Audio: Seymour Hersh States Seth Rich Was WikiLeaks Source

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MotherMayEye

so you wouldnt take their word sr was the source anyway?

did you watch the wheeler interview i posted?
particularly around 11:00 and forward

msnbc reran part of that interview
guess what was left out....

I probably would take their word because I would assume they could prove it easily and would do so if they divulged Seth was the leaker.

I didn't watch the interview, but I will in a bit.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well this is interesting. It's clear that all this audio came from Butowsky. Hersh has some explaining to do. According to what he told NPR, he was just repeating some "gossip" and that,"[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."

That doesn't seem to be the case as he's very clearly stating that he has a source who looked at an FBI document (he also says NSA document though so...) and makes some very specific claims, going so far as to say that Seth Rich asked for money, setup a Dropbox account for the files, etc.

- He's also got some things confused. Assuming that Seth Rich had access to the DNC emails — still something for which no proof has been provided — how did he also end up with the Podesta emails?

- And what about Craig Murray saying the hand-off was USB?

- And according to the FBI, they weren't and hadn't been assisting the DC police in the investigation of Seth Rich's murder.

- Also, if Aaron Rich's brother has the laptop, then the FBI does not.

- The FBI is not only denying its involvement but this document or information in it hasn't been leaked by anyone involved in the investigation, aware of the investigation or with requisite access to view the document except this one guy who was "doing a favor" for Hersh?

- If the Rich's were covering up something (and why would they?) then why would they agree to Wheeler investigating anything at all?

It's very sensational but as it stands now, it's extremely dubious hearsay, surreptitiously recorded and coming from a man who won't stand behind it.

I think Butowsky, and through him, Zimmerman, Fox New, Wheeler, Hannity and the White House likely got caught up in an old man talking s# with no expectation of having to back it up as it wasn't going for publication.

Looks like a new conspiracy theory is brewing too if you look at the comments — Seth Rich faked his own death and is in hiding.

Jesus. Well as much as this has escalated, it sounds like it might be time for some people to be compelled to testify.

a reply to: theantediluvian

All good thoughts and questions, AD.
Difficult to think of a guy like Hersh as just an old man talking s#...but, who knows?

As for Seth's brother having Seth's laptop...It's more than likely that Seth owned more than one, considering his occupation.

SR faking his own death?
Another theory,... albeit a far-fetched one.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Hersh has had a unique career. At his best, he's of course broken a story (essentially on his own) that won him a Pulitzer (and he's won several other awards) and at his worst, he's written 3000 world retractions for serious factual errors. There's an in depth profile of him on the New York Magazine site.

Not one of these exclusives appeared in the pages of The New Yorker, however. Instead, Hersh delivered them in speeches on college campuses and in front of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and on public-radio shows like “Democracy Now!” In most cases, Hersh attaches a caveat—such as “I’m just talking now, I’m not writing”—before unloading one of his blockbusters, which can send bloggers and reporters scurrying for confirmation.

Every writer understands that there is a gap between the print persona and the actual self, but Hersh subscribes to a bright-line test, a wider chasm than is usually acknowledged, particularly in today’s multimedia age.

There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.

Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

He's certainly no partisan though, he accused both the Obama and Trump administrations of using Sarin gas false flags to justify military intervention in Syria.

The way this is shaping up for me is that he likely was doing what he's known to do when he's not writing — tell stories — and unfortunately, it snowballed.

Either way, given the audio it does not sound like his comment to NPR was accurate. I think he's got an obligation to either own this story or conclusively put it to rest.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I think he's got an obligation to either own this story or conclusively put it to rest.


I think that would be very helpful.
I do not think everyone wants his help.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
WAITING...

For Wikileaks THEMSELVES to produce solid evidence that Seth was "their guy".

WHY can't WL do that?

It would sure put things to rest...

Integrity? If WL, should it be so noble, are taking to the grave the source out of a request from source, is that not the most hardened proof of their honesty?

Quite the conundrum.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I would think that if Hersh really had the goods, he would have published a story himself. We're talking Pulitzer level stuff here without a doubt if it were true.

Instead he blabs it to a GOP hatchet man who in turn relays it to a relatively unknown Fox News reporter who then falsely attributes the information to a guy who has some credibility issues of his own to get it printed?

It's no wonder the whole thing imploded so fast. What's surprising to me is that it got by the Fox News editorial staff in the first place. They didn't grill Zimmerman on the source? I would have thought they'd have wanted to talk to Wheeler to confirm the quotes and ask him quite a number of frank questions — extensive ass covering — before a story like that was published.

If it can be verified he was shot with a .22 then he must have read the report. It hasn't been released to the public.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So basically there actually is a DNC led seditious conspiracy against Donald Trump. Buckle up folks. People are going to prison for a loooooong time.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Well...OKAY...
HERE is audio in Hersh's own words and an accusation from Journalist Seymour Hersh stating that Seth Rich (and NOT the Ruskies) gave Wikileaks the DNC emails. Hersh cites an FBI doc. to back up his claim.

I wonder if this revelation is the reason for all the smoke and mirrors about the Wheeler/FOX/Trump Seth Rich lawsuit story entering the scene today through all the usual media suspects.

You decide, ATS.

CAUTION: Hersh uses THE 'F' word more than a few times in the audio.

P.S. For those interested, Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist.
en.wikipedia.org...

In an audio recording provided to Big League Politics by a source that currently wishes to remain anonymous, journalist Seymour Hersh confirms that Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks with sample emails from the leak. Hersh cites an FBI document as proof for his claim.

“There are no DNC or Podesta emails that exist beyond May 21 or 22, last email from either one of those groups. What the report says is that some time in late Spring… he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that’s in his computer,” he says. “Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents — of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC.”

Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected DropBox where Rich had put the files.

bigleaguepolitics.com...

edit on Tue Aug 1 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

Follow the Panda....

then the FBI needs to be investigated by ......whoever investigates the FBI.

It always comes to the end of the line and all good stories disappear into thin air.

Here's the story that makes the most sense in my mind.

Rich takes DNC emails, contacts wikileaks
Tries to start a bidding war between wikileaks and DNC
Tells DNC that killing him won't solve their problem as he's shared the files with people

Now, either the DNC had him killed anyway OR he was actually mugged and shot by random thugs. Doesn't matter.
After his death, his brother was one of the people he shared the docs with so his brother gave them to wikileaks as instructed by Seth
DNC starts disinfo campaign about russia being the source for wikileaks
Family wants to draw attention to the fact that russia wasn't the source so reaches out for investigation (but why?)
I would imagine that they contacted wikileaks for help but wikileaks said they wouldn't betray sources, as a matter of policy
But the family can't have investigators looking too closely at their electronics, as it would identify Seth's brother as the leaker. The family doesn't need to lose another son.
So they put a bunch of restrictions on where wheeler can look (proved by audio)

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: IAMTAT

Wow, explosive.
I hope no one else gets taken out before the dust settles.

Congress needs to investigate immediately!

Let us surround all the good men with a THOUSAND ANGELS EACH!!

Here's why I think Seth is most likely the source of the DNC leaks... first of all Assange all but admitted it without directly saying it was Seth. Secondly, Wikileaks has not came out and said Seth wasn't the source as far as I'm aware. If he wasn't the source I'm fairly certain Wikileaks would say he wasn't, just as they've said the source of the leaks wasn't a state actor. Ruling out specific people and entities does not compromise the source of the leak so if Seth wasn't the source I'm sure Wikileaks would be quick to settle all the controversy by ruling him out, especially considering the family who wants this all just to go away.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Because if they do no one with anything worth knowing will ever tell them anything again?

Stomping your feet and demanding something completely unreasonable isn't going to change that teeny tiny little FACT

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Wikileaks is protecting ITSELF ... Seth's already dead dude!

They're trying not to wind up dead too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I would think that if Hersh really had the goods, he would have published a story himself. We're talking Pulitzer level stuff here without a doubt if it were true.

I agree with that, but I do not think he would open his yap and make up the story entirely. Interesting that he is even talking about a "random" murder in the dc area, out of the 135 that happened why is he chatty about this one?

Instead he blabs it to a GOP hatchet man who in turn relays it to a relatively unknown Fox News reporter who then falsely attributes the information to a guy who has some credibility issues of his own to get it printed?

Not the first time fox has had to backtrack on a story, imo they are no more trustworthy than any of the other msm outlets. They just have a different slant.

I would have thought they'd have wanted to talk to Wheeler to confirm the quotes and ask him quite a number of frank questions — extensive ass covering — before a story like that was published.

That is why I posted the interview with wheeler on msnbc yesterday. Wheeler sounds like he was actually attempting to solve the murder, not score any political points. His interaction with the dnc and specifically d brazille were interesting to say the least. I was really surprised to see the host allow wheeler to speak his mind towards the end of the interview.
I am interested to see what will be asked for in discovery that will be used as evidence so that wheeler can gain back his damaged reputation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am on mobile so I will post more later.

But wikileaks do3s not want to give up any source ever, even if they die.

Lets say I am a whistleblower considering giving highly sensitive info to wikileaks.

I want assurances that even if I die, I don't want to be outed as a source. This could be to protect my reputation, my family, or any other number of reasons.

If wikileaks named rich as the source, it may cause potential leakers to hesitate. They want to know no matter how insane the pressure is on wikileaks, that they will never, under any circumstances give up a source, even when they are in the grave.

a reply to: Grambler

I understand what the argument is, I just disagree.

If I was a leaker, I would insist wikileaks reveal my identity if I wound up murdered and the police had no suspects. It seems logical to me that it would be in my family's best interest...screw my reputation if I am dead already.

***

ETA: I think this is just an agree to disagree line of discussion.

I don't trust wikileaks because they are inherently suspect. I don't trust our IC for the same reason.

In fact, I think it stands to reason that our IC is entirely behind wikileaks. They would be stupid to not be behind the very organization that leakers with government secrets run to first. That would allow them to control the flow of information.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Because they don't openly reveal who their sources are. Ever. Whether the source is alive or dead does not matter. This is their code of conduct. Wouldn't be a very reliable leaker source if they didn't. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?