Democratic Party has Seth Rich killed because he leaked to Wikileaks and the authorities are deep sixing any investigation

unicorn_and_rainbows

And of course the supposedly mainstream media ignores because it is the Democrats who are the perpetrators.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

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.

Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department has no suspects and no substantial leads as to who the killer or killers may be, sources close to the investigation said. Metropolitan Police, including the police chief, have refused to discuss the case, despite requests from Fox News dating back 10 months.

The FBI’s national office declined to comment, but sources said the bureau provided cyber expertise to examine Rich’s computer.

Wheeler believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.

“My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward,” Wheeler told Fox News. “That is unfortunate. Seth Rich’s murder is unsolved as a result of that.”

The botched robbery theory, which police have pursued for nearly a year, isn’t panning out, Wheeler said. Two assailants caught on a grainy video tape from a camera posted outside a grocery mart, shot Rich twice in his back, but did not take his wallet, cell phone, keys, watch or necklace worth about $2,000.




tomcarlson

I read somewhere once that 15-20% of the adult population of the U.S. are predisposed to embrace conspiracy theories. 


jersey_boy

If the motive was the data on his computer, why did they murder Rich and allow his computer to be confiscated? If The Clintons/DNC boogieman are powerful enough to prevent a murder investigation, why couldn't they have suppressed the release of the data in Rich's computer with that influence rather than murder him and leave his computer data to be discovered?

As conspiracy theories go, this one is kind of weak.


DaveSchmidt

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.


Don

As flimsy as this story seems, if you look into the backgrounds of the FoxNews.com writer, Malia Zimmerman, and the one named source, Rod Wheeler, it gets even flimsier.


yahooyahoo

Julian Assange is a bastion of integrity and trust.

Why not offer more than a measly $20k for information on the killers?


Jolynn

and the family claims there was no private investigation.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexc...



dave23

I do miss the good ol' days of Clinton murder conspiracies. 


paulsurovell

. . . or someone might be induced to "confess" to the hacking:

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-in...


yahooyahoo

Maybe that guy should send a certified letter from a tippy top law firm to the FBI saying he's innocent.  That should clear up everything and we can all move on.


paulsurovell said:

. . . or someone might be induced to "confess" to the hacking:

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-in...



Don

The Rich Family has released a statement, stating, among other things:

They have seen no facts, evidence or e-mails showing any link between Seth and Wikileaks.

The Fox News contributor who claims to be an "investigator" is not working on behalf of the family and is being paid by a third party.

They view these conspiracy theories as an unwelcome distraction from the efforts to find Seth's murderer.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/...

Unfortunately, I doubt their heartfelt pleas will do anything to stop the ghouls.


terp


Stoughton said:


Unfortunately, I doubt their heartfelt pleas will do anything to stop the ghouls.

Don't talk about the Clintons like that!


Don

If you go to the Fox News link in the original post, the headline now reads, "Family of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Blasts Detective Over Report of Wikileaks Link."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...



paulsurovell


Stoughton said:

If you go to the Fox News link in the original post, the headline now reads, "Family of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Blasts Detective Over Report of Wikileaks Link."


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

From the article you cited:

An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he 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, the federal source told Fox News.
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich
and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the
MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI,
while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police
Department

The Russia story flows frm anonymous sources. Why should this one have less credibility than the others?


paulsurovell


DaveSchmidt said:

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.

Why do you think WaPo decided that the transcript of McMaster's statement did not merit coverage?

[ Full disclosure: I think it's because it undermines their narrative ]


drummerboy

Fox News is not part of the mainstream media. Why would you say such a thing?

They are the broadcast media arm of the Republican Party.


DaveSchmidt said:

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.



drummerboy

You actually don't know the answer to your question?

geeebus

paulsurovell said:



Stoughton said:

If you go to the Fox News link in the original post, the headline now reads, "Family of Slain DNC Staffer Seth Rich Blasts Detective Over Report of Wikileaks Link."


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

From the article you cited:


An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer -- generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder -- showed he 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, the federal source told Fox News.
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich
and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the
MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI,
while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police
Department

The Russia story flows frm anonymous sources. Why should this one have less credibility than the others?



Don


paulsurovell said:


The Russia story flows from anonymous sources. Why should this one have less credibility than the others?

For starters:

  • Comey and other government officials have confirmed on the record that an inquiry into Russian collusion is underway.
  • The collusion stories have been reported by a wide range of reputable reporters and publications, mostly without any substantial refutation.
  • President Trump has information that could prove or disprove many of the Russia stories, but steadfastly refuses to produce it, even in the face of overwhelming popular opinion.
  • Off the top of my head, three Trump campaign advisors, including his son-in-law, have been caught in lies where they denied contacts with Russia.
  • It wasn’t highly noticed after the story that broke yesterday afternoon, but at yesterday’s press briefing, Sean Spicer switched the White House story from “The whole collusion story is bogus” to, and I quote, "There was no collusion with respect to the president himself,"
  • The Rich family has said that they know nothing about these e-mails or any connection to Wikileaks.
  • The “investigator” quoted in the Rich story works for Fox News, won’t say who is paying for this investigation, dissembled about working for the family and previously made the most headlines by alleging that more than 100 lesbian teen gangs are marauding through the streets of Washington, D.C.

I got more, including, obviously the fact that Trump broke protocol by agreeing to Putin's demand that he give a White House meeting to the Russian Foreign Minister, during which Trump gave the Russians highly confidential information without authorization from the country who gave it to us.


Robert

Russia hacked my spaghettios.  


DaveSchmidt


paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.
Why do you think WaPo decided that the transcript of McMaster's statement did not merit coverage?

[ Full disclosure: I think it's because it undermines their narrative ]

You: "Undermines their narrative." Me: "Reflects their news judgment," which could involve any number of choices, including a decision to post the video of his statement.


terp

Putin stole my girlfriend!


dave23


DaveSchmidt said:



paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.
Why do you think WaPo decided that the transcript of McMaster's statement did not merit coverage?

[ Full disclosure: I think it's because it undermines their narrative ]

You: "Undermines their narrative." Me: "Reflects their news judgment," which could involve any number of choices, including a decision to post the video of his statement.

I don't think the WaPo regularly posts transcripts of Nat Sec Advisors' statements, either. 


paulsurovell


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

1. Fox News is part of the supposedly mainstream media.

2. Other supposedly mainstream media outlets don't ignore stories like this. They look into the information, and then they decide whether the information merits coverage.
Why do you think WaPo decided that the transcript of McMaster's statement did not merit coverage?

[ Full disclosure: I think it's because it undermines their narrative ]

You: "Undermines their narrative." Me: "Reflects their news judgment," which could involve any number of choices, including a decision to post the video of his statement.

Me: It's a glaring omission of the record.


DaveSchmidt


paulsurovell said:

Me: It's a glaring omission of the record.

The video is there with the story. At least now; I can't speak for when the article was first published.

If you're referring to print, that's finite real estate, and, as dave23 noted, newspapers have always made these kinds of editorial (ETA: i.e., news judgment) decisions. Subject, of course, to differing individual opinions of how vital the omissions are.


DaveSchmidt


drummerboy said:

Fox News is not part of the mainstream media. Why would you say such a thing?

Because the stream is wide enough to include media that draw nearly two million viewers every day.


dave23

Yeah, I can't find what McMaster said anywhere. Why the secrecy?


paulsurovell


Stoughton said:

paulsurovell said:


The Russia story flows from anonymous sources. Why should this one have less credibility than the others?
For starters:
  • Comey and other government officials have confirmed on the record that an inquiry into Russian collusion is underway.
  • The collusion stories have been reported by a wide range of reputable reporters and publications, mostly without any substantial refutation.
  • President Trump has information that could prove or disprove many of the Russia stories, but steadfastly refuses to produce it, even in the face of overwhelming popular opinion.
  • Off the top of my head, three Trump campaign advisors, including his son-in-law, have been caught in lies where they denied contacts with Russia.
  • It wasn’t highly noticed after the story that broke yesterday afternoon, but at yesterday’s press briefing, Sean Spicer switched the White House story from “The whole collusion story is bogus” to, and I quote, "There was no collusion with respect to the president himself,"
  • The Rich family has said that they know nothing about these e-mails or any connection to Wikileaks.
  • The “investigator” quoted in the Rich story works for Fox News, won’t say who is paying for this investigation, dissembled about working for the family and previously made the most headlines by alleging that more than 100 lesbian teen gangs are marauding through the streets of Washington, D.C.
I got more, including, obviously the fact that Trump broke protocol by agreeing to Putin's demand that he give a White House meeting to the Russian Foreign Minister, during which Trump gave the Russians highly confidential information without authorization from the country who gave it to us.

My responses in italics:

  • Comey and other government officials have confirmed on the record that an inquiry into Russian collusion is underway.

But he never confirmed any of the anonymous “leaks,” in fact there is one example where his deputy confirmed that the leaks (NY Times) were “BS.”   

  • The collusion stories have been reported by a wide range of reputable reporters and publications, mostly without any substantial refutation. 

Collusion stories without any facts or evidence of collusion in the 2016 election.  Or perhaps you want to cite a few?

  • President Trump has information that could prove or disprove many of the Russia stories, but steadfastly refuses to produce it, even in the face of overwhelming popular opinion.
  • What “Russia stories” are you referring to? Any about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign over the 2016 Presidential election?

  • Off the top of my head, three Trump campaign advisors, including his son-in-law, have been caught in lies where they denied contacts with Russia.

I don’t agree, but suppose I stipulate to that.  I'll bet that none of these alleged “lies” have anything to do with collusion in the 2016 election. Can you rebut that?

  • It wasn’t highly noticed after the story that broke yesterday afternoon, but at yesterday’s press briefing, Sean Spicer switched the White House story from “The whole collusion story is bogus” to, and I quote, "There was no collusion with respect to the president himself,"

I think he was quoting people who specifically referred to Trump. Neither Spicer nor anyone else in the administration has backed off from “no collusion.”

  • The Rich family has said that they know nothing about these e-mails or any connection to Wikileaks.

The anonymous Federal investigator did not rely on the family, he cited an FBI report.  

  • The “investigator” quoted in the Rich story works for Fox News, won’t say who is paying for this investigation, dissembled about working for the family and previously made the most headlines by alleging that more than 100 lesbian teen gangs are marauding through the streets of Washington, D.C.

What is your source for this? Are you talking about the “Federal investigator” quoted by the reporter? 

With regard to your last comment:

HR McMaster said Trump's discussion of security matters was "routine" and "proper" and did not expose sources and methods.  What source are you relying on for your statement that have gave Russia "highly confidential information?"

What is your point about the President meeting the Russian foreign minister? That we cut off relations?

Finally, why should anyone rely on anonymous sources on the Russia story cited by WaPo after this one:


Don

"President Trump asked the FBI director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump's former national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting."

" 'I hope you can let this go,' " the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

No anonymous sourcing there.


paulsurovell


Stoughton said:

"President Trump asked the FBI director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump's former national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting."

" 'I hope you can let this go,' " the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

No anonymous sourcing there.

Just heard a far more nuanced discussion on Greta Van Susteren's show, especially from Alan Dershowitz.  One point that was agreed is that Comey did not think that Trump's request was intrusive enough to raise a concern and the investigation went forward unimpeded.  Keep in mind that the memo was written 3 months ago.

Also, what we think we know about the memo comes from anonymous sources.


DaveSchmidt


paulsurovell said:

Finally, why should anyone rely on anonymous sources on the Russia story cited by WaPo after this one:

Because anonymously sourced stories are more often right, and unlike the Burlington Electric malware story, this one has been affirmed by other newsrooms as well. (Are they all relying on the same anonymous sources, each with an ax to grind? Possibly, but unlikely.)

Personally, I wish more people would read anonymously sourced reports with a skeptical eye. On the other hand, I'm not inclined to start from the position that they're false.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.