Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you catch what he just said about Russia and Wikileaks?

I didn't - I switched it on just at the end of his opening statement, which is presumably where he mentioned wikileaks because I did not hear it later...

a reply to: UKTruth

I only caught a small part of it, but it sounded like he said that it is disingenuous to say that Russia and Wikileaks are not connected in some manner.

We will have to pour over the vids after they are uploaded.

a reply to: Grambler

But rid says in the very article you post that it seems to him as if Guccifer 2.0 and his mistakes seem like a "GRU false flag". He says the exact opposite of what you claim he is saying, that Guccifer 2.0 is russian hacker. He goes inito great detail explaining this.

I can't believe we're still talking about this. It was only meant to demonstrate that experts were aware of the differences in the levels of sophistication exhibited by the hackers and the G2 persona. Thomas Rid is not saying that G2 is a Russian hacker, he's saying that he's likely tied to the hackers as part of a GRU D&D operation. But you know what? Why continue to discuss this one article. There are more. I provided another, better example that makes the point abundantly clear. So let's go with the ThreatConnect post:

As we pointed out in our previous analysis, we conclude Guccifer 2.0 is an apparition created under a hasty Russian D&D campaign, which has clearly evolved into an Active Measures Campaign. Those who are operating under the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter, WordPress and Email communications are likely made up a cadre of non-technical politruk attempting to establish “Guccifer 2.0” as a static fixture on the world stage along the likes of Manning, Assange or Snowden. Their use of Russian VPN services with French infrastructure may shed light on a method Russian intelligence operatives use — domestic services coupled with foreign infrastructure — to help hide their hand and deter any potential attribution to Russia.

"Cadre of non-technical politruk"

Your Voactiv article also says Guccifer is a russian ploy. So it seems your assertion that no serious voice claims this appearss wrong. It seems to me he is Russian when it helps the narrative, and hes not when it helps.

Again, no, I never claimed that G2 wasn't Russian. Skim back through my posts. What I have continued to say is that G2 — whether he is Russian or not (I tend to believe "he" is and that "he" is actually multiple Russian agents) — G2 demonstrates a level of technical sophistication that is conspicuously below that of the threat actors who were discovered by Crowdstrike.

How can I make this point more clearly? G2 doesn't appear to be run by either APT28 or APT29 directly. It appears to possibly be a hastily thrown together adjunct exfiltration operation. Here, let's try something different. I offer you an analogy:

There's a car dealership. At the dealership, there are two main departments: sales and service. The sales department is staffed with sales people who... sell cars. The service department is staffed with mechanics who of course fix cars.

You couldn't very well judge the proficiency of the mechanics based on the fact the sales person couldn't diagnose the problem with your car.

The idea here is that one group (or in this specific case, two) steals the documents (the hackers) and another group (the "cadre of non-technical politruk") pretends to be a lone hacktivist from Romania to introduce the documents, deflect attention or just to sow confusion.

But the point is the whole hack was sloppy. The crowdstrike article you posted says it took them TWO HOURS!!! to find out it was Russia! It was able to do so because it left file names and address signatures that were the same as past Russian hacks.

You keep saying this based on the misconception that G2 = the hackers. G2 is most likely not the hackers. G2 is more likely non-technical. Although, I will say that it's possible that G2 deliberately salted the Office docs to serve as a sort of red herring (notice how we can't seem to get past G2).

Also, none of that is correct. The article that says "two hours" is the Thomas Rid article at Motherboard. This is what it says:

It began ominously. Nearly two months earlier, in April, the Democrats had noticed that something was wrong in their networks. Then, in early May, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats. After deploying their tools on the DNC's machines, and after about two hours of work, CrowdStrike found "two sophisticated adversaries" on the Committee's network. The two groups were well-known in the security industry as "APT 28" and "APT 29." APT stands for Advanced Persistent Threat—usually jargon for spies.

The article does not say that it took two hours to attribute the hack to Russia. It says that after two hours, the threat actors were detected. Also, dollars to donuts the detection was made by monitoring network connections using their proprietary IDS.

I've got to into the office but I'll be back. Hopefully by then KDC will have done whatever it is he's going to do. Last I checkd, he was just pointing people to his website and saying "soon."

a reply to: theantediluvian

To start with I am not trying to mince wordss, but you said

Neither Crowdstrike, to the very best of my knowledge, nor any of the other prominent voices in this discussion (including Rid) have ever claimed that "Guccifer 2.0" is part of the hacking operation. In fact, they have instead pointed to the many issues with GC2.

Again, Rid says G2 was in fact Russian, as does many of the other articles you link.

I see what you are saying with the car dealership analogy. But the correct way to look at it would be to say that the dealership is one of the most talented ever, and although their mechanics are great, the salesmen are incompetent.

Are we to believe that Russia put so much energy into this hack but allowed G2 to amateurishly bungle up the cover up by including a Russian generals name on his files? Again it makes no sense.

The motherboard article says it took two hours to find APT 28 and 29.

It began ominously. Nearly two months earlier, in April, the Democrats had noticed that something was wrong in their networks. Then, in early May, the DNC called in CrowdStrike, a security firm that specializes in countering advanced network threats. After deploying their tools on the DNC's machines, and after about two hours of work, CrowdStrike found "two sophisticated adversaries" on the Committee's network. The two groups were well-known in the security industry as "APT 28" and "APT 29." APT stands for Advanced Persistent Threat—usually jargon for spies.

motherboard.vice.com...

This is backed up by Crowd Strikes own article that says they found out "immediately".

CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR.

www.crowdstrike.com...

So these ultra superior some of the best in the world hackers were idenitfied immediately because they used some of the same lines that they used in previous haacks.

Again, this despite the fact we know there are tools available to make these lines appear to make it seem as if another actor hacked.

You have not once addressed this.

You have also not addressed that Crowd strike was incorrect of their assessment of Fancy bear in the Ukraine hack.

Again, the FBI chose not to look at the evidence themselves, and instead took the word of a private group that immediately found out the hackers were Russian.

And that group was wrong in their assessment of fancy bear in Ukraine.

And that the russian attempted to cover up the hack by sending out one of their operatives (or multiple) who were so amateurish that they left a Russian generals name on their files.


And all of this while the CIA and FBI not damn well that tools exist (that they created) that allow these signatures to be faked. But instead of looking into the server themselves, they allowed a private group to make these judgements "immediately".

Again, this is not remotely believable.

originally posted by: Grambler
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?

Because the former has ZERO evidence, while the latter has tons of evidence.

originally posted by: Moresby

originally posted by: Grambler
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?

Because the former has ZERO evidence, while the latter has tons of evidence.

Actually, at this stage both have ZERO evidence.

Time to investigate the mainstream media...they are definitely driving the false Russia-Trump narrative, which may be more than despicable--it may be treasonous.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You know ante.... The Clinton Chronicles covered the many people who were suicided in the 90's by the Clintons....
2 + 2 usually equals 4 except in the warped Common Core math of TPTB.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Could you point to one compelling piece of evidence that Seth Rich was the source? As far as I can tell, the CT is 90% speculation based on the fact that he was murdered, the murder is unsolved and Julian Assange offered a $20k reward for information.

Yes... Julian Assange himself basically admitted to the world that Seth was the WikiLeaks source.



Boom... Case Closed.

a reply to: Grambler

Don't forget that CrowdStrike CEO is good friends with Hillary, and she uses him to write her speeches on tech industry subjects.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

I am telling you that true liberal like Glenn Greenwald have been honest about the anti Trump agendaa, and they hate Trump.

I am also telling you that any person with any degree of objectivity can see that both theb establishment political parties and the Intelligence Community and the main stream media hate trump more than any canidate in memory, and have gobne out of their way to attack him in every way possible.

You can willfully ignore the evidence if you want, but it just allows any reasonably objective person to see that you are ignoring reality.

It also implies that despite my initial feelings about DJT, he just may be the right man to get the corruption that many of us have been pointed out for years and years FINALLY exposed to the little person who can vote people OUT!!! GREAT defense of your thread Grambler!!!

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Grambler
i too beleive that seth rich was the source not the russians. and why pray tell would the russians spy on the dnc they have computer access to top secret us data. it is funny how after saying they were hacked they would not let an fbi computer forensics team to examine their computers. what other juice where they hiding

DING DING DING,, good points.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

The Russians with no proof would mean Trump is innocent of all possible charges of obstruction of justice because there's no evidence the Russians did anything?

I think there's a Tom Clancy novel in the making!

Nope. You don't have to commit the underlying crime to guilty of obstruction of justice. If you interfere with a pending investigation, that's enough.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: proximo

Please explain to me how Seth rich is more of a conspiracy than Russia collusion.

Because you do not have an entire nation's IC community not only saying Russia may be involved, but they are currently investigating other Russian connections.

Seth Rich...nothing more than some people suggesting some things, being reported and then retracted.

A. Hacking or attempted hacking by Russians does not prove Any of the wikileaks came from these Russians. There is no proof any files were actually taken that I am aware of.

B. I would be surprised if there wasn't Russians trying to hack the DNC, RNC, etc every month, so why is it important anyway?

C. DNC denied FBI the ability to examine servers. The sources for any hacking info are provided by a company paid for by the DNC, hardly an unbiased source.

D. What in the DNC leaks even help Trump? Ninety percent of the dirt is how the DNC is screwing Bernie.

E. How in any way does a Russian hack tie to the Trump campaign colluding? If all the leaks are from Russian hackers, why the heck would they need to communicate with the trump campaign at all? I mean the October surprise is not a new concept.

You too have made very good points!!!

Some of these guys pretend to want the truth but ONLY if it MIGHT implicate the swamp drainer. I think we need to RALLY to the swamp drainers. At this point to me, there is 100% certainty of CORRUPTION of major players since a long time ago, period.

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

The Russians with no proof would mean Trump is innocent of all possible charges of obstruction of justice because there's no evidence the Russians did anything?

I think there's a Tom Clancy novel in the making!

Nope. You don't have to commit the underlying crime to guilty of obstruction of justice. If you interfere with a pending investigation, that's enough.

But wouldn't you say the investigation with 10 months of statements that "there is no evidence of collusion' made by Dems and haters of Trump on the R party alike, not a CLUE????
ATA
And what do you think about the lack of server inspections. I would want proof from someone other than Hillary's hired goons to look at the evidence, wouldn't you want that if Trump was making a claim without proof?

a reply to: Grambler


Even Seth Rich's own family (parents) who have insider knowledge of what is going on, and are on record as much have told Hannity, Limbaugh and anyone else constantly haranguing on this Rich conspiracy theory that they are wrong and basically calling them out as being disingenuous and liars.


Meanwhile (much like the current White House administration) this conspiracy theory is crumbling.....guess that's what happens when you build your house of "Truths" on sand.

WaPo just released an article about Seth Rich and the looney right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Link to article

I keep hearing all this outrage to leave the family alone. Quit talking about it for the sake of the family.

By that metric, shouldn't WaPo quit printing articles even mentioning his name?
They're earning clicks just like everyone else.

Also, why is mentioning Seth Rich's name and/or his murder investigation considered offensive to the family/media? I understand they are living through a very trying time and "they" have requested for people to knock it off on the conspiracy angle but the media have no issue with other high profile cases.

There are literally dozens of tv shows on every day regurgitating high profile cases and Celebrity deaths, many of which involve curious circumstances.
Elvis, Michael Jackson, Prince, O.J. Simpson, Anna Nicole Smith, JFK etc...

For example, Kurt Cobain and Henry Rollins were on Unsolved Mysteries.

Where's the outcry for them?
I mean come on, the former first lady and her family lived with and will continue to live with the JFK conspiracies for the rest of their lives!

What about all the high profile BLM victims? (I use the term "victims" loosely).

originally posted by: abago71
WaPo just released an article about Seth Rich and the looney right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Link to article

I keep hearing all this outrage to leave the family alone. Quit talking about it for the sake of the family.

By that metric, shouldn't WaPo quit printing articles even mentioning his name?
They're earning clicks just like everyone else.

After checking that article out, I hope that the Democrats never win another election.
If they do, thought crimes will be prosecuted and jailing any opposition to their rule will become commonplace.

originally posted by: abago71
WaPo just released an article about Seth Rich and the looney right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Link to article

I keep hearing all this outrage to leave the family alone. Quit talking about it for the sake of the family.

By that metric, shouldn't WaPo quit printing articles even mentioning his name?
They're earning clicks just like everyone else.

A journalists job is to report on what IS happening, and if "looney right-wing conspiracy theorists" are continuing to blather on about it, it's their job to report it.

It is NOT a journalists job to foster these looney conspiracy theories, but to report without a slant. If they cant do that, then they aren't a credible journalists....no matter what side of the aisle you reside on.

I believe Seth Rich's families request was to stop using Seth Rich's name for political grandstanding.

a reply to: alphabetaone



If journalists were held to standard you expoused then "Muh Russia" would certainly be in jeapordy.

Also journalists would be reporting facts of Piss poor police work, missing cam footage etc. that makes Seths case different from garden variety crimes that get actual investigation.

Seems double standard to me.