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

a reply to: Grambler

And if Russia has such experience in hacks such as these, why would they leave such an obvious trail? In addition, why would the ICA released by the inteligence agencies have some many problems in it?

Is it really such an obvious trail though? Without a smoking gun, there's always lots of room for plausible deniability. It seems that the no-Russian-hacking proponents want to have their cake and to eat it too.

Evidence of Russian hacking = proof that Russia didn't do it because they're assumed to be "too good to be caught."
No smoking gun = proof that Russia didn't do it as well.

The fact of the matter is that state sponsored threat actors are regularly observed and it's far from unusual to bust them in the act. Hacking isn't magic. What's typically absent are smoking guns — at least those released to the public. As long as there exists room for doubt in the attribution of the attack, the rest is essentially meaningless.

Has anyone proven that the Russians had access to the emails?

But we are to believe a person (Bernie supporter, no less) working for the DNC didn't have access?



He could have hacked them just as easily as the Russians... even if he didn't have access. More easily, actually.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ok I'm honestly confused.

Please answer me this question.

Let's ignore all of the Rich leaked it stuff and focus on the claim that it was Russia interfering in the election.
Let's assume Russia DID hack the DNC and leak it.

My question is, what's wrong with that? Why care so much and pretend it's an atrocity?
Should the US population not be allowed to see the dirty truth about the corruption in our political system?
I wrote this thread for you.

So we don't derail this topic, respond in that thread, thanks.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

But you throw in the part about him being assassinated which is not necessary for him to be the leaker. And just because everyone suspected the DNC was in the bag for Hillary, as a DNC member and Bernie supporter, he would have been quite disheartened to see proof that Bernie was being cheated by the DNC.

Could you point to one compelling piece of evidence that Seth Rich was the source? As far as I can tell, the CT is 90% speculation based on the fact that he was murdered, the murder is unsolved and Julian Assange offered a $20k reward for information.

If he hadn't been murdered, why would anyone be talking about Seth Rich at all?

I'm sure a lot of Bernie supporters within the DNC weren't happy about DWS. Why aren't they all put forth as possible sources? Because none of them are dead, not because there's any more or less evidence of any of them being the source.

I see where you are coming from. But you are trying to cleverly make me prove that Rich was murdered by the DNC to p[rove he could have been the leaker, and this is not necessary. This tactc is used to make people think "well i can't imagine this leading to a murder, therefore it must have been the Russians."

Had Rich not been murdered and had Hayden not have died, then we could directly ask them what was going on. They are gone, and there are questions about Richs involvement.

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?

We have wikileaks which has never once been caught in a lie saying it wasn't the russians, and putting up reward money for info on Rich's murder.

You cite Russia influence into affecting elections, but how about the deep state in the US? We see the vitriol they have came after Trump with. Remember Schumer saying they would get back at Trump? Remember how the deep state leaks info about Trump everyday?

Remember how their ICA was garbage and proved nothing?

Will you at least admit that the general public has seen no more evidence that Russia was responsible than that Rich was? And if thats the case, don't you feel that a full investigation into the possibility of itr being a leak instead of a hack is warranted, including investigating the whereabouts of Rich's computer, and of Murrays statements?

And also, don't you find it the least bit strange that not only would the DNC not allow the FBI access to their server, but that Richs computer has mysteriously came up missing? Almost as if someone doesn't want investigative bodies looking into these computers.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I can understand what you are saying, we should know a lot more about everything, but this is the very nature of the control of information that has plagued us for so long, not even getting into things like Operation Mockingbird.

However, I think that with the BRICS alliance, we are seeing nations that are working together to get away from this global deep state.

To me it makes sense that there would be forces of good that are standing against this network and apparently Trump seems to represent said network, at least one would hope otherwise we are doomed!

a reply to: Grambler

As far as I am aware, there is not one shred of evidence Russia did it.

But there is at least 4 or 5 good evident leads favoring the Rich theory.

This seems pretty simple...

You guys dont get it...even if Rich was the source of leak...he was obviously payed off by the Russians...who wanted Trump.

There...narrative remains.

here is what i think, Rich knows Kim as Kim stated in his tweet, but there was another guy in DNC who was pissed like Rich who has access to the emails, he gives them to Rich who will send them to Kim and Kim sends them to Wikileaks.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

And if Russia has such experience in hacks such as these, why would they leave such an obvious trail? In addition, why would the ICA released by the inteligence agencies have some many problems in it?

Is it really such an obvious trail though? Without a smoking gun, there's always lots of room for plausible deniability. It seems that the no-Russian-hacking proponents want to have their cake and to eat it too.

Evidence of Russian hacking = proof that Russia didn't do it because they're assumed to be "too good to be caught."
No smoking gun = proof that Russia didn't do it as well.

The fact of the matter is that state sponsored threat actors are regularly observed and it's far from unusual to bust them in the act. Hacking isn't magic. What's typically absent are smoking guns — at least those released to the public. As long as there exists room for doubt in the attribution of the attack, the rest is essentially meaningless.

But you are guilty of the same confirmation bias. No proof shown to us that Russia did it= they are shrewd an have hacked people in the past.

shown that the evidence is seems a little too obvious= doesn't matter proves the Russians did it.

Agreed there aren't normally smoking guns. How strange is it then that the DNC, which has pushed both the Russian hacks and Trump/Russia collusion theory as two of the biggest ever threats to US democracy REFUSED to let the FBI see their servers. This huge deal requires several investigations, unlimited time and resources, and possible termination of any posiutive relationship with a world superpower, but it wasn't worth allowing the FBI to see the server?

And the Crowd strike theory is that the Russians were unbelievably sloppy.

Here is a link from far left cite the Intercept on it.,

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

theintercept.com...

a reply to: proximo

Then later pledging a 20,000 dollar reward for info on his murder. Also Murray saying the source was American, and Assange denying the source was Russian several times. Then just this weekend KimDotCom saying he was involved with Rich and Wikileaks, and he knows Seth was the source.

Assange states that he won't give a straight answer about Seth Rich because the WL policy is they don't confirm or deny sources. A policy that was updated to include deceased sources.

WL policy is Julian Assange's policy because Julian Assange has unilateral control over WL.

So his policy is to not confirm or deny sources — ever, ever, ever — oh, unless he's denying that Russia was the source "several times."

Julian Assange understands information warfare perfectly well, far better than most. Seth Rich is a win-win for him. He can name drop Seth Rich without actually saying anything to promote speculation because ostensibly he doesn't divulge information about sources (except when he does). If conclusive evidence of Russian hacking is exposed, he can just fall back on "I never said Seth Rich was the source."

Do you think Seth Rich's parents would want Julian Assange to let their son's murderers go unpunished because of Julian Assange's flexible code?

I don't. I believe that Julian Assange is playing games.

I'd point out that WL also tweeted a link the now thoroughly crushed Fox 5 Rod Wheeler article. Why did they do that?

As for KDC, we'll see what he brings up tomorrow. He's not exactly the most credible source and on its face, his claim is problematic to say the least. He's been raging against Obama, Clinton, etc for years now. If he's known for all this time that Seth Rich was the source, why would he sit on it for almost a year after his murder only to reveal a claim with a teaser on Twitter? Why not just come right out with a statement? Why now?

Smells like a publicity stunt, something KDC is WELL known for.

a reply to: Grambler

Thank you for posting -- can't wait to read it!

But I gotta say that I sure don't feel sorry for Fox in all this. Actually, I blame them! I don't understand why, but they set up Rod Wheeler. Fox put him up on a pedestal just to knock him down... Fox gave him the information from their anonymous "federal investigator," Fox asked him about it, Fox put him on the air, Fox referred to the "federal investigator," and Fox referenced the upcoming report about the evidence of the "federal investigator." Then they acted like they knew nothing and this guy just came out of nowhere and started talking smack.

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.

Source: CNN

And the reporter at Fox News who gave Wheeler the information from the "federal investigator" -- the one who knows exactly how this all played out -- has now gone silent.

Why? Is her silence her choice -- or someone else's? Was Wheeler getting too close to the truth? Did they have to discredit him now before he could make something public? Or were they just using Wheeler to discredit the evidence from the now-forgotten anonymous "federal investigator"? Or was it both? Or something else entirely??? I don't know. But I do know they set Wheeler up for a fall.

a reply to: butcherguy

That's a real mic dropper I suppose?

Russia employs slews of hackers. Do you have any proof that Seth Rich had even the slightest inkling of hacking prowess? If he didn't have access via his job, why would you assume that he was a more likely to be a hacker than Russian hackers?

You people debase the conspiracy culture by associating Trump with it. TRUMP IS A PART OF THE DEEP STATE. A pawn of it

By buying into people like Alex Jones and Trump you ruin and destroy any reality in your conspiracy.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: proximo

Then later pledging a 20,000 dollar reward for info on his murder. Also Murray saying the source was American, and Assange denying the source was Russian several times. Then just this weekend KimDotCom saying he was involved with Rich and Wikileaks, and he knows Seth was the source.

Assange states that he won't give a straight answer about Seth Rich because the WL policy is they don't confirm or deny sources. A policy that was updated to include deceased sources.

WL policy is Julian Assange's policy because Julian Assange has unilateral control over WL.

So his policy is to not confirm or deny sources — ever, ever, ever — oh, unless he's denying that Russia was the source "several times."

Julian Assange understands information warfare perfectly well, far better than most. Seth Rich is a win-win for him. He can name drop Seth Rich without actually saying anything to promote speculation because ostensibly he doesn't divulge information about sources (except when he does). If conclusive evidence of Russian hacking is exposed, he can just fall back on "I never said Seth Rich was the source."

Do you think Seth Rich's parents would want Julian Assange to let their son's murderers go unpunished because of Julian Assange's flexible code?

I don't. I believe that Julian Assange is playing games.

I'd point out that WL also tweeted a link the now thoroughly crushed Fox 5 Rod Wheeler article. Why did they do that?

As for KDC, we'll see what he brings up tomorrow. He's not exactly the most credible source and on its face, his claim is problematic to say the least. He's been raging against Obama, Clinton, etc for years now. If he's known for all this time that Seth Rich was the source, why would he sit on it for almost a year after his murder only to reveal a claim with a teaser on Twitter? Why not just come right out with a statement? Why now?

Smells like a publicity stunt, something KDC is WELL known for.

But you have not one shred of evidence for Assange or Wikileaks ever lying.

However, I can point to example after example of US intelligence agency lying or interfering with elections.

Your main reason for Russia being the culprit is they have done things like this in the past. So has the US intelligence community, and its clear to see they hate Trump.

So I am supposed to take track record into account with the Russians, but not look at the Us intelligence agencies track record of influence and lies, or Wikileaks track record of never having been caught in a lie.

And yes I believe Assange would protect even a dead source, even if that meant not solving his murder. The reason is that the only reason sources give to wikileaks is 100% certainty that they will never be revaled, even after death.

So Assange will stand by this code.

Do you have the same problem with all of the MSM not revealing their anonymous sources? If the Wash Post or NYT actually have intelligence sources, and know Trump is a treasonous usurper, why risk the fate of the country by not revealing those sources?

The reason is by revealing, they would never have the trust of any source again. The same is true of Assange. Why you would single him out but allow the MSM the benefit of the doubt makes no sense to me.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: butcherguy

That's a real mic dropper I suppose?

Russia employs slews of hackers. Do you have any proof that Seth Rich had even the slightest inkling of hacking prowess? If he didn't have access via his job, why would you assume that he was a more likely to be a hacker than Russian hackers?

But again, seeing as how the DNC spokesman for the Rich family seems to be interested in debunking this theory, why have they not definitively said he had no access to the relevant emails?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Than couldn't he have worked in unison with several other members of the DNC to have obtained those emails and he acted as the liaison for this group of disgruntled employees and wikileaks?

Sure, he could have. Is there any reason to believe that he did though?

Or alternatively, could he have snuck into an Admin's room and downloaded the information in order to leak it (therefore breaking the rules in doing so) ? In this scenario he could have had help or acted alone.

That's less likely. If the contractor even maintained anyone on site (I do all my administration remotely), it's unlikely that he would have left his computer unattended and unlocked. I'd assume that if Seth Rich was the source and he didn't have legitimate access, he would have had to hack for it.

originally posted by: Willtell
You people debase the conspiracy culture by associating Trump with it. TRUMP IS A PART OF THE DEEP STATE. A pawn of it

By buying into people like Alex Jones and Trump you ruin and destroy any reality in your conspiracy.

So trump is a part of the deep state, and the deep state and establishment republicans and democrats are pretending to dislike Trump, revealing private conversations from his administration every day to their media friends, demanding investigations into him, and even suggesting impeachment, and then smearing Trump 24/7.

What would the point of this be?

a reply to: theantediluvian

If he didn't have access via his job, why would you assume that he was a more likely to be a hacker than Russian hackers?

First, that isn't what I said.

It would have been easier for him in the fact that he was already in the DNC server as a user.

originally posted by: Grambler
Excellent article showing the double standards of the media accepting the Russian narrative but refusing to listen to anything regarding Rich being the leaker. I find the part about Craig Murray to be of particular interests.

Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?

Murray should be the government’s star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were “leaked” by insiders not “hacked” by a foreign government. Here’s the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:

“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.”

(“A Spy Coup in America?”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you’d think that Murray’s eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.

Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they’ve showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?

www.unz.com...

Why hasn't Murray been asked to testify? For smoe reason everyone seemed to be enthralled with a former MI6 agents opposition research about Trump liking to be peed on, but Murray's meeting and claims are not worth looking into?

The article also does a great job of showing all of the problems with the Intelligence Community Assessment thaat was supposed to be the intelligence agencies proof that Russia did the hack.

I remember saying at the time that Craig Murray should be a centrepiece for any investigation - he named dates and times. He provided the most explicit details yet of how the leak came about and he WAS in Washington when he said he was. The fact he, and his story, has been stonewalled is yet more indication that any lead that did not support the Russia speculation was not going to be followed up. They already had their villains, proof or not.

a reply to: Grambler

I'll circle back and answer where I can. I seem to be the only person questioning any of this and I'm having to question parts of the source material an address responses from a number of posters at the same time so you'll have to forgive me, I'm at something of a disadvantage. (and I'm also answering work emails)

I want to bring up the next glaring issue with this piece though before we proceed. Starting here:

According to Fox News:

“The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News. A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time….

and continuing down through here:

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.

We now know that the Rod Wheeler story has been walked back entirely. Rod Wheeler has in fact now changed his story (multiple times) but most recently, he's claiming that what he was actually just repeating what a Fox journalist told him.

So all of this is essentialy moot and it's a large part of this article, agreed?

So while he's attacking WaPo and other "bogus news" for taking "pot-shots at Fox" because the article that turned out to actually be bogus "doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story" — the author as it turns out was putting his foot further and further in his own mouth while exposing, quite clearly, his own extreme bias.