By Douglas J. Hagman

6 February 2013; The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts (here and here). I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where part II left off. At the request of this source and for the sake of continuity, the following combines the information withheld and the information from our most recent contact on 4 February 2013.

DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?

RB: Please do.

DH: We’ve spoken at different times since the information you gave me was published. You have since given me additional information on top of the information you asked me to withhold until after the inauguration. First, what was the reason for asking me to wait to publish the remainder of our discussion until after the inauguration?RB: Please do.

RB: This bunch, top level DHS brass, is clamping down on leaks. One way they are finding leakers is to put out false information specific to certain individuals. They can trace the information directly to the leaker due to the nature and specificity of the information. It was part self-preservation, part vetting one of my closest and most important contacts. It was a test to assure that I am not being used for disinformation purposes or being targeted as a leaker. It was something I felt I had to do, and I’m glad I did. I feel more comfortable now about my sources.

DH: So, if I understand you correctly, your sources “passed” whatever test you were performing?

RB: Yes.

DH: And you still have access to information, I mean, whistleblower type information?

RB: I know what you mean, so I guess that’s one way to put it. Okay.

DH: For continuity and to refresh your memory, I’m going to play the remainder of our recorded interview from our contact last month.

[At this point, we listened to the dialogue previously recorded. After the recording concluded, this DHS source suggested that we combine new information with the previously recorded information to avoid unnecessary repetition. It was agreed and the recorder was turned back on with his consent].

DH: Just to be clear, let me hit this again. The main reason you asked me to wait to publish your previous statements had more to do with you, your sources and well, your own self preservation than the content of our discussion.

RB: I guess you could say that. But the information is still valid and becomes even more important when combined with the latest information I have for you.

DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.

RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.

At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logoimprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.

Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.

It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.

There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.

The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.

DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?

RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.

DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?

RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.

DH: Go on.

RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.

There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.

Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.

It was surreal, to say the least.

Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.”  Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.

There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.

But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.

Read the whole article