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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


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?

So no need for investigators to interview Murray who claims to have personally met one of the leakers? No need to demand to look at the DNC servers?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


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?

So no need for investigators to interview Murray who claims to have personally met one of the leakers?

There would be no need if they already know where the leaks came from. Perhaps they already know Murray is talking out of his ass.

No need to demand to look at the DNC servers?

Not if they already have the info they need.

We simply do not know at this point.

That's why I think a 'wait and see' approach is most logical.

originally posted by: introvert



There would be no need if they already know where the leaks came from. Perhaps they already know Murray is talking out of his ass.


Not if they already have the info they need.

We simply do not know at this point.

That's why I think a 'wait and see' approach is most logical.

Sure, and why should have anyone looked into Iraq WMD's after the fact. The intel community told us they were there, so they were there.

I am glad you believe the deep state unquestionably despite the fact they will not show us any evidence.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

The media have come up with no evidence either. No leaks at all of any evidence, no presented evidence. Nothing.
That means at this time there is no evidence available to us.

In the absence of evidence, we must, if we are being honest, assume innocence. You don't 'wait and see' if someone is innocent. Unfortunately, there are too many, including the media, that are playing things a different way.

a reply to: Grambler

Sure, and why should have anyone looked into Iraq WMD's after the fact. The intel community told us they were there, so they were there.

That is a very complicated issue that is not comparable to this current one.

I am glad you believe the deep state unquestionably despite the fact they will not show us any evidence.

Deep state...blah blah. It's exhausting seeing so many people regurgitate propaganda terms.

Of course they can't show us any evidence. They are still investigating.

a reply to: introvert

Ok so then after the investigation is over, you will only believe what any side, including the investigators tell you if they show you evidence, correct?

originally posted by: Grambler
Sure, and why should have anyone looked into Iraq WMD's after the fact. The intel community told us they were there, so they were there.

True. And according to Naji Sabri (Iraqi Foreign Minister at the time) there were, only not biological or nuclear, but chemical.

In March 2006, NBC Nightly News reported that Naji Sabri was, indeed, the "source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle" of which former United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet had once boasted. In April 2006, former CIA officer Tyler Drumheller said in a 60 Minutes interview that a very senior Iraqi official had indeed given the CIA information with regards to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs. 60 Minutes verified that the source was Sabri.
For a short time before the 2003 invasion, the CIA maintained French-sponsored, third-party contact with Sabri. In exchange for $100,000, Sabri offered the CIA important details on some of Saddam's alleged weapons programs and assurances on the discontinuance of others. Sabri told the CIA that Saddam had stockpiled certain chemical weapons, specifically "poison gas". Sabri also told the CIA that Saddam did not have an active nuclear or biological weapons program. There were people in the CIA that knew this intelligence, but the CIA reports which continued up to Capitol Hill and the White House ignored this information from Sabri.[3] In the lead-up to the invasion, the CIA pressured Sabri to defect to the United States, but Sabri declined. Communication between Sabri and the CIA ceased thereafter.

Naji Sabri

Wait lemme guess....the boogeyman "Deep State" nomenclature of the month got to him pre-1990's and then again in 2003 >.>

a reply to: UKTruth

The media have come up with no evidence either. No leaks at all of any evidence, no presented evidence. Nothing. That means at this time there is no evidence available to us.

True. No evidence. That does not mean their reports have been inaccurate. We will have to wait and see.

In the absence of evidence, we must, if we are being honest, assume innocence. You don't 'wait and see' if someone is innocent. Unfortunately, there are too many, including the media, that are playing things a different way.

Assuming innocence until proven guilty should be the most logical approach. But the investigations are not even over and no "trials" have taken place. Many have already come to the conclusion that it's done and over with and all allegations are untrue.

That doesn't jive with how the processes work.

We have to wait and see.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

The media have come up with no evidence either. No leaks at all of any evidence, no presented evidence. Nothing. That means at this time there is no evidence available to us.

True. No evidence. That does not mean their reports have been inaccurate. We will have to wait and see.

In the absence of evidence, we must, if we are being honest, assume innocence. You don't 'wait and see' if someone is innocent. Unfortunately, there are too many, including the media, that are playing things a different way.

Assuming innocence until proven guilty should be the most logical approach. But the investigations are not even over and no "trials" have taken place. Many have already come to the conclusion that it's done and over with and all allegations are untrue.

That doesn't jive with how the processes work.

We have to wait and see.

We can not assume an outcome to the investigation, however we can do more than assume that no evidence has been presented to date - we can say it with surety. In such circumstances, Russia should be assumed as innocent of the alleged hack on the DNC. Any other position doesn't just not jive with how the process works. It is positively un-American.

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.

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 will point out to you why this makes no sense.

1. Seth Rich was killed before any Wikileaks were released.

2. Seth Rich was killed before any Russia collusion charges were made.

3. Seth Rich was not associated to the Wikileaks until Assange himself all but outed him as a wikileaks source on August 6th 2016 - Again before any Russian charges were popularized.

4. The story was not mentioned in the last 6 months by much of anyone - look at Google Trends despite a small number of people including Wikileaks being well aware of it, during the height of the Russian allegations. It only popped up again after the PI wheeler went public.

It's a convenient conspiracy that allows for deflection.

Convenient is the understatement of the century if that is what it is. A pissed DNC IT guy, huge Bernie supporter just happens to be killed in an area with no murders for the last 10 years a week or two before Wikileaks releases emails showing how the DNC screwed Bernie out of the nomination. Assange just happens to notice this murder, and decides he is a great scapegoat.

So either Assange is a genius, by figuring out he can pin the leaks on a recently murdered DNC staffer but at the same time Assange must be an idiot because he can't figure out to push this story as a distraction when it would be most useful, he won't even go far enough to formally name Rich as a source.

Logic will tell you, the far far more likely scenario is Rich was the DNC email leaker to wikileaks, and Assange is not happy his source was killed, and they seem to have got away with it. Not good for getting future leakers to come forward, but him outing him is not good for that either.

originally posted by: proximo

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.

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 will point out to you why this makes no sense.

1. Seth Rich was killed before any Wikileaks were released.

2. Seth Rich was killed before any Russia collusion charges were made.

3. Seth Rich was not associated to the Wikileaks until Assange himself all but outed him as a wikileaks source on August 6th 2016 - Again before any Russian charges were popularized.

4. The story was not mentioned in the last 6 months by much of anyone - look at Google Trends despite a small number of people including Wikileaks being well aware of it, during the height of the Russian allegations. It only popped up again after the PI wheeler went public.

It's a convenient conspiracy that allows for deflection.

Convenient is the understatement of the century if that is what it is. A pissed DNC IT guy, huge Bernie supporter just happens to be killed in an area with no murders for the last 10 years a week or two before Wikileaks releases emails showing how the DNC screwed Bernie out of the nomination. Assange just happens to notice this murder, and decides he is a great scapegoat.

So either Assange is a genius, by figuring out he can pin the leaks on a recently murdered DNC staffer but at the same time Assange must be an idiot because he can't figure out to push this story as a distraction when it would be most useful, he won't even go far enough to formally name Rich as a source.

Logic will tell you, the far far more likely scenario is Rich was the DNC email leaker to wikileaks, and Assange is not happy his source was killed, and they seem to have got away with it. Not good for getting future leakers to come forward, but him outing him is not good for that either.

Add to that his computer was taken. If someone had found out about the leaks and were trying to stop them, or ensure all evidence went missing that Rich provided the leaks, then seizing his computer would seem logical.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Quite damning if it was about the leak. But then that would be standard practice, IMO, for a group such as this one.

It wasn't about any of the three hacks (DNC, DCCC, Podesta), the email was from 2015 and was about firing a staffer because a number of them were openly blabbing to the media. Let me know if you need the email id, I've got it around here somewhere. It's all in the email chain, including a link to the WaPo article that set off the discussion (which was about PR strategy).

To me, this is a prime example of the state of most of the Seth Rich "conspiracy theory" discussion. WikiLeaks tweeted an image with the line highlighted, people read into it what they wanted and it quickly became a meme infecting the minds of far too many people.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Quite damning if it was about the leak. But then that would be standard practice, IMO, for a group such as this one.

It wasn't about any of the three hacks (DNC, DCCC, Podesta), the email was from 2015 and was about firing a staffer because a number of them were openly blabbing to the media. Let me know if you need the email id, I've got it around here somewhere. It's all in the email chain, including a link to the WaPo article that set off the discussion (which was about PR strategy).

To me, this is a prime example of the state of most of the Seth Rich "conspiracy theory" discussion. WikiLeaks tweeted an image with the line highlighted, people read into it what they wanted and it quickly became a meme infecting the minds of far too many people.

That email does not even being to sum up the news breaking today.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Quite damning if it was about the leak. But then that would be standard practice, IMO, for a group such as this one.

It wasn't about any of the three hacks (DNC, DCCC, Podesta), the email was from 2015 and was about firing a staffer because a number of them were openly blabbing to the media. Let me know if you need the email id, I've got it around here somewhere. It's all in the email chain, including a link to the WaPo article that set off the discussion (which was about PR strategy).

To me, this is a prime example of the state of most of the Seth Rich "conspiracy theory" discussion. WikiLeaks tweeted an image with the line highlighted, people read into it what they wanted and it quickly became a meme infecting the minds of far too many people.

I think it would be in the best interest of the truth if you did provide it.. That way more people can see it and be enlightened.
Thank you.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Quite damning if it was about the leak. But then that would be standard practice, IMO, for a group such as this one.

It wasn't about any of the three hacks (DNC, DCCC, Podesta), the email was from 2015 and was about firing a staffer because a number of them were openly blabbing to the media. Let me know if you need the email id, I've got it around here somewhere. It's all in the email chain, including a link to the WaPo article that set off the discussion (which was about PR strategy).

To me, this is a prime example of the state of most of the Seth Rich "conspiracy theory" discussion. WikiLeaks tweeted an image with the line highlighted, people read into it what they wanted and it quickly became a meme infecting the minds of far too many people.

You are right, that Podesta email has absolutely nothing to do with Seth Rich. Some people want to pin this on Podesta because of the pizzagate stuff, others want to blame it on Hillary due to the long list of Clinton suspicious deaths. Most likely neither are involved.

But I think the main reason this Podesta email is everywhere is it is being pushed by democrat operatives (David Brock and co.) as a way to invalidate the Seth Rich evidence, just like Comet Ping Pong was pushed, to get people to ignore all the weird code words, partying with kids in the hot tub, satanic ritual attendance, and a bunch of other weird stuff in the Podesta emails. It is a tactic that seems to work far to well on someone who is just casually knowledgeable, or someone who wants to be convinced there is nothing to the story.

I think you are in the later category, or you are one of the ones intentionally pushing this false Podesta email tie in, because your job is to invalidate the Seth Rich story altogether.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm spreading propaganda? Lmao. You're all pronouncements without meaning and insubstantial declarations you try to pass off as reasoned argument. You're regurgitating memes matter-of-factly to the high fives of fools — and you're wrong.

Wheeler did in fact walk his story back. Let's start with what Fox 5 put out.

Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation

We want to update you on a story you first saw on FOX 5 DC. We want to make an important clarification on claims that were made by Rod Wheeler, the private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, whose services are being paid for by a third party.

What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.

In the past 48 hours, Rod Wheeler has told other media outlets he did not get his information from FBI sources, contradicting what he told us on Monday.

Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails.

That should be a giant red flag if you're paying any attention at all. That comes directly from Fox 5 DC, the original source and is clearly not a "left wing lie" to discredit the story. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Let's read the initial statements from Mr. Wheeler.

FOX 5 DC: “You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information...”

WHEELER: "For sure..."

FOX 5 DC: “...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?"

WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."

and also:

The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” Wheeler said Monday night. “They haven't been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”

On Tuesday, he told Newsweek:

In a message to Newsweek on Tuesday, Wheeler said the Fox News report was misleading and that his information was secondhand from that “federal investigator.” “I’ve never, ever seen Seth Rich’s computer, nor have I talked with the federal investigator,” he wrote in a message. “I think it is likely that there is information on the computer that can assist us in the investigation,” he said, “but short of that, I have nothing firsthand.” He added, “I’m just going off of what the federal investigator says.”

That's version #2. Are you ready for version #3? Same day to CNN:

But Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death.

Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN.

Asked about a quote attributed to him in the Fox News story in which he said his "investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," Wheeler said he was referring to information that had already been reported in the media.

A Fox News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

I don't suppose that even though I have you dead to rights, you'll summon the character to admit that you were wrong.

a reply to: UKTruth

We can not assume an outcome to the investigation, however we can do more than assume that no evidence has been presented to date - we can say it with surety. In such circumstances, Russia should be assumed as innocent of the alleged hack on the DNC. Any other position doesn't just not jive with how the process works. It is positively un-American.

There are no assumptions of any sort in these investigative processes, innocent or guilty. There is only following the facts.

Guilt or innocence and the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise only applies in the courts.

a reply to: proximo

Yes, I know the conspiratorial side of the issue. We have to wait for facts to be presented before we come to any cnclusion.

If you wish to go with the conspiracy aspect, that's fine.

I'm fine with waiting it out before I invest too much in to this.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

We can not assume an outcome to the investigation, however we can do more than assume that no evidence has been presented to date - we can say it with surety. In such circumstances, Russia should be assumed as innocent of the alleged hack on the DNC. Any other position doesn't just not jive with how the process works. It is positively un-American.

There are no assumptions of any sort in these investigative processes, innocent or guilty. There is only following the facts.

Guilt or innocence and the assumption of innocence until proven otherwise only applies in the courts.

You say this but no its not true. The investigation is being influenced by the media coverage. Hence the special investigator, demands for sessions and nunes to be recused, etc.

In addition, the media's portrayal of Trump as guilty is affecting the effectiveness of his administration.

It great that you are willing to wait for evidence, but it is clear that the mediaa and Trumps opponents are not willing to wait, and they are acting as if he is guilty.

a reply to: Grambler

You say this but no its not true. The investigation is being influenced by the media coverage. Hence the special investigator, demands for sessions and nunes to be recused, etc.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. I said nothing about what is influencing the investigation.

In addition, the media's portrayal of Trump as guilty is affecting the effectiveness of his administration.

As far as I can tell, the media is simply reporting the news. I have not seen one single media outlet say that Trump is guilty of anything, only speculation on current events.

If the media reporting is affecting Trump's administration, perhaps Trump needs to turn off the TV.

It great that you are willing to wait for evidence, but it is clear that the mediaa and Trumps opponents are not willing to wait, and they are acting as if he is guilty.

And the opposite is true as well. Trump supporters are acting as if there is nothing to all of this and are unwilling to wait and see.