Google Needs to be Subpoenaed to Determine Who was REALLY Behind Anti-Muslim Video

Google holds the answer to an extremely important question. Who was behind the naming of the video the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks? A subpoena issued to Google with the sole purpose of answering that question could lead to the Obama administration itself.

On December 15th, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court heard arguments in Garcia vs. Google, which has to do with a copyright claim by one of the actresses in the Innocence of Muslims video the Obama administration blamed for the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. The actress is Cindy Lee Garcia. Her attorney is Cris Armenta. The Google attorney is Neal Katyal, who coincidentally has a history as Solicitor General under a Barack Obama administration which ironically may have been involved in the production of Innocence of Muslims.

Katyal (L) and Arementa (R)

Katyal (L) and Arementa (R)

The argument of the plaintiff is that she has a right to her five second performance and that she was deceived before delivering that performance. Garcia argues that she answered a casting call for a movie entitled Desert Warrior. The final product was an anti-Muslim video that featured words coming out of Garcia’s mouth that she did not say.

As has reported, the filmmaker was a federal informant at the time the movie was produced. There is also evidence that suggests the movie identified as and referred to by the title Innocence of Muslims was named not by the filmmaker but by the purveyor of a YouTube channel named NewsPoliticsNow3 (NPN3) which, evidence suggests, could be tied to the Obama administration through a company identified as Stanley Associates, as has reported.

NewsPolitcsNow Avatar tied to Stanley, which does work for Obama administration.

NewsPolitcsNow Avatar tied to Stanley, which does work for Obama administration.

It is a provable and demonstrable fact that NPN3 – not the filmmaker – is responsible for coining the title Innocence of Muslims. What is not known (publicly) is who is behind NPN3?

If, as has demonstrated, NPN3 can be tied to Stanley, which is tied to CGI, the company that built the Obamacare website, then Katyal may even have a conflict of interest.

As to the origins of the Innocence of Muslims moniker and who was really behind the production, Google should be subpoenaed to release information about who is behind NPN3. If NPN3 is indeed connected to Stanley, the Obama administration would thereby be confirmed as a complicit actor in the production of the video trailer that has infamously become known as Innocence of Muslims, though not by the filmmaker.

Here is video from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of the December 15th arguments laid out by both Amenta and Katyal:


, , , , , , , , , ,