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

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah but if they were professional killers they would maybe make it look like a robbery.

Then again if they wanted to raise suspicion over his death then they wouldn't make it look like a robbery.


With that Assange might actually be in cahoots with the murder to throw suspicion towards someone else with his reward

a reply to: Grambler

Wheeler is irrelevant. As far as I know, Fox is still claiming that an FBI agent told them that Rich had sent those emails.

Well the problem here is that pretty much everyone is discounting the FBI investigation as even existing.

Newsweek - FBI Not Probing DNC Staffer Seth Rich’s Murder, Despite WikiLeaks Claim

But Newsweek has learned that the FBI is not involved in the Rich case, despite the claims that it is. And speaking with Newsweek, Wheeler, the private investigator, seemed to walk back his comments.

But on Wednesday, Wheeler tells Newsweek he is not surprised to hear that the FBI is not involved in the case, and he says the Washington police department had told him the same thing. “I’ve been told that a couple of times, that they’re not involved,” he says. The police referred inquiries about FBI involvement to the FBI.

Speaking with Newsweek on Wednesday, Braud Bauman, the family’s representative, says he also has knowledge that the FBI is not investigating Rich’s murder. “We have said all along that the fundamental facts that underline yesterday’s story were false, including the FBI’s investigation, which does not exist, and their role in ever having, seeing or otherwise possessing computer equipment or other equipment that belonged to Seth Rich, either in a personal or professional capacity,” he says.

Washington Examiner - Family of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich denies report he sent WikiLeaks emails

A former law enforcement officer with firsthand knowledge of the investigation on Monday said Wheeler's claim about Rich's laptop was incorrect because the device had been searched and yielded no emails related to WikiLeaks. In addition, the FBI never looked over the evidence.

ABC News - DNC Staffer’s Murder Draws Fresh Conspiracy Theories

Meanwhile, a current FBI official and a former one completely discount the Fox News claim that an FBI analysis of a computer belonging to Rich contained thousands of e-mails to and from WikiLeaks.

Local police in Washington, D.C., never even gave the FBI Rich's laptop to analyze after his murder, according to the current FBI official.

And a former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop said the claim was incorrect. "It never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it," the person said.

I'm pretty sure there was another source that was independently claiming that there was no FBI investigation nor had there been one. So we've got Newsweek's sources, ABC News's sources, the Rich Family, etc vs one article from Fox that was apparently shared with Wheeler so that he could lie and make the claims he did to Fox 5 and later to Hannity?

Not looking good for Fox and the icing on the cake is their shill is even saying "he heard" the FBI wasn't involved.

And all of that is irrelevant anyways to this point. Where is the computer?

Again, the family spokesman could have easily put this to bed by saying "And not agency ever took Seths computer, its righte here".

Funny that you should say that, because he did:

The Daily Beast - The Big-Money PR War Over Seth Rich’s Death

“We know where Seth’s personal computer is. We know where his DNC computer is. Neither [Rod Wheeler] nor anybody else has it,” Brad Bauman, who is representing the Rich family, told The Daily Beast.

So what's that leave us with? We should trust a single Fox News account that names two dead people who can't speak for themselves and has an alleged anonymous FBI source talking about an investigation that everyone else says doesn't exist? Despite all the mishandling of this by Fox at both the affiliate and national news levels?

You want to see a conspiracy here involving Seth Rich's murder? A Fox News contributor with a sketchy past was apparently primed with information from an as yet unpublished story so that he could lie on a Fox news affiliate. Then Fox News fired off the story that appeared to "corroborate" his claims and he made an appearance on Hannity to lie some more.

Oh and let's not forget the guy who paid brought Wheeler in and paid him is another Fox contributor who at first lied and denied any involvement.

You're telling me there wasn't some coordination? Fox News doesn't have a problem here?

EDIT:

Also from the DB article:

The Metropolitan Police told The Washington Post that “there is nothing that we can find that any of [Wheeler’s story] is accurate” on Tuesday.

I haven't read the WaPo article (pay wall) but I would assume that "nothing is accurate" includes the FBI investigation/computer scanning/etc.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

That's quite a lot. I'll try to answer eveything. You start by claiming that I'm trying to corner you into proving the DNC killed Seth Rich but then go on to say this:

Taking Rich out of it for a moment, we have Craig Murray saying it was an insider who leaked, not Russsia. Why would he lie? Is he too a Russian operative?

Is that the only reason people lie? People lie for all sorts of reasons. If he's lying, it could be out of a sense of loyalty to Assange or comradery with WL. It could be to keep his name in the media. It could be that he's not lying but that he doesn't know the ultimate source.

You're throwing a lot of essentially disconncted stuff against the wall to see what will stick. Let me remind you of statement by Assange that has been taken by many as "proof" that Seth Rich was the source:

Heavy - Did Julian Assange Hint that Seth Rich Was the Source of the Leaks?

"What’s going on? … Number one, they don’t have the evidence that WikiLeaks is involved in that way. Now why am I confident about that? Well because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications… And that’s me.”

That would also imply that Craig Murray doesn't know.

Craig Murray claimed to have met "the leaker" in in an interview with The Guardian:

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

Notice that he said "they are" and not "they were" which would indicate the person is still alive.

It's worth noting that Craig Murray endorsed the veracity of this article
on his blog. He also said this to Sputnik:

"The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow."

That also seems at odds with what Assange said. Murray further claimed to Daily Mail:

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Where would Craig Murray have ever met Seth Rich? He was dead months before this September visit. Is there any evidence of Seth Rich leaving the country? No. Murray himself doesn't appear to have been in the US at any point in 2016 and in fact, almost didn't make it in for the September award's ceremony as he was initially denied entry in early September.

If anything, he could only be referring to the Podesta emails but he doesn't make that clear. Would the intermediary for the Podesta emails that he claims to have met in the woods have known the identity of the source of the DNC emails?

People want to cherry pick the bits that fit their narrative and run with those but leave out everything that contradicts it. His statements taken together hardly point to Seth Rich. This just seems like more it's-not-Russia-so-therefore-it's-Seth-Rich wanton speculation that isn't nearly what it's cracked up to be.

There is no 'disconnected' stuff. Craig Murray has stated clearly how wikileaks got the emails and went into detail about the time and the place. You must think he is lying, but even if you do, it is inexplicable how the investigation has not included him and that no reporter has even followed up with him.

There is far more in that piece of information to raise suspicions of collusion and not between Trump and Russia, rather the media and those pushing a Russia story with not a shred of evidence.

As for the FBI, they do not need to be investigating for an FBI whistle blower to have knowledge of the case. Just because there is no official investigation does not mean they completely ignored it and saw nothing on the case.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Is that the only reason people lie? People lie for all sorts of reasons. If he's lying, it could be out of a sense of loyalty to Assange or comradery with WL. It could be to keep his name in the media. It could be that he's not lying but that he doesn't know the ultimate source.

No but that seems to be the most commomn accusation at this point. Ok so the ghuy could be lying for a ton of reasons, but nothing specifically you can point to.

Yet you believe the deep state narrative with zero proof, despite their being plenty of motivation for them to lie (remember Schumer saying they would get Trump).

You're throwing a lot of essentially disconncted stuff against the wall to see what will stick. Let me remind you of statement by Assange that has been taken by many as "proof" that Seth Rich was the source:

So only Assange no all of the info about his entire organization. This doesn't prove that someone could have shown proof to Murray that they leaked to Wikileaks.

Craig Murray claimed to have met "the leaker" in

Notice that he said "they are" and not "they were" which would indicate the person is still alive.

It's worth noting that Craig Murray endorsed the veracity of this article


That also seems at odds with what Assange said. Murray further claimed to the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Where would Craig Murray have ever met Seth Rich? He was dead months before this September visit. Is there any evidence of Seth Rich leaving the country? No. Murray himself doesn't appear to have been in the US at any point in 2016 and in fact, almost didn't make it in for the September award's ceremony as he was initially denied entry in early September.

If anything, he could only be referring to the Podesta emails but he doesn't make that clear. Would the intermediary for the Podesta emails that he claims to have met in the woods have known the identity of the source of the DNC emails?

People want to cherry pick the bits that fit their narrative and run with those but leave out everything that contradicts it. His statements taken together hardly point to Seth Rich. This just seems like more it's-not-Russia-so-therefore-it's-Seth-Rich wanton speculation that isn't nearly what it's cracked up to be.


It says in the article from the OP that Murray said there were two differently leakers, on for the DNC emails, and one for the podesta.

“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. ….

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger…Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

“The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,” Murray said. “In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information…

Scott Horton then asked, “Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?”

“I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,” Murray responded. “In both cases they are leaks by Americans.”

www.unz.com...

He doesn't claim to necessarily met the original leaker, iyt may have been a representative. He also says there were multiple leakers, and he doesn't mention which one his meeting was about. Clearly he wasn't meeting Rich in September who was already dead. This doesn't prove Seth wasn't a leaker.

And as to your point that it not russia so its rich, you havethat bakckwards. Your point is, its not rich so it must be russia.

The point is there is a lot of evidence to show it may have been a leaker, but the DNC wouldn't allow access to their server, and the feds of police "lost" Rich's computer. Murray also claims to have knowledge, but hasn't been interviewed by any establishment press or investigators. Why would they ignore this possible evidence?

And from the intelligence services own mouth, it appears the smoking gun proof they gave out was not only not that, but was flawed and set up in an unusual way to ensure a consensus that was decided on before hand.

The point is it doesn't matter if it was Rich, an NSA insider, etc. People suggesting this may be the case are not demanding the impeachment of someone or forcing investigations or running 24/7 stories based on anonymous sources to claim the President committed treason, or trying to start a war with Russia.

I have never contended to know the truth. I want to see proof before deciding on anything, and I haven't But I see plenty of people condemning Trump with absolutely no proof shown to them.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yeah but if they were professional killers they would maybe make it look like a robbery.

Then again if they wanted to raise suspicion over his death then they wouldn't make it look like a robbery.


With that Assange might actually be in cahoots with the murder to throw suspicion towards someone else with his reward

Are you actually serious? Assange might be in cahoots with the murder?

First off nobody associated Seth Rich with the leaks until Assange himself did it AFTER he was murdered. So he had Seth Rich murdered, then outed himself ????

What in the hell does Assange need to have someone killed and framed for? Really I want to hear your deranged thinking.

Are you Louise Mensch or something, or just a big fan?

a reply to: theantediluvian
In response to your post about Wheeler.

Fox is still claiming the an FBI insider told them of this. The OP article author is claiming shame on other media for discounting this on face because its an anonymous source.

By your interpretation, when McMaster came out and said all of the runors about Trump spreading classisifed info was untrue or exaggerated, all of those outlets should have said "OK an official who was there said it wasn't true, so end of story". But no, they said McMaster was lying. So why the double standard for them.

And again, why did the police confiscate Rich's computer for a burglary gone wrong. If you get mugged today on the street, will your computer be taken in by police?

yet your articles suggest thats what happened.

As far as Fox's credibility, they have next to none as far as I am concerned. That is irrelevant to the majority of the article from the OP. You seem to be the one who trusts anonymous sources from the MSM quite frequently. The author from the OP merely said this.

Okay, so where’s the computer? Who’s got Rich’s computer? Let’s do the forensic work and get on with it.

But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren’t interested in such matters because it doesn’t fit with their political agenda. They’d rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn’t square with their goofy Russia hacking story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline, are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.

www.unz.com...

He is not saying Fox is credible or was right, he is saying its funny that the rest of the MSM had no interests in Rich's death but as soon as a story comes out that doesn't jive with their fabricated narrative they pounce to discredit it.

All of that is true.

The wheeler fox story does nothing to discredit the entire rest of this article, including

Charles Murray claims and no one having interest in talking to a witness
The many problems with the ICA
The constant attack by the deep state of Trump and the Dems cozying up to it

and many more.

a reply to: proximo

IF he was in cahoots with Russia they could have done that to throw suspicion towards the security services and created all this right-wing noise to hurl at Hillary while they themselves are the point of the leaks.


You see the Russians are using the right-wing crazies for their own purposes, I wouldn't blame them.

This is all unfortunate that the right-wing crazies have basically forever besmirched the conspiracy theory industry( probably forever) when lunatics and liars like Alex Jones and Fox news start using conspiracy theories as a way to defend a damn fool like Donald Trump.

The question then is who or what is the real conspiracy?

en.wikipedia.org...

On May 15, 2017, Fox 5 DC reported the uncorroborated and later largely retracted[36] claims by Rod Wheeler, a Fox News contributor and former homicide detective, that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up;[37][36] claims which were never independently verified by Fox.[38] The next day, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich.[38][39][36][40][41][13][42] In reporting these claims, the Fox News report re-ignited conspiracy theories about the killing.[35][38][36][7][43] According to NPR, within a day of the original Fox report, "Google searches for Rich had overtaken searches for James Comey, even amid continuous news about the former FBI director's conversations with Trump."[44] The Washington Post noted that Fox News chose to lead with this story at a time when most other media outlets were covering allegations that president Trump leaked intelligence to Russian officials.[45]

originally posted by: Willtell
This is all unfortunate that the right-wing crazies have basically forever besmirched the conspiracy theory industry( probably forever) when lunatics and liars like Alex Jones and Fox news start using conspiracy theories as a way to defend a damn fool like Donald Trump.

The question then is who or what is the real conspiracy?

en.wikipedia.org...

On May 15, 2017, Fox 5 DC reported the uncorroborated and later largely retracted[36] claims by Rod Wheeler, a Fox News contributor and former homicide detective, that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up;[37][36] claims which were never independently verified by Fox.[38] The next day, Fox News published a lead story on its website and provided extensive coverage on its cable news channel about what it said were Wheeler's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich.[38][39][36][40][41][13][42] In reporting these claims, the Fox News report re-ignited conspiracy theories about the killing.[35][38][36][7][43] According to NPR, within a day of the original Fox report, "Google searches for Rich had overtaken searches for James Comey, even amid continuous news about the former FBI director's conversations with Trump."[44] The Washington Post noted that Fox News chose to lead with this story at a time when most other media outlets were covering allegations that president Trump leaked intelligence to Russian officials.[45]

The left wing media's version of 'largely retracted' means that Wheeler dd not see the computer or emails, but was told about them by a source. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

If that is their standard then they should immediately "largely retract" their entire operations.

In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, this Seth Rich conspiracy is playing as a distraction from the potential likelihood that Russia did play a role in the hacking of the DNC/Wikileaks.

It's a convenient conspiracy that allows for deflection.

Those that say there is no evidence Russia had anything to do with this is putting the cart before the horse. There are investigations taking place and of course we would not have access to any information/evidence pertaining to that investigation.

All we can do is wait and see what comes of this. To dismiss the Russia aspect and substitute the Seth Rich solution at this point is disingenuous.

So if one claims the Hillary secret team killed Rich or some deep state hit squad to stop the leaks or get revenge or that they knew he was the leaker so they killed him for Hillary’s sake then the idea that the Russians and Assange did it to throw attention to the killing away from them makes just as much sense since Assange was the one who originally brought suspicion on the murder in that he suggested he was his leaker.


Assange must learn this simple lesson


If you lie down with dogs you will come up with fleas!

originally posted by: introvert
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, this Seth Rich conspiracy is playing as a distraction from the potential likelihood that Russia did play a role in the hacking of the DNC/Wikileaks.

It's a convenient conspiracy that allows for deflection.

Those that say there is no evidence Russia had anything to do with this is putting the cart before the horse. There are investigations taking place and of course we would not have access to any information/evidence pertaining to that investigation.

All we can do is wait and see what comes of this. To dismiss the Russia aspect and substitute the Seth Rich solution at this point is disingenuous.

Those that say there is no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC are speaking the truth. That is not to say that something won't turn up, but right now, no evidence. Unless speculation on what we don't know counts as evidence? I saw a crazy interview by Cuomo on CNN, where is actually challenges someone to prove there is no evidence. Crazy times.

originally posted by: introvert
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, this Seth Rich conspiracy is playing as a distraction from the potential likelihood that Russia did play a role in the hacking of the DNC/Wikileaks.

It's a convenient conspiracy that allows for deflection.

Those that say there is no evidence Russia had anything to do with this is putting the cart before the horse. There are investigations taking place and of course we would not have access to any information/evidence pertaining to that investigation.

All we can do is wait and see what comes of this. To dismiss the Russia aspect and substitute the Seth Rich solution at this point is disingenuous.

I agree with this. But similarly, do assume it was Russia and ignore evidence iot could have been a leakers is also dangerous.

Ask yourself, which side seems to have the bigger effect on the whole investigation aspect?

So while you are right to criticize ATSers and others for discounting the possibility it was Russia, it seems far more necessary to criticize the media, the establishment and the investigators for willfully ignoring evidence that does not fit their predetermined narrative.

originally posted by: Willtell

If you lie down with dogs you will come up with fleas!

You may need a new collar then.

Can somebody just tell me why WikiLeaks would put out a reward for Seth's killer?

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Can somebody just tell me why WikiLeaks would put out a reward for Seth's killer?

Someone above seems to think it is a reward for catching Assange.
Perhaps he had a moment of clarity and knew he had to incriminate himself, lol.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: proximo

IF he was in cahoots with Russia they could have done that to throw suspicion towards the security services and created all this right-wing noise to hurl at Hillary while they themselves are the point of the leaks.


You see the Russians are using the right-wing crazies for their own purposes, I wouldn't blame them.

Ok, so he had Seth Rich killed before any Russia allegations, and before any emails were released by Wikileaks, because he thought his Russian ties might be made public and he needed a fall guy in case it did huh?

If this really makes sense to you, you need help.

If he was really so worried he would be tied to Russia, why release anything in the first place - why not get the emails published by someone else, or some other website not know to be associated with himself. That would be a heck of lot easier to do then kill someone just in case Russian allegations were made later.

If this was the grand Russian plan, why has the Seth Rich story been so quiet for the last 6 months till wheeler came out last week? Pretty elaborate scheme and murder to not even use it at the height of Russian tool arguments being used against them don't cha think?

Also - it obviously didn't work, millions of dummies like yourself still claim wikileaks is a tool of Russia with ZERO evidence, just millions of repeated baseless accusations.

a reply to: UKTruth

Those that say there is no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC are speaking the truth.

Has anyone that has access to the investigations came out and said there is no evidence? If not, anyone else saying there is no evidence would not be in a position to know.

Is the media being informed by those 'in the know'? They would have much better sources than we would.

That is not to say that something won;t turn up, but right now, no evidence.

Plenty of evidence may have already turned up and that is why the IC said what they have said. We simply do not know.

So to say there is or isn't any real evidence, without having a proper source privy to what the investigations have found so far, is disingenuous.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree with this. But similarly, do assume it was Russia and ignore evidence iot could have been a leakers is also dangerous.

I assume nothing and I have yet to see any real evidence it was Russia or Seth Rich. I'll gladly wait until this all unfolds.

Ask yourself, which side seems to have the bigger effect on the whole investigation aspect?

Why would I ask myself that? It's irrelevant. The FBI is doing what they do best and I see no reason to delve deep in to conspiracy.

So while you are right to criticize ATSers and others for discounting the possibility it was Russia, it seems far more necessary to criticize the media, the establishment and the investigators for willfully ignoring evidence that does not fit their predetermined narrative.

What evidence? Ever thought that there is nothing to this Seth Rich aspect to warrant a second look, higher up the investigative food chain, that is?

a reply to: UKTruth

Reverse psychology by bringing awareness to something nobody was aware of to deflect the blame elsewhere?

Brilliant, this Assange guy.