The Mueller Report Raises New Questions About The Seth Rich Murder Case
Posted at 12:12 pm on June 16, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...t-raises-new-questions-seth-rich-murder-case/
DNC voter database employee Seth Rich, 27, was shot twice in the back at 4:20 a.m. on July 10, 2016 while walking alone on a Washington, D.C. street. Three years later, police are still unable to identify the killers or their motive. They have speculated it might have been an attempted robbery, however, neither Rich’s wallet nor his watch had been stolen. A month after the murder, police issued a statement which said only that, “there is no indication that Seth Rich’s death is connected to his employment at the DNC.”
Twelve days after he was murdered, Wikileaks began dumping 44,000 DNC emails and the rumors that Rich had stolen and then leaked the emails began to swirl. Here are a few:
Democrats maintain that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC’s computers in 2016. When DNC officials began to notice anomalies, they called in private contractor, Crowdstrike. The DNC then announced that their computers had been hacked by the Russians. Oddly, they refused to allow even the FBI to examine their servers. The FBI and everyone else just had to accept that.
Conspiracy theorists like Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and others question the DNC’s version of events. Frankly, I do too. There are many unanswered questions. Why wouldn’t the DNC allow the FBI access to their computers? If Rich’s killers had set out to rob him, why did they not take his wallet or his watch? Why would we trust anything the DNC has to say?
The Mueller Report states that “the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the [Hillary] Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks.”
The Mueller Report addresses Assange’s remarks which imply that Seth Rich was the source of the emails. It accuses Assange of “dissembling,” meaning he was deliberately trying to mislead the public and he did so to “protect their real source, which was Russia.”
If Robert Mueller says it true, that’s all the mainstream media needed to hear. This narrative “serves their interests.” Here’s what they had to say on the subject.
The Consortium News’ Daniel Lazare wrote a fascinating piece which appears on Zerohedge about this case. He wrote:
Given the number of omissions and inaccuracies in the Mueller Report we’ve discovered in the last couple of weeks alone, it’s easy to believe Mueller would have manipulated information to debunk the theory that someone other than the Russians may have been responsible for stealing the DNC emails and leaking them to Wikileaks.
And Assange was being cagey. He has always pledged “to safeguard the identities of whistleblowers who furnish it with information.”
In August 2016, Assange was interviewed on a Dutch program called “Nieuwsuur.” Here again, Assange was trying to give journalist Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal the impression that Rich had been their source.
Lazare said, “This was as close as Assange could come to confirming that Rich was tied up with the leak without actually saying it. Hours later, WikiLeaks tweeted about the $20k reward.”
Later in 2016, Murray (Assange’s spokesman) told the Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton: “Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that he [Rich] was the source of the leaks. What I’m saying is that it’s probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believe that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks.”
The article goes into some detail about efforts to investigate the case by journalists. His article can be viewed here.
Lazare points out that, according to the chronology found in Mueller’s report, if the Russians had hacked the DNC server, they would have had only “four days to review some 28,000 emails and other electronic documents to make sure that they were genuine and unaltered – a clear impossibility.” (See “The ‘Guccifer 2.0’ Gaps in Mueller’s Full Report,” April 18.)
In conclusion, the police have not solved the murder, at least they have not offered any information about it publicly. Calling this a Russian hack rather than an inside job fits their narrative. The DNC would not even allow the FBI to look at their server after the “hacking.” And finally, there have been three clear instances of deliberate misinformation discovered in the Mueller Report so far.
This is not over.
Posted at 12:12 pm on June 16, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...t-raises-new-questions-seth-rich-murder-case/
DNC voter database employee Seth Rich, 27, was shot twice in the back at 4:20 a.m. on July 10, 2016 while walking alone on a Washington, D.C. street. Three years later, police are still unable to identify the killers or their motive. They have speculated it might have been an attempted robbery, however, neither Rich’s wallet nor his watch had been stolen. A month after the murder, police issued a statement which said only that, “there is no indication that Seth Rich’s death is connected to his employment at the DNC.”
Twelve days after he was murdered, Wikileaks began dumping 44,000 DNC emails and the rumors that Rich had stolen and then leaked the emails began to swirl. Here are a few:
Democrats maintain that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC’s computers in 2016. When DNC officials began to notice anomalies, they called in private contractor, Crowdstrike. The DNC then announced that their computers had been hacked by the Russians. Oddly, they refused to allow even the FBI to examine their servers. The FBI and everyone else just had to accept that.
Conspiracy theorists like Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and others question the DNC’s version of events. Frankly, I do too. There are many unanswered questions. Why wouldn’t the DNC allow the FBI access to their computers? If Rich’s killers had set out to rob him, why did they not take his wallet or his watch? Why would we trust anything the DNC has to say?
The Mueller Report states that “the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the [Hillary] Clinton Campaign to WikiLeaks.”
The Mueller Report addresses Assange’s remarks which imply that Seth Rich was the source of the emails. It accuses Assange of “dissembling,” meaning he was deliberately trying to mislead the public and he did so to “protect their real source, which was Russia.”
If Robert Mueller says it true, that’s all the mainstream media needed to hear. This narrative “serves their interests.” Here’s what they had to say on the subject.
The Consortium News’ Daniel Lazare wrote a fascinating piece which appears on Zerohedge about this case. He wrote:
Given the number of omissions and inaccuracies in the Mueller Report we’ve discovered in the last couple of weeks alone, it’s easy to believe Mueller would have manipulated information to debunk the theory that someone other than the Russians may have been responsible for stealing the DNC emails and leaking them to Wikileaks.
And Assange was being cagey. He has always pledged “to safeguard the identities of whistleblowers who furnish it with information.”
In August 2016, Assange was interviewed on a Dutch program called “Nieuwsuur.” Here again, Assange was trying to give journalist Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal the impression that Rich had been their source.
Lazare said, “This was as close as Assange could come to confirming that Rich was tied up with the leak without actually saying it. Hours later, WikiLeaks tweeted about the $20k reward.”
Later in 2016, Murray (Assange’s spokesman) told the Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton: “Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that he [Rich] was the source of the leaks. What I’m saying is that it’s probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believe
The article goes into some detail about efforts to investigate the case by journalists. His article can be viewed here.
Lazare points out that, according to the chronology found in Mueller’s report, if the Russians had hacked the DNC server, they would have had only “four days to review some 28,000 emails and other electronic documents to make sure that they were genuine and unaltered – a clear impossibility.” (See “The ‘Guccifer 2.0’ Gaps in Mueller’s Full Report,” April 18.)
In conclusion, the police have not solved the murder, at least they have not offered any information about it publicly. Calling this a Russian hack rather than an inside job fits their narrative. The DNC would not even allow the FBI to look at their server after the “hacking.” And finally, there have been three clear instances of deliberate misinformation discovered in the Mueller Report so far.
This is not over.
