It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why is it a “conspiracy theory” to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Why?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was “sandbagging” Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there’s neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected.
Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?
Murray should be the government’s star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were “leaked” by insiders not “hacked” by a foreign government. Here’s the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
“Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community….He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. ….
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there’s an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public’s radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We’ll see.)
And what’s more surprising, is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppetmasters. They’ve cast their lot with the sinister stewards of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler
I'm trying to understand your suggested motive. Seth Rich was killed by the Hillary or someone on her team because the Emails would make her look bad with her shenanigans against Bernie?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarass his bosses and was assasinated for leaking emails that only proved what was already known (DWS was in the bag for Clinton) or that a foreign state with a history of meddling in elections and more importantly, one suspected in a series of similar state-sponsored attacks against the political establishment in multiple Western countries, hacked DNC computers?
Let’s take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. “In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed …(that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies — CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17.”
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.
.........
Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually “reviewed the evidence”, and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn’t that what’s really going on?
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler
I'm trying to understand your suggested motive. Seth Rich was killed by the Hillary or someone on her team because the Emails would make her look bad with her shenanigans against Bernie?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was “sandbagging” Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there’s neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails.
originally posted by: proximo
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler
I'm trying to understand your suggested motive. Seth Rich was killed by the Hillary or someone on her team because the Emails would make her look bad with her shenanigans against Bernie?
You are missing the point - as are many people who look at this. I think many intentionally - in an attempt to make anyone looking into the Seth Rich story as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Here is the point
It does not matter who killed Seth Rich or why. All that matters is if he is the source of the DNC wikileaks because it completely destroys the whole Russia narrative as a lie.
originally posted by: proximo
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler
I'm trying to understand your suggested motive. Seth Rich was killed by the Hillary or someone on her team because the Emails would make her look bad with her shenanigans against Bernie?
You are missing the point - as are many people who look at this. I think many intentionally - in an attempt to make anyone looking into the Seth Rich story as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Here is the point
It does not matter who killed Seth Rich or why. All that matters is if he is the source of the DNC wikileaks because it completely destroys the whole Russia narrative as a lie.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
I read this yesterday on Counterpunch. It's got some questionable assumptions as well as likely factual inaccuracies. I'll start at the beginning:
That's problematic because the thrust of the reason for believing that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails is that he was murdered. It also ignores the fact that state sponsored hacking is quite common and that there is evidence of similar attacks in other countries.
But you throw in the part about him being assassinated which is not necessary for him to be the leaker. And just because everyone suspected the DNC was in the bag for Hillary, as a DNC member and Bernie supporter, he would have been quite disheartened to see proof that Bernie was being cheated by the DNC.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was “sandbagging” Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there’s neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails.
Has it ever been established that Seth Rich had access to the emails? Seth Rich was working as a data analyst on a voter expansion project. The project was centered on helping voters find the nearest open polling places. Seth Rich majored in History and Political Science in College.
I have looked and I have yet to find any evidence that Seth Rich had administrator access to the DNC email servers — or any DNC servers for that matter, let alone servers on the same network as the email server. In fact, we know what firm the DNC had outsourced server administration. I don't remember the name off the top of my head but I remember when it was published, the company changed their home page to a landing page which was only their logo.
Here the author states it matter as a matter of fact without offering any evidence.
This is a very big deal. The author plays fast and loose with motivation and completely takes for granted opportunity. That's unforgivably sloppy. It seems unlikely to me that Seth Rich would have had the required access as a part of his job.
To the second part of the excerpt, there are in fact multiple lines of evidence pointing to a state actor, most likely to be Russia. Since the author doesn't actually explain the basis for his opinion, it's hard to know how he arrived at it. Finally, he harps on motive again. That's the author's questionable opinion. Tens of millions of people see the Russian motive for doing so being every bit as plain as the author's view of what he presumes to be Rich's possible motive.