Allow Media Exception
, Featured Story
, Front Page Stories
, Mueller Investigation
, Press Releases
, Robert Mueller
, Seth Rich
, Special Counsel
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:
Seth was ordered killed by Hillary Clinton because he knew something about her email scandal.
Seth was killed by Russians posing as FBI agents investigating the Clintons.
Seth was killed because he slipped DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
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.”
Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder ofDNC staffer Seth Rich.”
Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.”
Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter … that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”
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 Seth Rich conspiracy theory needs to end now,” declared Vox.com. “The special counsel’s report confirmed this week that Seth Rich … was not the source,” said The New York Times. “The Mueller report might not end the debate over what President Donald Trump did,” the Poynter Institute’s Politifact added, “but it has scuttled one conspiracy theory involving a murdered Democratic party staffer and WikiLeaks.”
The Consortium News’ Daniel Lazare wrote a fascinating piece which appears on Zerohedge about this case. He wrote:
There’s nothing in the Mueller report indicating that the special counselor independently reviewed the forensic evidence or questioned family members and friends. He certainly didn’t interview Assange, the person in the best position to know who supplied the data, even though Craig Murray, the ex-British diplomat who serves as an unofficial WikiLeaks spokesman, says the WikiLeaks founder would have been “very willing to give evidence to Mueller” while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, “which could have been done by video-link, by interview in the Embassy, or by written communication.”
Murray says Mueller’s team made no effort to contact him either even though he has publicly stated that he met clandestinely with an associate of the leaker near the American University campus in Washington.
Why not? Because Mueller didn’t want anything that might disturb his a prior assumption that Russia is the guilty party. If he had bucked the intelligence community finding – set forth in a formal assessment in January 2017 – that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy — it would have been front-page news since an anti-Trump press had already accepted the assessment as gospel. But Mueller is far too much of an establishmentarian to do anything so reckless.
So he selected evidence in support of the official theory that “[t]he Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion,” as the report states on its very first page. And since Assange had consistently maintained that the data was the result of an inside leak rather than internal hack and that “[o]ur source is not the Russian government,” he cherry picked evidence to show that Assange is a liar, not only about Russia but about Seth Rich.
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.
Assange: Whistle blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old – works for the DNC – who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington, so….
Rosenthal: That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?
Assange: No, there’s no finding, so –
Rosenthal: What are you suggesting?
Assange: I’m suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.
Rosenthal: But was he one of your sources then? I mean –
Assange: We don’t comment about who our sources are.
Rosenthal: But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
Assange: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources, you know, face serious risks. That’s why they come to us – so we can protect their anonymity.
Rosenthal: But it’s quite something to suggest a murder. That’s basically what you’re doing.
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[s] 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.
The post The Mueller Report Raises New Questions About The Seth Rich Murder Case appeared first on RedState.
Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com