On October 16, 2016, unnamed author on a discussion forum presented himself as a “Clinton Insider” and offered to answer as many questions as he could from other users. This kind of “AMA” (Ask Me Anything) post is very common on discussion sites, and other users can quickly smell a fake if the answers are too vague or don’t align with known facts. In this case, the general consensus is that the Clinton Insider (C.I.) was legit.
Interestingly, however, the thread really became dynamite when another user asked C.I. to confirm or deny some evidence that had been presented the day before in a separate thread. Before we look at that evidence, you should know what C.I. thought of the evidence/analysis: “Spot-on.” I think after you consider the evidence, you will agree.
On November 17, 2015, an amateur screenwriter named Joe Patterson (J.P.) sent an email to John Podesta (J.P.), chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to pitch a new film idea. That right there should have you scratching your head. Why would an obscure screenwriter pitch a film idea to a campaign representative in the heat of an election year? There’s more, so get ready for a lot of head-scratching.
The title of J.P.’s email to J.P. is, “A 2016 game changing, feature film project for your consideration.” Again, if this script is so “game-changing,” why is Patterson pitching it to Podesta instead of to a Hollywood executive? Likewise, in the opening paragraph, Patterson says, “I also sent this to email@example.com,” is just bizarre, because George Pataki (G.P.) is a lawyer and Republican politician in New York state–not connected to the film industry in any way.
Patterson goes on to write:
Remember what happened when President Reagan said “Tear Down This Wall?” to Mr. Gorbachev, A gigantic economic expansion was ignited. That’s the goal of this film project. I have the script, the budget and a producer for this 2016 political, game changing film project – funding is needed. You would be in charge of the content and selecting the producer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~jp
This is where the discussion board really lit up.
The goal of the “film project” is to trigger massive economic profits. Patterson has the “script,” a “budget,” and a “producer” for this political “project.” All he lacks is “funding,” which Podesta must provide. Bizarrely, just after saying he has “the script” and “a producer,” Patterson tells Podesta that Podesta “would be in charge of the content and selecting the producer.” It sounds like Patterson is beating around the bush, saying in so many words, “This game-changing project can happen if you put up the money and greenlight the ‘producer.'”
Patterson then discusses the historical context and setting of his “project”:
Most Americans (and for that matter, the entire rest of the world) either don’t remember or might not even have heard about our war with Mexico and – The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which forced Mexico to accept $15 million for all the land in this link. http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/map1a.html It’s time to redress this old wrong!
You don’t have to hide much if you know no one is looking.
Am I just being paranoid? What does this have to do with Justice Scalia? Well, Patterson continues his email by describing “the setting” of his “game-changing project.”
Log Line: INEZ, a young Mexican girl, crosses the border in search of work and her missing mother. She finds political corruption, murder and cover-up. ALEX, a young border guard/law student of mixed ethnic heritage (American/Mexican) intercepts her, and listens to her story. …
[Later,] Alex and Inez begin the search for her missing mother. The search leads them to an isolated ranch house with a massive underground tunnel at Tecate, Ca.
Decoded, this is a reference to crossing the border for “work” in America, followed by a “search” for a “missing” person that involves “an isolated ranch house” with an easy escape route into Mexico. The word “Tecate” not only suggests “Texas” but Tecate itself is a low-key border crossing station between the USA and Mexico. Presumably this is a hint that the “producers” can go missing when they’re done at the isolated ranch house by slipping into Mexico as easily as passing through Tecate.
Finally, Patterson returns to the budget:
I believe this important film is deserving of the services of a major producer, However, Ken Del Conte is an expert in producing low budget features. He knows film people who will work for part of their compensation based on a box office bonus. Ken penciled out a budget of $1.5 million.
Putting it all together:
I realize this all may seem completely absurd, but remember: this email does not exist in a vacuum. As Martin Walsh has noted here at CDP, another email released by Wikileaks makes a clear and disturbing reference to “wet works,” which is always a political reference to “assassination.” Is this the “work” that Inez (i.e., a Mexican character/actor) was looking for in America?
Patterson’s email was sent in mid-November. The “wet works” email was sent February 9th, 2016, just three days before Scalia “died in his sleep” on the night of February 12 or the morning of February 13, 2016. Scalia was alone–isolated–at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, which had a swimming pool and was adjacent to a vineyard.
— Alex Jerez (@notalexjerez) October 14, 2016
“a bad night…wet works…at the Vineyard”
One last thing: There have been many movies made about the CIA, but only one that we know of for sure that was made by the CIA. The hit movie Argo tells the true story of how the CIA created an entire script, cast, ad campaign, and production headquarters for a fake Hollywood film in order to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Argo mission is considered one of the greatest success stories in CIA history, so is it really that surprising that the CIA would use “film” lingo to stage other missions?
Lastly, “argo” is a misspelling of “argot,” which means “–like you might find in coded political emails.