators, especially considering the evil woven into these events. I am willing, however, to stipulate that some of the “bad guys” might be nothing more than unwitting pawns unknowingly involved in a larger agenda, although I find that more difficult to accept given the death and destruction involved.
Secondly, I believe that I’ve found evidence that suggests links between this video, or at least the manner in which this video was first created, then changed and finally used, to key people and entities involved with a number of suspicious events over the last decade. It would appear that some of the individuals and entities, including but not limited to high ranking members of both political parties, elected officials, and members of the intelligence community have some level of active or passive involvement in this and various past events of significance, but have adeptly maintained a plausibly deniable role by only slight degrees of separation.
To bring more specificity to the above, it would appear that there is a possible connection between the dissemination of the controversial video with the 2008 passport office break-in scandal that involved improper computer access to the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain. The latter is an enigma in its own right, having its own level of complicity and complexity. Additionally, that particular event appears to involve other events at its periphery, including but not limited to the murder of the key witness in that case, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr.
One thing that appears to exist, if my investigative findings are correct, is that some of the same individuals and entities that were directly and indirectly involved in the passport office break-in, including government and defense contractors, appear to have a role in the video controversy.
This leads to the third and perhaps most disturbingly critical discovery. If my investigative findings are correct, it is my opinion as a professional investigator that the events in Libya, which have now spread across the globe, were a direct result of a covert CIA mission that appears to have been compromised from within our own government. If I am incorrect, however, the alternative is even more unthinkable.
If correct, my investigative trail leads directly to the U.S. Department of State and the CIA with some level of White House involvement, at which point things become even more convoluted. It is here that one might become confused with the aforementioned “good guy versus bad guy” identification process.
Chronology 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 Egyptian native Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a/k/a “Sam Bacile,” who was allegedly an informational and possibly operational asset for the U.S. Department of Justice.
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 and were hoodwinked into a false plot. Some have publicly stated that some of their dialogue was changed to such an extent, that someone actually dubbed over the words they spoke. In other words, the audio was changed. After a careful review of the video trailer, this claim appears to have merit.
The video was scheduled to be shown at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, California on 30 June, 2012 under a new title, The Innocence of Bn Laden [sic]. Two-(2) screenings were scheduled. 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 showing differ, but based on information obtained from Steve Klein, the spokesman for the film on a special 90-minute edition of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report on Sunday, September 23, 2012, the showings were cancelled when no one showed up to watch the video. The theater reportedly “closed” the screening without incident. It is relevant to point out that the alleged screening for this video was scheduled during the time when Jews typically observe Shabbat. Therefore, it is unlikely that the screening was scheduled or otherwise arranged by anyone in the Jewish community.
1 July 2012 (Sunday): Interestingly, the title of the video that was published online was changed from The Innocence of Bn Laden to The Innocence of Muslims on a YouTube channel that hosted the trailer. The video was hosted on an account under the name Sam Bacile, who was actually determined to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
1 July – 11 September 2012: The video lies relatively dormant until it is cited for the violence by U.S. government officials.
The official assertions made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and Barack Hussein Obama that the controversial video was the proximal cause of the initial spate of violence or protests can be readily dispelled by simply looking at the history of the number of views through September 11, 2012. The video did not gain notoriety until the murderous events had already concluded in Libya.
Having received training and certification in Internet Profiling, I began to look into the Internet activity related to the video right after the murder of Stevens and the violence that was attributed to the video. This investigation was as elusive as it was revealing, as I began to note that links to the video began disappearing after I would visit various sites related to the video or it’s apparent “host.”
It was on or about 22 September 2012 that during my research, I found a video titled Proof Positive – In My Opinion posted by an individual on the YouTube channel under the user name “Montagraph.” I found that many of his findings mirrored mine (or mine his), although there were a few exceptions. Nonetheless, this Internet video contains links to many interesting screen captures.
The individual in the video Proof Positive – In My Opinion on the YouTube channel Montagraph details some very disturbing possibilities, including the identification of a news and politics website (a series of them, interrelated) known as NewsPoliticsNow and its various name variations, might be linked to Stanley, Inc., which is now known as CGI. It is interesting that my investigative results seem to be generally consistent with his findings, and also that there appears to be a link to this company that provides products and services to the U.S. military, the U.S. State Department and DHS.
The video, defense contractors & Obama
In the “Montagraph video,” a connection is drawn to Stanley, Inc. The importance of this, beyond the status as defense contractors from Arlington, Virginia, lies in the digital fingerprints connecting the video The Innocence of Muslims with a user with access to the NewsPoliticsNow website. The “Montagraph video” explains the connection by the presence of a common avatar, or an image used by Internet posters. It is here that things become as disturbing as they are convoluted.
According to published reports, Stanley, Inc. was awarded a $164 million contract to print new U.S. passports in 2006. 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.
It is important to note 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. Brennan also had a 25-year career in the CIA.
Presently, John Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to Barack Hussein Obama under the official title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Since 2008, the accepted and unchallenged motive for the breach was that the perpetrators were looking at the passport and biological data on all three presidential candidates in some sort of “exploratory” mission. They were summarily fired from their jobs and disappeared into the night before they could be interviewed by investigators working on the case. What took place following this admitted breach, however, has an extremely sinister overtone.
Flashback: 2008 Obama revelation; Key witness to passport office break-in murdered
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. One wonders 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.”
Prelude to attack
In the days and weeks leading up to the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, the U.S. Department of State received at least three warnings of not only impending violence, but of U.S. embassies being specifically targeted. One warning was specific to the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which was directly related to the current imprisonment of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Others specified the Libyan embassy.
On September 9, 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reportedly received a warning that stated “[t]he time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh…Let your slogan be: No to the American embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh, even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.”
The warnings in the week before the attack were received while Ambassador Stevens was traveling in Germany, Austria and Sweden. Accordingly, it is important to determine why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi during a time of heightened threat, was he made aware of the increased threat situation by the Clinton State Department, and who was responsible for the safety and security of Ambassador Stevens and what actually happened in Benghazi?
Research, investigation and confirmation from one source within the U.S. government found that in the situation involving Stevens, protection of the U.S. consulate was provided in large part by an organization known as “the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade.” This is a local Libyan militia led by Fawzi abu Kataf, who has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is now being reported that the “protection team,” specifically the leaders of the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade received orders from a senior Libyan government official to stand down during the coordinated attack against the U.S. Consulate.
It is unclear whether Ambassador Stevens was made aware of the threats, but it would logical to believe that he was not aware of the stand-down order or the impending attack. Regardless, it is important to determine what Ambassador Stevens’ mission was in Benghazi along with Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
On the ground in Benghazi: timeline
Prior to any overt attack, it is vital to note that FSO Sean Smith, known as vile_rat in the online gaming community, posted the following disturbing message to an open gaming forum: “vile_rat: assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” Investigation suggests that FSO Smith was referencing a member of the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade.
8:00 p.m.: Sometime around 8:00 p.m., Ambassador Stevens completed a meeting with the Turkish Consul General, allegedly at the Benghazi compound. Contrary to the insistence of the Obama administration, there were no Muslim protestors at or around the compound. This was substantiated by CBS News and also The New York Times.
9:30-10:30 p.m.: At or about 9:30 p.m. local time, Muslim terrorists attacked the consulate from three sides with rocket propelled grenade launchers and laser sighted weapons, breaching the walls that surrounded the property. No security forces were present to repel the attack. It was reported that upwards of twenty Americans were inside of the compound at this time, although this has yet to be confirmed.
10:30 p.m. The attackers gain access to the interior portion of the compound. Reports suggest that only Ambassador Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were inside and failed in their attempt to repel the attackers.
It was during this time that Libyan government reinforcements arrived. One of the reinforcements allegedly makes it inside, finds the body of Sean Smith, but is unable to locate the Ambassador. It was also during this time that the attackers storm the rear portion of the compound. The reinforcements retreat to a safe-house located about one-half mile away.
12:30 a.m. The attackers are seen on video pulling the body of Ambassador Stevens from the compound while shouting praises to Allah.
1:00 – 3:30 a.m.: Accounts as to the location of Ambassador Stevens vary, but it is confirmed that his body was located at the Benghazi Medical Center at approximately 3:30 a.m.
Numerous reports suggest that Ambassador Stevens suffered either ante-mortem or post-mortem injuries suggestive of sodomy. Additional reports also suggest that numerous classified documents were recovered from the consulate office by the attackers.
It was almost immediately following public reports of the attack that U.S. government officials, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, asserted that the attack on the U.S. embassy were the direct result of the video Innocence of Muslims. They also publicly stated that the attacks were spontaneous, there was no pre-planning involved in the attack, and cell phone video taken of Ambassador Stevens being pulled from the compound was documentation of a rescue attempt.
In consideration of the above information, it is clear that this administration is being disingenuous in their continued denials that (1) the attack was spontaneous; (2) a video, virtually unknown until after the 9/11 Libyan attacks, is behind these attacks; (3) they had no advance warning of impending attacks. So, where does this leave us?
Interview with Steve Klein, video spokesman
After a 90-minute interview on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report with Steven Klein, the spokesman for the video that can be heard here, it would appear that there are even more questions than answers with regard to this video.
Mr. Klein stated that he agreed to be a spokesman for the producers of the film after they were forced into hiding by the blowback from the negative publicity, yet denied knowing much about the production or providence of the video. However, he described those who were involved in creating the video as “refugees” who initially approached him, before the video even entered the production phase, with questions about First Amendment issues. He refused to identify the individuals behind the video by name, citing concern for their safety and protection. His rather cavalier attitude, in addition to his claims of not knowing a number of critical details of the production and provenance of the video suggests either an incredible level of naiveté or perhaps something else. Based on my professional investigative assessment, I am compelled to believe the latter.
At this point, I have a better grasp of the lies, misinformation and disinformation associated with the video and our government’s exploitation of it than I do solid truths.
This video appeared to come out of nowhere and seems to have been amateurishly produced. It is so poorly done that many are still unable to determine whether it was created as a parody or if it was a serious attempt at some type of documentary. It is interesting to note that among those who claim they don’t know is Mr. Klein, the current spokesman for the video. This is problematic and troublesome to say the least.
If my investigative findings are correct, there appear to be some very disconcerting ties between this video and individuals and entities associated with our own government. The official narrative of everyone from Obama to Rice to Obama presidential campaign advisor Robert Gibbs is that this specific video is to blame for the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.
Clearly, their continued assertions in the face of contrary evidence suggests something much larger. The video appears to be serving multiple purposes. It appears to be a multi-faceted catalyst by seemingly opposing parties to advance different agendas. One might be to suppress any criticism of Islam and ultimately restrict our freedom of speech – both religious and political dissent, while the other is to foment chaos in Islamic countries as a means to an end.
Despite the gradual awakening of people to the larger agendas, both agendas seem to be working. My investigation is continuing.Click here to save this article in PDF format