Clintons & Mueller implicated in newly released emails of hiring hit man on Seth Rich

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Byrd

The documents released don't seem to be dealing with hypotheticals 👁️

If you recall, certain ATS Members and CNN/MSNBC pundits, referred to Hillary Clinton's Wiki-leaked e-mails as hypothetical figments of someone's conspiracy theory.

a reply to: xuenchen
The first one in that article leads in with "we think" in the subject. If that isn't hypothetical, what is?

Point out the ones that have a little meat to them.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Byrd

Nothingburgers don't get classified and redacted like these are 😎🚬

This is actually an excellent point!

The words themselves in the cited emails of the OP don't really reveal any real smoking gun, BUT when you add in that "little" detail they suddenly become orders of magnitude more relevant!!

To Classify, Redact, and Declassify a document requires hundreds of people, so someone clearly thinks they're important!

HOWEVER...None of the documents in the article look like any classified documents I've ever seen. The closest one appears to be the 3rd document in the article, but even it plainly states it wasn't a classified document to begin with, so whoever redacted it did so on their own, outside of the official classification/declassification process. This makes me question their authenticity.

Normally, what you would see is an original document which had no classification status. This document would then be stamped as "Classified" (and it would list the classification type), then the 'Classified' status would be marked out, and there would be some hand written initials for who approved this. The document would also be marked up for redaction (lines through sentences and names). Then the blackout redactions would be done to the marked up copy, and the document would be stamped "Declassified" and there would be hand written initials next to this stamp also indicating who approved this changed status. Additionally, there are often also hand written notes in the margins, some redacted, calling some other reviewer's attention to a selected passage.

Typically, you would never see an officially redacted document without all these marks...unless the person or entity doing the redaction was just doing it because they felt like it, or didn't feel the information was specifically relevant to a FOIA request (which is a dare of sorts, forcing the requestor to "prove" why the redacted sections are, in fact, relevant to the FOIA request).

Remember, classified documents don't get declassified and released "just because". They are almost always preceded by a FOIA request of some type, though some can be very broad.

ETA - Note: Probably 90% of all declassified documents are a result of legal "Discovery" proceedings. Though there are millions of casual interest FOIA requests every year, most of these are denied outright due to national security, or they are refused based on a previous release from a different matter and the referenced matter is provided as part of the response.

One other thought.

There's not really any context to the email documents in the GP article. In other words, we don't really know where they came from, and as such we don't know if these emails were a result of some legal case against some internet fraudster trying to look important, or some actual emails in the official Seth Rich files. Yes, the article says they are from the Rich files, but they don't explain how they determined this so it's really just hearsay.

I'm not defending anyone here, just pointing out some of the ways documents like these can be "spun" to make them appear to be something other than what they really are for convenience (of say, an explosive "news" piece).

One way to validate some of this would be to go back and determine if some of the email addresses which aren't redacted are, in fact, authentic registered email addresses, AND that they are, in fact, registered to the party they appear to be. Even this wouldn't be 100% conclusive proof because, just because an email is sent to someone doesn't mean that person was necessarily complicit with whatever the content of the email was. Now, if they are the originator, then that's a different matter altogether, but just being a recipient doesn't automatically incriminate someone. They might have some explaining to do, but they are not necessarily guilty just from having received an email. The simple fact that some of the addresses were left unredacted is a pretty good indicator that they may not be real and/or are irrelevant.

It still all boils down to thousands of emails that the FBI denied the existence of up until just recently.

We are being told it is all a big nothingburger.

There is something to hide, or the FBI wouldn’t have denied the existence of the materials.

If it is a nothingburger, why is so much of it redacted?

Not only is it heavily redacted, but a judge denied requests to view the material en camera. This stuff is so ‘nothing’ that you can’t even look at it in a closed room.

The thing that really bothers me is the excuse of national security. IF people in the government which are elected by the people and then many time appointed by the people we elect are giving orders to kill people or do things against the country it is my belief it is a huge national security issue that we don’t know or not allowed to know this.

The entire system is set up so these scumbags can protect themselves and others by using the national security card and it’s absolute BS. All this redacted information is garbage just release it. I am confident some of these bad operators have already been taken care of but for the people that don’t believe or don’t realize how corrupt the gov is it would help wake them up.

a reply to: Charliebrowndog

Well, the principle itself is sound, it's just when politicians and officials illegally use it to hide behind as a shield to cover their asses where it becomes an issue.

For example, you wouldn't want the general public to know about intelligence the government has in apprehending some bad guys, because then the bad guys would know it too. There's a balance.

The problem as I see it is, the 'national security' shield gets used far more often for nefarious reasons than it does for credible reasons.

Does anyone know if these documents were ordered released by a Court Order like many others were ? 😎

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sadly, all of this was known while Donald Trump was President.

The Republican-led Congress were briefed and did nothing.

President Trump asked his Attorney General to Declassify.

Attorney General Barr Did Nothing.

FBI Director Wray Did Nothing.

Is it any wonder Nancy Pelosi and Democrats fear/feel a REAL Insurrection is brewing?

Americans are "patient", but will only take so much abuse from the people we pay to run OUR country.

I'm with everyone that's been frustrated with the nothing happening in a sense. But it has exposed the critters when it's in their power to do something and they haven't/didn't (do their jobs). It has to be done 'by the people'.

a reply to: daskakik

p.10 has one from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page. Now what would THEY be doing in Aug 2016 hmmmmm? Then keep reading

👁️🚬👁️

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen
The first one in that article leads in with "we think" in the subject. If that isn't hypothetical, what is?

Point out the ones that have a little meat to them.

What is so hypothetical about "we think" ? 🦃🐡

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Byrd

The documents released don't seem to be dealing with hypotheticals 👁️

"Their acolytes don't hunt" seems to be a recurring theme, not just with this, but with every single scandal.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What is so hypothetical about "we think" ?

It shows it is someone's hypothesis, what "they think".

As for Strzok/Page, they could have been doing a bunch of things in august and, IIRC, it had to do with spying on the Trump campaign and not Seth. So, in regards to the topic of article in the OP, where is the beef?

originally posted by: butcherguy
It still all boils down to thousands of emails that the FBI denied the existence of up until just recently.

We are being told it is all a big nothingburger.

There is something to hide, or the FBI wouldn’t have denied the existence of the materials.

If it is a nothingburger, why is so much of it redacted?

Not only is it heavily redacted, but a judge denied requests to view the material en camera. This stuff is so ‘nothing’ that you can’t even look at it in a closed room.

This is what interested me the most!

They denied having any documents to actually release on the entire Seth Rich incident...for years!

Yet, many of the emails and documents released clearly show dates that prove otherwise.

It a nothing burger to anyone that doesn’t want to acknowledge that something is very very off about the whole situation.

Why would the FBLie (keeping that typo) about not having an open case when they released documents of interviews done in regards to said case🤷‍♀️

Not going to buy the whole “ for national security “ crap as an excuse either.

Especially if he was truly just a simple employee of the DNC that got mugged without anything actually being stolen from him.

Just doesn’t make logical sense.

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric

originally posted by: butcherguy
It still all boils down to thousands of emails that the FBI denied the existence of up until just recently.

We are being told it is all a big nothingburger.

There is something to hide, or the FBI wouldn’t have denied the existence of the materials.

If it is a nothingburger, why is so much of it redacted?

Not only is it heavily redacted, but a judge denied requests to view the material en camera. This stuff is so ‘nothing’ that you can’t even look at it in a closed room.

This is what interested me the most!

They denied having any documents to actually release on the entire Seth Rich incident...for years!

ADD to that...some emails shown in these FBI documents were addressed to the same members of Mueller's SC team who all (at the same time) claimed they were 'accidently' deleted...after it was requested they be turned over.

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
This is what interested me the most!

They denied having any documents to actually release on the entire Seth Rich incident...for years!

Maybe you should have made the thread about that instead of going with the spin the gateway pundit gave the situation in that article.

Just an idea.

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
On Page 23 of 137 - I’ve never had luck getting images to upload here but if anyone wants to verify it’s there.

August 31,2016 - Gucciffer2 released documents on his personal blog purported to be Posted from the laptop of Nancy Pelosi.

What????

Is this old news I’ve just never heard of before?


In what way are you having trouble uploading pics on here? Maybe i can be of help ?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
This is what interested me the most!

They denied having any documents to actually release on the entire Seth Rich incident...for years!

Maybe you should have made the thread about that instead of going with the spin the gateway pundit gave the situation in that article.

Just an idea.

Great advice thanks!

Perhaps you should start a thread on it since you haven’t tried one yet👍

Might see a bit of a bonu$ 🤷‍♀️

Have a great weekend!

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric
No threads is a personal thing for me.

Besides, that is where you have goalpost shifted this one, so why the need for another one?

a reply to: daskakik

Well, bless your heart🙂 to each their own.

It was your suggestion after all...just thought You might want to take the opportunity to give an alternative perspective to a topic you commented on, disagreed with and gave advice on.

I totally understand though👍