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.

 

Kim Dotcom's lawyers just sent a letter to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding Seth Rich

page: 9
81
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: whywhynot

he COULD give evidence via video link


You're correct, and it would be admissible if the judge in the case, once filed, approved it. The usual problem with testimony via video or sworn affidavit is there is no way for opposing counsel to cross and that is why it is not usually allowed.




posted on May, 31 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool


Seth Rich investigation nothing to see


Until the police finish their investigation, ther is not much to report but speculation.


UFO,s nothing to see


What do you think there is to see?


Saddam Hussein had WMDs fellas 100 % fact,wait not true


The media accurately reported the administrations' claims. The New York Times also reported that the "Yellowcake affair," was a hoax and that the source for the mobile CBM labs was unreliable. The source was unnamed, of course, but we now know it was DCI George Tenet.


U.S. pretends their is not 10s of millions radical Muslims,lie


No-one knows the exact number of radicalized Muslims.


U.S. pretends Egypt revolution was the spark of a great freindly democracy,lied


It looked like it might be at first. It was the "talking heads" that popularized that interpretation. That was never put forward as anything but opinion. The same goes for the failed predictions of a Clinton victory. I made the same mistake about the latter, but know the history of Southwest Asia too well ever to have bought the "Arab Spring" nonsense.


U.S. pretends Syrian rebels would over throw Assad,lied


No, the United States' intelligence community and media analysts alike did not anticipate the degree to which Putin would back a client.


U.S. thinks ISIS contained in the U.S.,lying


No-one, repeat no-one thinks ISIS is "contained" anywhere. ISIS is a thought virus. It can infect anyone, anywhere, where there is access to the internet. ISIS is relatively contained in Russia because of state control of the internet.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Has Seth's Killer been named? This man thinks he knows who did it. Live stream just ended, ready to watch on video.





posted on May, 31 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Improbable Cause

For those of us referring to admissibility of evidence, I think this is probably not a bad time to emphasize, as others have, that criminal investigations are not criminal trials. They are very different things with very different rules.

Criminal investigators can and should use every resource legally available to them to solve crimes. There is no such thing as inadmissible evidence in that context. Hunches, guesses, hearsay and suspicions are all fair play if they lead to "hard" evidence sufficient to support successful prosecution.

Admissibility only becomes an issue in the context of prosecuting crimes. Hunches, guesses, hearsay and suspicions are not enough to achieve convictions, rarely allowed at trial, and rightly so. If an investigation doesn't produce enough hard evidence to convict, there's no point in prosecuting, and hard evidence isn't hard if it can be rendered inadmissible.

In the case of Kim Dotcom and, apparently, WikiLeaks, the question is whether they can positively identify Seth Rich as the source of the emails leaked from the DNC. Given how squirrelly both parties have been behaving about it, it's still a very open question as to whether they can actually do that.

If they can, it would be a major development and have a profound impact on both the murder case and the highly public allegations surrounding the DNC "hack". The political fallout would be enormous. It wouldn't solve the Seth Rich murder on its own, but it would certainly suggest an entirely new line of investigation.

And even if they can't, if what they know could open a lead to information that can, then it is essential that investigators be made aware of it as soon as possible, whether directly or anonymously (indeed, in the case of Kim Dotcom, anonymous disclosure would frankly be a lot more credible than if he put his name to it).

To place any consideration above that is to assign it value greater than identifying Seth Rich's murderers. While WikiLeaks and Kim Dotcom no doubt have their reasons for not offering anything more concrete, it's worth keeping in mind that whatever their reasons may be, they clearly have higher priorities than solving this crime.

That forms a reasonable basis for suspicion of their motives that no amount of rationalizing, excuse-making or fig-leaf-waving can resolve. Only the truth can do that, and it's extremely disappointing that those who claim to be in possession of it seem so committed to keeping it concealed -- especially after making such a public spectacle about it.

What. The. Hell.

Worrying about whether evidence is admissible or not at this stage is premature. What matters, first and foremost, is getting enough information to identify suspects. That information would then guide further investigation, proper recovery and custody of evidence and, if sufficient grounds exist, prosecution.

That's up to investigators and prosecutors to accomplish, not us. Not that there's anything wrong with discussing, speculating and criticizing it, just that it's not our call to make.

My advice: Suspect everyone, trust no one, question everything, keep an open mind, and let the lawyers do the lawyering.



posted on May, 31 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: drock905
if its true and i believe it is the msm will totally disregard it . anything that probes them wrong they blatantly refuse to acknowledge . remember when right after 9/11 everyone knew it was the saudis the msm would not mention it and still won't .



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Dude I am talking about the denial of the media and slopfest journalism and bad and I mean very bad distrust growing with the U.S.
Look up Denzel Washingtons comments and He tells the truth and the media selling BS.All so everyone is first to report BS basically.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool

So... the media should assume hat anything seen in the sky is a flying saucer from outer space?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: drock905

So if the evidence exists? What is it? Seems like a lot of attention is being made at the illusion of evidence here, but there is literally zero damning evidence linking Rich to Wikileaks.


Just like the Russian collusion thing then, right?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: drock905

So if the evidence exists? What is it? Seems like a lot of attention is being made at the illusion of evidence here, but there is literally zero damning evidence linking Rich to Wikileaks.


Just like the Russian collusion thing then, right?


No, not just like that.

Ya see, the authorities that are investigating the Seth Rich murder, have no reason (and have stated as much) that the murder is anything but a botched robbery or to WikiLeaks, which is why they wont follow-up on it.

Conversely, the Intelligence community, the FBI, the DOJ as a whole, (aka the authorities), find adequate proof to follow-up on ties to Russia interfering in the 2016 campaign and that the Trump campaign at the time was somehow involved. So they ARE following-up on it all. See now how that's different? Somehow I think you already knew that though...
edit on 1-6-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh yeah? No reason? Can you tell me how a routine stable patient goes from talking to dead for no apparent reason? Could it have something to do with the fact that all except the head physician was forced out of Seth's room by LEO's for no reason?

"No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I’ve never seen anything like it before, and while I can’t say 100% that he was allowed to die, I don’t understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I’m just one low one low level doc. Something’s fishy though, that’s for sure."

D.C. surgeon who operated on Seth Rich: ‘The DNC staffer was alive and well after surgery, before a group of LEOs showed up to the ICU’



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh yeah? No reason? Can you tell me how a routine stable patient goes from talking to dead for no apparent reason?


What are you talking about? What routine stable patient? He was admitted with multiple gunshot wounds from being shot in the back. He was never stable.



Could it have something to do with the fact that all except the head physician was forced out of Seth's room by LEO's for no reason?

"No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I’ve never seen anything like it before, and while I can’t say 100% that he was allowed to die, I don’t understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I’m just one low one low level doc. Something’s fishy though, that’s for sure."

D.C. surgeon who operated on Seth Rich: ‘The DNC staffer was alive and well after surgery, before a group of LEOs showed up to the ICU’


LMAO you cite intellihub as your proof of concept?

Let me give you a lesson in critical thinking ace....anyone who has nothing to hide doesn't mask their identity behind domains by proxy. A credible outlet will not do that. Here let me show you the difference and perhaps you can learn something

Credible News Outlet

(Please take note of relevant name servers, technical contact data, address registration, and relevant registrant data)



Domain Name: washingtonpost.com
Registry Domain ID: 1707992_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.corporatedomains.com
Registrar URL: www.cscprotectsbrands.com
Updated Date: 2016-11-08T06:48:51Z
Creation Date: 1995-11-13T05:00:00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-11-12T05:00:00Z
Registrar: CSC CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 299
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: domainabuse@cscglobal.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8887802723
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: serverDeleteProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited www.icann.org...
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: WP Company LLC
Registrant Street: 1301 K Street, NW
Registrant City: Washington
Registrant State/Province: DC
Registrant Postal Code: 20071
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.2023347868
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.2023345075
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: admin.contact@digitalink.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Domain Administrator
Admin Organization: WP Company LLC
Admin Street: 1301 K Street, NW
Admin City: Washington
Admin State/Province: DC
Admin Postal Code: 20071
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.2023347868
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.2023345075
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: admin.contact@digitalink.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Administrative Technical Contact
Tech Organization: WP Company LLC
Tech Street: 1301 K Street, NW
Tech City: Washington
Tech State/Province: DC
Tech Postal Code: 20071
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.2023344530
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.2023345075
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: tech.contact@digitalink.com
Name Server: pdns3.ultradns.org
Name Server: ns-1840.awsdns-38.co.uk
Name Server: pdns115.ultradns.net
Name Server: pdns6.ultradns.co.uk
Name Server: ns-404.awsdns-50.com
Name Server: pdns5.ultradns.info
Name Server: pdns2.ultradns.net
Name Server: pdns4.ultradns.org
Name Server: ns-1027.awsdns-00.org
Name Server: ns-666.awsdns-19.net
Name Server: pdns1.ultradns.net


NON-Credible Source

(Please take note of the fact that we know nothing about them so vouching for their veracity is impossible and likely hiding something)



Domain Name: INTELLIHUB.COM
Registry Domain ID: 79311357_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: www.godaddy.com...
Update Date: 2015-09-19T19:03:22Z
Creation Date: 2001-11-04T19:10:28Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-11-04T18:10:28Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@godaddy.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited www.icann.org...
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited www.icann.org...
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: INTELLIHUB.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: INTELLIHUB.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: INTELLIHUB.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Name Server: NS43.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS44.DOMAINCONTROL.COM



Yea ok. godaddy sponsored website versus credible 140 year established news outlet....I'll take B sport.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Entire WHOIS records? Seriously?

Why not throw in the U.S. Congressional Record and the complete works of William Shakespeare while you're at it?


The article is based on an anonymous post to 4chan.

I think that's all anyone really needs to know.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: whywhynot

he COULD give evidence via video link


You're correct, and it would be admissible if the judge in the case, once filed, approved it. The usual problem with testimony via video or sworn affidavit is there is no way for opposing counsel to cross and that is why it is not usually allowed.


Why not film a YouTube testimony and release it to the world? That would get attention, if its credible. Strike while this iron is still hot.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: alphabetaone

Entire WHOIS records? Seriously?

Why not throw in the U.S. Congressional Record and the complete works of William Shakespeare while you're at it?


The article is based on an anonymous post to 4chan.

I think that's all anyone really needs to know.


Yes, seriously. When my point is to nip at the bud any future argument that they are a valid news-source pointing out my precise reason why they are not was needed, otherwise I would be called out for (rightfully) spreading falshoods about their reliability.

Also, as a representative of ATS, I take exception at your inference that I was using the same methods as applied to junk science to make a point. ICANN isn't exactly the same as Alex Jones when it comes to their reliability and professionalism. What "anyone needs to know" is based upon my discretion and my discretion only when it comes to MY post...you don't have the luxury of deciding that for me.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

When I speak to a topic, rather than the terms & conditions, I do so as myself. If that's not obvious, I'm happy to clarify. If you're trying to use my position on the staff as some sort of club to silence me, it just failed spectacularly.

My point is that the source of the claim is an anonymous post on 4chan. Intellihub isn't the source.

Using a logical fallacy (actually two: argumentum verbosium in support of argumentum ad hominem) to support an irrelevant point doesn't make it any more relevant. I don't think it's necessary, and frankly kind of spammy.

I'm not deciding anything for you, just pointing out the obvious. If you disagree and want to ignore it, you're perfectly entitled to do so, but as a fellow member of ATS, I'm perfectly entitled to point it out.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Majic

There's no point in trying logic. These leftist drones will always pull a Hillary Clinton and focus on the messenger rather than the message.

There are multiple outlets which have covered this. Though not one of them can convince someone who suffers from severe cognitive dissonance



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall

There's no point in trying logic.

I guess not, if you're going to bring something as illogical as ad hominem into the mix.

It's okay to use logic. I promise.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: whywhynot

he COULD give evidence via video link


You're correct, and it would be admissible if the judge in the case, once filed, approved it. The usual problem with testimony via video or sworn affidavit is there is no way for opposing counsel to cross and that is why it is not usually allowed.


Why not film a YouTube testimony and release it to the world? That would get attention, if its credible. Strike while this iron is still hot.


It would certainly get the word out however, just like the prior suggestion of video testimony it probably wouldn't be allowed as evidence in a court.

So I guess Dotcom's motivation and goals would matter.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Sorry duplicate post
edit on 1-6-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: drock905
a reply to: DJW001

That's the point - he supposedly has evidence that panda was Seth rich


How much longer do we have to wait until the truth comes out that KimDotCom are egregious liars?

The goalposts have been consistently moved for months regarding Seth Rich. It's pretty pathetic (imo) to see so many people leech off the back of a good, dead man trying to do the right thing so these websites can get clicks and revenue.

I'm still waiting. I've been waiting for a long time for "the smoking gun," to emerge.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join