Newt Gingrich states on Fox that Seth Rich was assassinated.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


At the same time, I saw someone post elsewhere that if Democrats/DNC/Clinton didn't kill Seth Rich, and given he was a relatively connected DNC employee, it isn't insane that they would be looking out for his family. In fact, it could be seen as them doing he and his family a solid post-mortem.

I seem to remember Seth Rich being referred to as a low level number cruncher (by the Democrats) when the story of his murder first broke.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: underwerks

That theory does not fit the facts at all.

The Democrats blame of the Russians lies in Russian IP's hitting their system to directly access the emails.
Getting them from Seth Rich would not fit that scenario at all.

I don't doubt that Russian IPs were accessing their system. Russia IPs hack everyone, everywhere, every day. There were certainly other countries also attempting to access their systems.

IP's are not a reliable source of evidence. Anyone that spends five minutes can set up a vpn or proxy chain. i can make my IP appear to be from china, russia, sweeden with a click of a button. I laugh whenever i hear russian IP's as any hacker with any sort of brain would be proxy chaining then going through the tor network. Peace.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


At the same time, I saw someone post elsewhere that if Democrats/DNC/Clinton didn't kill Seth Rich, and given he was a relatively connected DNC employee, it isn't insane that they would be looking out for his family. In fact, it could be seen as them doing he and his family a solid post-mortem.

I seem to remember Seth Rich being referred to as a low level number cruncher (by the Democrats) when the story of his murder first broke.

I'm not sure, but wasn't his dnc position reasonably solid? Like like not entry level?

Let me put this way, I work around these kinds of people. You have to be pretty connected to even have his kind of position.

As with the Russian collusion story, I will wait until I see proof before I believe any of these Seth Rich conspiracies.

The thing I find amusing is the media difference in reaction to these two stories.

On one hand, you have anonymous sources saying Trump did something with Russsiians, and its headline news every minute of every day, with special prosecutors or investigators be requested and granted, with full blow investigations, talk of impeachment, and all around agreement that this makes Trump the worst person ever.

On the other hand you have anonympus sources from some of these same agencies saying Rich was the Wikileaks leaker, a story which would shatter not only the entire Trump/Russia collusion narrative, but would implicate the vaunted 17 intelligence agencies that told everyone Russia was the hacker with showing no proof.

This would seem to be a scoop of the century. Yet it is ridiculed, mocked, and laughed off as a conspiracy because it only has anonymous sources.

Now I know there will be those that say, "Well the Trump supporters are guilty of this hypocrisy too!" and they are right. But its one thing to be a small time person on a message board being a hypocrite, its another to be the supposed most prestigious members of a neutral media.

Regardlesss of how any of these issues shake out, it is clear the media is not neutral, and far from speaking truth to power is now interested in protecting the deep state power from anyone who would dare question it.

So the next time they are shocked when they fall for a narrative to get us into a war like Iraq, lets not give them the benifit of the doubt.

a reply to: Ares2493

Exactly.

The IP claims are about as reliable as the Russian malware they say were found on the server. They do not mean anything, because they are very commonly used.

Eta... I think my post you are referring to was misunderstood... for the second time, which means I probably did not word it well. I had been replying to someone who claimed Russians killed Seth Rich. I was saying that this claim could not even be backed up by the Democrat version of events, because they claimed the Russians accessed the server, not used an inside source.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Ares2493

Exactly.

The IP claims are about as reliable as the Russian malware they say were found on the server. They do not mean anything, because they are very commonly used.

Eta... I think my post you are referring to was misunderstood... for the second time, which means I probably did not word it well. I had been replying to someone who claimed Russians killed Seth Rich. I was saying that this claim could not even be backed up by the Democrat version of events, because they claimed the Russians accessed the server, not used an inside source.

Heres my problem with the whole investigation. Since a third party had access to the servers, in this case the "evidence", Isnt there a chain of custody issue? how can the fbi claim anything is legit if a external company had it for more than a year. Plenty of time to wipe them up and then frame another entity and fabricate logs.

Lots of internet rumours (which in the current climate are absolute facts that demand a special prosecutor), that there is widespread panic in Washington over this story...

a reply to: Ares2493

That is definitely one of the most concerning things. Why did the DNC not let the FBI check the server?
The third party could have easily planted malware or manipulated logs.

That is one of many clues that make it look like they are hiding something.

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Ares2493

Exactly.

The IP claims are about as reliable as the Russian malware they say were found on the server. They do not mean anything, because they are very commonly used.

Eta... I think my post you are referring to was misunderstood... for the second time, which means I probably did not word it well. I had been replying to someone who claimed Russians killed Seth Rich. I was saying that this claim could not even be backed up by the Democrat version of events, because they claimed the Russians accessed the server, not used an inside source.

Heres my problem with the whole investigation. Since a third party had access to the servers, in this case the "evidence", isnt there a chain of custody issue? how can the fbi claim anything is legit if a external company had it for more than a year. Plenty of time to wipe them up and then frame another entity.

Its a great point.

Couple this with the fact the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine their server.

So the FBI and other investigative agencies are relying of the only group that had access to the server for information. The group is crowd strike, who had connections to the DNC and were horribly wrong in recent investigations about the Ukraine.

We are also asked to believe that these Russians who apparently are shrewd enough to get this info and use it to try and stop Hillary from winning were so stupid that they left signatures that could easily be traced back to them.

Now we also know from Wikileaks that the CIA etc. has tools that can make it look like another country or group hacked someone by leaving their signature. In addition, we know that these tools appear to have fallen into many other groups hands.

Bu despite this, we are asked to believe that the Russians were so bad and incompetent that they hacked the DNC and left traces that it went straight to the highest levels of the Kremlin.

In addition, Wikileaks, which survives and is influential based solely on the fact that they have an impeccable record for only telling thee truth and releasing legitimate documents, would have to be lying for the first time in denying their source was the Russians.

I am not saying any of this is proof that Russia did not hack the DNC, but it is enough for me to doubt the official narrative until I see proof.

Sadly, our media and political system does not feel the same way and will use this narrative with no proof to attempt to destroy this Presidency.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Ares2493

That is definitely one of the most concerning things. Why did the DNC not let the FBI check the server?
The third party could have easily planted malware or manipulated logs.

That is one of many clues that make it look like they are hiding something.

Server kept secret even from the FBI.
Server logs not available.
Wikileaks clearly stating they got the emails from a DNC leak, even stating the date, time and place they were handed over.
A private investigator, Wheeler, willing to come forward and say that he has been told of direct evidence of email exchanges between Wikileaks and Seth Rich.
Seth Rich murdered.
DNC contact family of Seth Rich to ask questions about why Wheeler was 'poking around'.
Police investigations going nowhere after nearly a year.
Wikileaks offering a $25,000 reward for information about Seth Rich's death.
Another DNC staffer dies suddenly before he can be reached to offer testimony in the DNC election rigging law suit.

Media reaction : outrageous conspiracy theory.


Hillary and her campaign blame Russia for the leaks.
Push Trump campaign collusion story.
No evidence exists.

Media Reaction : Daily news cycle calling for impeachment
Special Counsel appointed.

a reply to: Grambler




twitter.com...

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Ares2493

Exactly.

The IP claims are about as reliable as the Russian malware they say were found on the server. They do not mean anything, because they are very commonly used.

Eta... I think my post you are referring to was misunderstood... for the second time, which means I probably did not word it well. I had been replying to someone who claimed Russians killed Seth Rich. I was saying that this claim could not even be backed up by the Democrat version of events, because they claimed the Russians accessed the server, not used an inside source.

Heres my problem with the whole investigation. Since a third party had access to the servers, in this case the "evidence", Isnt there a chain of custody issue? how can the fbi claim anything is legit if a external company had it for more than a year. Plenty of time to wipe them up and then frame another entity and fabricate logs.

The FBI was never given access to the servers for the DNC. They took there word for it.