Opinion: If Rohrabacher Has Proof, It Must Be Independently Authenticated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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