The Shit Is About To Hit The Fan

[jp55665566]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...48/seth-rich-conspiracy-theory-mueller-report

As made clear multiple times over the last three years by journalists and investigators, even by some of Trump’s closest confidantes, the 44,000 leaked DNC emails made public 12 days after Rich’s murder were stolen by hackers associated with Russian intelligence outfits. And as the Mueller report details, these hacks resulted in DNC emails and documents being shared widely. WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange in 2006, published both stolen DNC emails and the results of a later hack of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails in 2016.

But Rich’s murder became a focal point for conspiracy theorists, egged on by Assange himself, who, as Mueller’s report details, repeatedly and falsely implied that Rich had been the source of the DNC emails. Assange even told then-Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher that he had “physical proof” that the hack was an “inside job.” The implication was that the leaks were from Rich, who was then, according to conspiracy theorists like Kim Dotcom, murdered because of them.

On page 48 of the Mueller report, the special counsel’s office is clear about what really happened. The evidence showed that Wikileaks got the DNC emails and Podesta’s internal documents from Russian hackers, but WikiLeaks and Assange repeatedly lied on national television and implied Rich was involved:

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder ofDNC staffer Seth Rich.” Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter ... that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”

So, I wonder who murdered Seth Rich? We'll probably never know. We should probably just forget about it... Isn't it true that there is document evidence of contact, between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, prior to his murder? Also, wasn't it generally known, at the DNC, that Seth Rich was disgruntled about apparent purposeful distortions in the data around Bernie Sanders. It's just curious. I wonder what John Podesta was referring to, when on a conference call with Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC, he spoke about "making an example"(of someone)? RIP Seth, we won't rest 'till your killers are "brought to justice"

 

[phrodeau]

So, I wonder who murdered Seth Rich? We'll probably never know. We should probably just forget about it... Isn't it true that there is document evidence of contact, between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks, prior to his murder? It's just curious. I wonder what John Podesta was referring to when he spoke about "making an example"(of someone)? RIP Seth, we won't rest 'till your killers are "brought to justice"

Seth Rich was shot by some nut who never should have had access to a gun. Politicize it all you want, but the gun culture of the US takes part of the blame.

 

[jp55665566]

One thing we know is that DNC system wasn't hacked from the outside. A forensic investigation of event logs has revealed the download speeds were much faster than the Internet transfer rates available. The findings prove the job was an inside job where the info was downloaded onto a thumb drive or external hard drive. Rich was an employee...

The "event logs" would be document evidence I trust. We should have a refocused investigation of this untimely, pivotal and perplexing murder. SETH RICH rip

 

[phrodeau]

The "event logs" would be document evidence I trust. We should have a refocused investigation of this untimely, pivotal and perplexing murder. SETH RICH rip

Suggested reading: https://thehill.com/policy/cybersec...ut-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

 

[bellisarius]

One thing we know is that DNC system wasn't hacked from the outside. A forensic investigation of event logs has revealed the download speeds were much faster than the Internet transfer rates available. The findings prove the job was an inside job where the info was downloaded onto a thumb drive or external hard drive. Rich was an employee...

Yes, there is that bit of circumstantial evidence. And it would certainly establish a motive. But the fact remains that that evidence even if proven beyond a doubt still doesn't establish a "who." And only the who(s) know what really happened and why. There appears to be no forensic evidence trail so barring new revelations it's just another cold case.

 

[Rightguide]

Seth Rich was shot by some nut who never should have had access to a gun. Politicize it all you want, but the gun culture of the US takes part of the blame.

How do you know who shot him?

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...48/seth-rich-conspiracy-theory-mueller-report

As made clear multiple times over the last three years by journalists and investigators, even by some of Trump’s closest confidantes, the 44,000 leaked DNC emails made public 12 days after Rich’s murder were stolen by hackers associated with Russian intelligence outfits. And as the Mueller report details, these hacks resulted in DNC emails and documents being shared widely. WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange in 2006, published both stolen DNC emails and the results of a later hack of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails in 2016.

But Rich’s murder became a focal point for conspiracy theorists, egged on by Assange himself, who, as Mueller’s report details, repeatedly and falsely implied that Rich had been the source of the DNC emails. Assange even told then-Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher that he had “physical proof” that the hack was an “inside job.” The implication was that the leaks were from Rich, who was then, according to conspiracy theorists like Kim Dotcom, murdered because of them.

On page 48 of the Mueller report, the special counsel’s office is clear about what really happened. The evidence showed that Wikileaks got the DNC emails and Podesta’s internal documents from Russian hackers, but WikiLeaks and Assange repeatedly lied on national television and implied Rich was involved:

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder ofDNC staffer Seth Rich.” Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter ... that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”

Hoe do you know who shot him?

You are fucking THICK.

 

[Rightguide]

The "event logs" would be document evidence I trust. We should have a refocused investigation of this untimely, pivotal and perplexing murder. SETH RICH rip

Being an inside job is one thing, we the public, don't know who received that data after it was downloaded, at least not yet.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, there is that bit of circumstantial evidence. And it would certainly establish a motive. But the fact remains that that evidence even if proven beyond a doubt still doesn't establish a "who." And only the who(s) know what really happened and why. There appears to be no forensic evidence trail so barring new revelations it's just another cold case.

Totally agree. In the kind of cover-up we're seeing now involving the FBI,DOJ/CIA there may be evidence that is covered up as well. I don't think deep state actors or the DNC, bent on defending years of wrongdoing from becoming public knowledge, are above having somebody hit.

 

[Sean]

Oh dear lord, the loonies are still going on about Seth Rich? Even Fox apologised for that fuckwittery.

 

[Rightguide]

Oh dear lord, the loonies are still going on about Seth Rich? Even Fox apologised for that fuckwittery.

Granted its speculation at this point but it intrigues people who don't believe in coincidence.

Question for you Sean. What happens now that May has resigned? Does that automatically elevate Boris Johnson or must a new election be called first?

 

[Sean]

Granted its speculation at this point but it intrigues people who don't believe in coincidence.

Question for you Sean. What happens now that May has resigned? Does that automatically elevate Boris Johnson or must a new election be called first?

A bunch of tory fuckwits will declare their intention to stand. The parliamentary tory party will hold a series of votes to whittle said fuckwits down to two names. Those two will then be subject to a vote by the wider tory party membership.

The 99.9% of the UK population that aren't members of the Conservative party will have absolutely no say in who our next prime minister is.

 

[jp55665566]

Oh dear lord, the loonies are still going on about Seth Rich? Even Fox apologised for that fuckwittery.

Are you suggesting i/we should just forget about Seth Rich? Is there something "looney"/"fuckwittery" about discussing this murder with other concerned U.S. citizens? Your saying "Fox" News is an arbiter of facts/truth?

I am concerned about the Seth Rich murder, I hope I can talk about it with other people while somehow avoiding your abusive commentary.

What I don't believe is any "official" report, about anything of significance. Particularly in Washington D.C., and especially related to politics. All murders are open and continuing cases. Hillary Clinton, and the DNC, were too close to this "coincidence", and the Clintons do have a sordid history of using violence/murder to "solve problems" or send a message.

 

[Rightguide]

A bunch of tory fuckwits will declare their intention to stand. The parliamentary tory party will hold a series of votes to whittle said fuckwits down to two names. Those two will then be subject to a vote by the wider tory party membership.

The 99.9% of the UK population that aren't members of the Conservative party will have absolutely no say in who our next prime minister is.

Thanks, appreciate it. So who do you think that will be?

 

[Sean]

Thanks, appreciate it. So who do you think that will be?

If Boris gets into the final two, he'll win it. The blue rinse brigade love the duplicitous cunt. But enough tory MP's think he's a twat to maybe stall him. Maybe. Bookies have him as favourite. But tory horse races are always weird.

 

[Rightguide]

If Boris gets into the final two, he'll win it. The blue rinse brigade love the duplicitous cunt. But enough tory MP's think he's a twat to maybe stall him. Maybe. Bookies have him as favourite. But tory horse races are always weird.

He claims he'll leave the EU by October agreement or no agreement. I wonder about the veracity of that claim.