« Biden? Grandpa should not be president. | Main | Venezuela - Bay of Pigs Redux? »

29 April 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

akaPatience

To me the most convincing aspect of the theory that Seth Rich provided the DNC emails to Wkileaks is that Assange offered such a generous reward for info regarding his murder. I can think of no plausible explanation for Assange's offer other than the probability that he and Rich had a relationship. If anyone's aware of similar rewards Assange has offered in other murder cases, I'd like to know.

rjj

DH, by way of longer comments: have any been recovered from the Disqus transcript? Checked your Typepad page; glad to see it is active.

turcopolier

rjj Still up in Milo? Don't like the way I run this place?

Larry Johnson

You're right. Apart from the offer of a reward, I know the person who was speaking to Assange and who then spoke to Ed Butowsky. This person is credible and had access. I personally have no doubt that Seth Rich was the source for the DNC emails. Whether that fact played a role in his subsequent death is something I do not know. But I do think it merits being investigated rather than dismissed outright as a crazy conspiracy.

Keith Harbaugh

Re the Barr/Mueller spat that is dominating today's news, the following is worthwhile:
"Andrew McCarthy: Mueller's letter to Barr – A neat trick by the Washington Post before hearings begin", by Andrew McCarthy at Fox News, 2019-05-01

Norumbega

I think that's the right attitude to take. Mainstream commentary instantly cries "conspiracy theory" the moment Seth Rich's name is even mentioned - a label that does seem appropriate with regard to the class of social media comment which starts with the premise that his murder was a hit job probably ordered by Hillary or Podesta (who's email about making an example of a leaker was dated well over a year earlier).

However, in general the conspiracy theory charge is a misleading deflection, since it is not a theory but a fact that a number of persons with plausible claims to knowledge have stated or implied that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak. And it is also striking that the Mueller team seems to have lacked the interest to interview any of them.

Rick Merlotti

Excellent article

Norumbega

Thanks for your extended reflections.

Some points. The issue of Seth Rich's possible concern about DNC skulduggery in marginalizing Sanders has been raised, and some others have responded to the claims that Rich asked for and received money in exchange for the DNC materials as contradicting this motive. In the spirit of your other comments, which call for avoiding either-or, black-and-white thinking, I would just like to point out that the two motivations are compatible, and people's motivations are generally complex.

About the NSA's response to Clevenger's FOIA request, I think you are right to stress that the most significant part is their stated first ground for refusal that "The documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave or serious damage to the national security."

I assume the wording comes from the language of the Act, as does the language of the second (and for our purposes, less interesting) ground that disclosure would compromise certain information that the NSA is authorized to protect regarding its activities. Nevertheless the appeal to the former ground would seem significant in itself.

However, to be clear, we don't know whether the relevant pages they admit to possessing are relevant specifically to the existence of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, since they could instead pertain to communications between Seth Rich and his brother Aaron Rich, or Seth Rich and the Awans, or Seth Rich and any person outside the US, or any phone calls to or from Rich on the final day of his life, among other possibilities given by the wording.

One my point to an extensive body of claims or insinuations by individuals with plausible claims to knowledge that Seth Rich was involved in the DNC leak, and the absence of any public claims specifying, say, a connection between Rich and the Awans, as supporting the inference that the documents in the NSA's possession the release of which could "cause exceptionally grave or serious damage to the national security" could well have pertained to a Seth Rich-WikiLeaks connection. But we cannot know that.

I did spend one afternoon not so long ago, going through a long timeline provided by a serious but blindered Russiagater, who held that contradictions in Murray's account (he met the source? or an intermediary?; hand-off? or no hand-off?) as grounds for dismissing him or even Murray's having been in on a disinformation effort with Assange and Ray McGovern. In terms of what we know that Murray has claimed - specifically, his blog post "The CIA's Absence of Conviction", the Scott Horton interview, or a street interview near the Ecuadorian embassy the date of which I don't know but which was played in the course of Jason Goodman's recent interview with Bill Binney - the first mentions no hand-off, the second says the materials were already safely with WikiLeaks, and the third says there was no thumb drive involved in the clandestine meeting he had in Washington. In other words, he gives no conflicting account. One could speculate on other possibilities, but it's easy to see how Murray's telling of a clandestine meeting in Washington with one of the sources, about which Murray would have been reticent about precise details, could have given rise to a misunderstanding on the reporter's part.

Your basic point is well taken. We are all fallible in how we express what we want to convey, and in other ways.

Norumbega

I'm just curious. Is this the same person who told you and Malia Zimmerman about the FBI's knowledge of Seth Rich's contact with WikiLeaks?

Larry Johnson

No. Different person.

Norumbega

Thanks!

rjj

dysaniosis

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dusaniw%3Dn&la=greek&can=dusaniw%3Dn0&prior=dusa/nios#lexicon

rjj

seemed preferable to fulminatio praecox.

blue peacock

Larry & David

I'm sure you've both read the FBI media leak on them sending an FBI agent to spy and/or entrap George Papadopolous in the UK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html

Why do you think the FBI insiders leaked this? They clearly had detailed knowledge of the Horowitz investigation. Is this beginning to unravel or their excuse we had to have a counter-intelligence investigation into the Russian Manchurian candidate will enable them to skate?

English Outsider

"What does seem clear is that an accumulating mass of evidence suggests FBI complicity in a cover-up of what happened to Rich, in tandem with a thoroughly discreditable role of the leadership of that organisation in ‘Russiagate.’"

Your meticulous examination of the facts and probabilities above reinforces the conclusion reached in Mr Johnson's recent article -

"The preponderance of evidence makes this very simple--there was a broad, coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments, to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge of Russia."

One of those foreign governments being ours. Unless parts of the UK Intelligence services are unsupervised.

And Brad Parscale weighing in on twitter -

"This scam and web of lies was a clear political attack that should be fully investigated."

With a supporter showing where this is going - "Full steam ahead for 2020."

2020. In Trumpspeak 2020's going to be a "beauty". The Colonel predicted some time ago that if they couldn't get him on Russia they'd get him on property dealing. They'll be throwing everything at him and Trump will be throwing everything back at them.

How much will he throw back? Presumably one of the difficulties in contesting Russiagate is that releasing details of what was said between the UK and US intelligence services will imperil the intelligence relationship. Even "redacted" all over the documents would leave a lot to be deduced.

So is it likely that in the no holds barred fight of a Presidential election material like that is going to come out?

I ask because the recent UK Huawei decision indicates the start of a rift. Or rather, makes that rift more apparent. The US defence relationship with Europe, all assure us, is still solid. Those assurances are the more vehement as the rift becomes more visible. My own tentative view is that we are starting to see a European attempt to constitute a block independent of and sometimes opposed to the US. With the UK sitting on as many fences as it can find. The Williamson contretemps is starting to look like the old Westland helicopter dispute.

Assuming, as I most certainly do, that your take on the Steele affair is the true one might I ask, how do you see that affecting these issues?

English Outsider

I append the link to the Brad Parscale quote. The quote from the supporter is lower down in the thread.

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1118930547223482373

David Habakkuk

EO,

Very good questions. I have had the nose to the grindstone trying to absorb the vast masses of information emerging about the conspiracy, but will try to say something about the broader implications for British foreign policy when I can, as it were, come up for air.

English Outsider

Thank you. By an odd chance I came across more on this just now that you will be familiar with but that I had not before seen summed up so concisely and in one place -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PK1vByfK_I&feature=youtu.be

It details a fundamental and accelerating shift in UK defence policy away from the US alliance that would have been apparent, if not publicly, at least from 2016.

The speaker, Professor Prins, does not seem to have been aware that at the same time US and UK agencies were working together on, among other things, the Steele dossier.

Tim

It’s likely Murray received USB thumb drive AFTER Seth Rich’s death. Seth Rich’s Death likely triggered the handover of the thumb drive to Murray. Also strange, in one of the interviews Ed Butowsky claims that Seth Rich got paid $48,415 on June 23rd (2015) via PayPal/eBay. This is way too early. Maybe Ed Butowsky meant to say 2016. But according to KimDotcom, Seth Rich contacted him in late 2014.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad