Elvis » Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:00 pm wrote:
mentalgongfu2 » Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:15 am wrote:
Elvis, can we look at this another way - beyond the known facts that Rich worked for the DNC and was killed in a still-unsolved murder, what actual evidence is there that he WAS the leaker?
(Beyond the speculation and implications of the politically motivated)
Thanks mgf, that's a good question and I want to give it a good answer, but I'm short on time today, thanks for patience.
Allow me to apologize for the long delay, I've been preoccupied with a cluster of events and obligations, wanting for time and energy. Now I can relax, lemme roll a cigarette and get started. I think a lot of people—not least the newsreporters—are just not using their heads in this matter, and I sometimes see people confuse "evidence" with "proof," two different things of course. Plus there's plenty of plain disingenuous argument—again mainly from the big MSM opinion-makers—that doesn't really stand up to simple logic.
Elvis » Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:07 pm wrote:
let's agree on what we mean by 'evidence':
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Thinking about what constitutes evidence, the word "indication" kept coming to mind, and sure enough, my lame-o paste of a dictionary definition proves me right.
So. We're considering available facts and information that indicate the truthfulness or validity of two related propositions, which I'd like to phrase as questions:
1. Did Seth Rich leak or help to leak the DNC emails published by Wikileaks?
and if so,
2. Was Seth Rich's murder related to the leak of DNC emails?
In the United States, we'll hang a man on the testimony of one person (e.g. commonly a jail snitch). Testimony is evidence; it's only information, but it's evidence. A statement can become a "fact" if a police officer says it, but even that double standard is waning.
It seems to me that there are only two or three people we're aware of who could know with certainty who leaked the DNC emails:
1. The leaker.
2. Julian Assange.
3. Craig Murray.
Number (1.) is unknown and is little help here.
Number (2.), Julian Assange—the one person in the world who almost certainly knows who the leaker is—has strongly indicated that it was Seth Rich. Obviously, Assange's not going to explicitly reveal the leaker's identity, but that's a huge fucking indication from the one person who should know.
Number (3.) is the former British diplomat Craig Murray who claims he participated in the hand-off in Washington D.C. and hinting at Seth Rich's involvement; to me that's a pretty big indication. Assange cautiously (and naturally) distanced himself from Murray's accounts but continues, as recently as the other day with Dana Rohrbacher, to insist that the DNC emails were leaks, not hacks.
Which is another question we may as well deal with. The Assange and Murray testimonies, if you will, also answer the question of whether the emails were hacked or leaked: they were leaked. The letter from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)—a panel of heroes and whistleblowers—concurs, and it impresses me as the best investigation into the question.
So my argument proceeds from the proposition that the emails were leaked, not hacked (this post is looking long already, so evidence that the emails were hacked can be dissected later).
Someone leaked the emails.
My argument is simply that the above facts and information rather strongly suggest that Seth Rich is likely the leaker. It goes a bit beyond Assange's assertions alone, e.g., what we know about Seth's personality—idealistic, patriotic, progressive, worked on DNC email systems, a Bernie Sanders supporter—fits the profile of an insider "disgusted" by the corrupt and shameful campaign practices of DNC executives exposed in the emails.
So far, I'm roughly guessing ummmm... a 70% likelihood, that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails. It's a theory, a pretty good one considering the evidence. It might be wrong. The leaker could very well be someone else. There could be twenty other people who worked on DNC email systems at the time and who supported Sanders etc., etc., but no one I know of has tried to find out.
Did the DNC even call law enforcement when they learned that their emails had been stolen? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet they never did. If not, why not?
My estimate for the likelihood that Seth was killed for what he did or what he knew is lower. The possibility always exists that it was a "random" killing. Without more information from the police (e.g. what did Seth say in his "talkative" state? were there body cam recordings?).
We wouldn't even know about Seth Rich if he hadn't been killed. But when you put that earlier huge fucking indication from Assange that Seth was the leaker—and may have been murdered for it—together with other indications, a body of evidence comes together. that deserves at least a proper investigation.
The police. What do the police have? The police have a theory. It's a pretty weak theory, considering the evidence. But since the police said it, it's good as gold. The police say they suspect a botched robbery. This gets reported as a murder "police say was a botched robbery." There's just one problem. The police never said it was a botched robbery. It's a theory.
It's not a great theory because as we know, none of Seth's valuable's were taken. The best argument for it has come from pundits pointing out that 'there have been other robberies and/or shootings in the area.' Uh huh, I'm convinced! Not..
(I haven't been to D.C. in years but when I was there, from the toney comfort of "ambassador row," our host pointed at the street facing our building and told us, "whatever you do, do not cross XXth Street—you will be mugged." So an arbitrary "area" a quarter-mile across can easily include a zone where crime statistics starkly contrast with the "good" neighborhoods where one feels completely safe. I did get lost briefly in a ghetto—and that's the word for it—thanks to a confused cabbie. Suffice for now to say it was a completely different world.)
I'm almost inclined to agree with those who feel as if the unified MSM characterization of these questions as kooky, harmful thoughts is itself an indication that something is amiss. Seems a little crazy! But I've never been so reminded of the monolithic MSM attacks on Oliver Stone's "JFK"; I read just about every "JFK" review in print (this was before the interwebs), and nothing factual was ever disputed. I looked and looked, but not one single MSM reviewer made any serious challenge to information represented in the movie (which I think was not perfect but very well researched). Rather, the reader's emotions were pushed: Stone should be ashamed; these conspiracy theories are degrading; it's unAmerican; Stone is deceiving us; I don't want my kids seeing this garbage.
Reason left the building.
Just a few days ago, the BBC felt it necessary to devote a lengthy radio (and maybe TV?) segment to the Seth Rich story. I was working so couldn't really take notes, but by now it can probably be found on the BBC site (I'll look later).
I listened pretty carefully, and what stood out first was that the topic was announced as an "outrageous conspiracy theory"—announcer emphasis on a drawn-out "outRAGEous"—without ever explaining why it was outrageous.
Yet, they called it an "outrageous conspiracy theory" three times. Three times! Once in the teaser, again in the intro, and again in the body.
What is outrageous is the BBC reporting on this subject. In their quite detailed account, including loads of non-information (and the usual "which police say was a robbery gone bad"), the BBC strangely omitted a most relevant fact: at the DNC, Seth worked on—duh!—email systems!
The BBC said only that Seth Rich worked at the DNC. Not once did they mention what kind of work he did, or what his politics were, etc.
Now, if you're an investigator, or a professional reporter at one of the most august news reporting organizations in the world, you might think that when Julian Assange indicates that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails, the fact that Seth worked on email systems at the DNC would be relevant to your story, wouldn't you? The two just might be connected, yeah? I mean, what are the chances? (1 in 1?)
Further, as a professional investigator or journalist you might think (if you were actually thinking) that this piece of information would be worth including in your 20-fucking-minute report. Wouldn't that make sense? If you were being honest about the facts?
But no. Not one mention. And that's just one point of misinformation. It's either very sloppy or deliberately dishonest; we can only speculate.
There's more about the seeming media campaign to discredit any connection between Seth Rich and the DNC email leaks, and more to cover generally, but this is what I have tonight.
To mentalgongfu2, I hope I've reasonably answered your question.
Oh and just one more thing.
I keep hearing from Jerky that Julian Assange has indicated that he has knowledge of the killer's (or killers') identity. This sounds like another straw man; can anyone show where Assange made such an indication? Thanks in advance.
Elvis, thank you for responding, albeit several weeks and a few PM's after you indicated said response was imminent. I understand that other life matters can take priority over responding to an essential stranger's question on a discussion board.
So let's begin, keeping in mind I am coming from a skeptical viewpoint - that is, I have no particular leaning either direction as to whether 1) Seth Rich leaked DNC documents or 2) he was murdered because of 1, other than my admitted bias against some of the outlets that have presumed both 1 and 2 are true and proceeded strictly from there. And I guess I should add, that because 2 follows from 1, my lack of conviction on 1 means I have some hurdles to get to 2. I also have an inclination to play devil's advocate, which does not always mirror my own conclusions but does help me to reach them.
We previously agreed on what constitutes evidence, even if that is merely a working definition. As to the truth that people can be hung on the testimony of one person in the good ol' USA, and said testimony can become a "fact" even if it comes from a questionable source such as a jailhouse snitch, I agree. We are, thankfully, operating on our own standards here as a discussion board and not as a jury participating in a trial for a capital crime. For that we would need a specific suspect, among other things. Good so far.
We also agree the leaker could answer question 1. As could Julian Assange, presuming he knows, which is likely as you say. As you also say, Assange has "strongly indicated" Rich is the leaker. I must ask, if Rich is the leaker, given Rich has no obvious need for protection given he is no longer alive, why would Assange not merely say so, to clear the air and make a definitive statement, rather than merely a "strong indication". You say it is obvious Assange would not do so, but I'm not clear why the one person likely to know, who is demonstrably still alive (while the leaker may or may not be), would not just come out and say so. If Rich was the leaker, why would Assange merely hint at it rather than reveal it outright? Who does he have left to protect in this instance? Does Assange believe in protecting sources such that he would not even reveal a deceased one, to which no more harm can come, for the sake of protecting a standard of secrecy? I will oblige that he may well have such a standard. I don't know enough about his standards to say, but if source protection is such a concern, I wonder why he would so strongly imply anything about a source's identity to begin with.
[Yes, these are questions to which I do not have answers, not "evidence" by our agreed-upon definition. But relevant questions, and as you take similar liberties as your argument proceeds, I believe they are fair ones. A possible answer to why he wouldn't do so is if Rich was not, in fact, the leaker, in which case Assange would still have someone else he needs to protect.]
Regarding Craig Murray. I have but a passing familiarity. I of course looked the name up in connection with Rich when I saw it in your post. Among the articles I discount based on the particular publication promoting them, such as WND, were a few I will not write off so quickly. We can leave for another time or place how much stock to put in the reputation of any particular source, given I did note that each should be evaluated on its merits without your specific objection when we agreed upon our vague but useful definition of evidence. A Counterpunch article bylined from Mike Whitney (relying on reporting from Robert Parry at Consortium News, and quoting much of the same) relates that the DNC leak at issue came "from a 'disgruntled Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community..."
It goes on to describe a meeting Murray is alleged to have had on behalf of Wikileaks with "one of the sources (or a representative)" in a wooded area near American University on Sept. 25. Murray apparently does not specify whether he was meeting with a source related to the DNC leak or the Podesta leak. The article, which is mainly framed as a takedown of the Russian hack narrative (and fair enough on that, considering the popular narrative of Russian hacking is full of holes), goes on to ask the same sort of unanswered questions I have posed above, but in this case regarding the Russia narrative rather than the Rich-as-leaker-narrative.
I also am looking at a Craig Murray article on his own website, entitled "Stink Without a Secret," also focused on taking down the Russian hack narrative, in which his only reference to the above claims or Rich is a criticism of The Guardian for failing to point out that troubling aspects of the claim (fact?) from "law enforcement" that the FBI has not looked at Rich's laptop while investigating his murder. I find it hard to believe law enforcement would not do so. And it is not clear whether "law enforcement," presumably D.C. police, are saying they themselves haven't looked at it, or just that the FBI hasn't.
In the interest of objectivity, I also clicked on and perused an article by The New American titled "More Evidence Points to Murdered DNC Staffer as Wikileaks' Source." This repeats Assange's strong suggestions and also quotes Kim Dotcom as being in direct communication with Rich under the pseudonym 'Panda" and saying Dotcom knows Rich is the leaker due to past contacts with 'Panda' about starting a branch of the Internet Party, without ever providing any info in the interview specifically about Rich's alleged involvement in the leak other than Dotcom's willingness to testify on the unmentioned evidence he claims to have.
Please note I did read some other stuff, but I am being as brief as I can here, which, as you can tell, is not very... Let us move on, since I have already gone past the things you have cited up till now.
You conclude the emails were leaked, not hacked. I have no problem agreeing with that considering there is poor and little evidence of a Russian hack (separate from the unrelated question, mind you, of whether Trump himself is in debt financially or otherwise to Russian mob interests).
OK. So emails were leaked. Your argument then proceeds that Seth Rich is likely the leaker, based on the suggestions from Assange, Seth's personality (idealistic, patriotic, progressive, ... Bernie Sanders supporter), as you say, and access to DNC email systems. You put it at 70 percent likelihood. I appreciate you at least providing a reasonable margin of error for other possibilities. I do not know where the personality assessments come from, though I have come across those that mirror the qualities you cite, so I will take it at face value as likely true that he exhibited such characteristics.
I also appreciate your acknowledgment someone else with similar access as Rich could be the leaker. You then state no one you know has tried to find out. No one I know has tried to find out either, but I don't know anyone in the DNC, D.C. Police, or FBI. Which brings me back to the point that Assange could answer this question with an outright yes or no to the question of "Was it Seth Rich?" While I can't say why he won't give such an answer, I am personally troubled by the fact he is willing to "strongly indicate" something to the point of nearly stating it, without actually stating it. To me, that is the sort of thing people do when they are hedging their bets and trying to manipulate others. That, to me, stinks as badly or worse than the unanswered questions you go on to raise about the DNC and whether or not they called law enforcement regarding stolen emails.
Worse, actually, because 1) why would the DNC want to publicize that fact? 2) what could a D.C. police department actually do about it? Whereas, Assange could presumably lay many questions to rest.
The reports of Rich's "talkative" state en route to the hospital are certainly intriguing. What was he talking about, and why aren't there records of it? I don't know if D.C. police wear body cameras or if any were even in the ambulance as he was transported. I doubt paramedics there wear body cameras. The "talkative" state is also in question for me, given he was in critical condition (Priority 1, according to reports). A brief search for reliable sources on these questions yields for me nothing beyond the expected conspiracy nuts (i.e. doctor with tangential connection to Podesta/Clintons might have been Rich's attending doctor because he works at a hospital Rich might have been taken to) and the expected conspiracy debunkers (no need to cite, as they just say X is BS).
As I am getting way more lengthy than even the old C2W, let me say now that I agree the MSM outright dismissing the possibility of Rich as leaker and foul play in his death, beyond attempted robbery, is ludicrous. It is unfortunate, to say the least.The possibility should be considered dutifully, as I am attempting to do by engaging with you here and digging into things I would otherwise not be aware of. The outright dismissal by many news outlets is in poor form, and I would, and do, expect better from some of the pilers-on than to dismiss it as mere "conspiracy" simply because it fits with a narrative that places guilt on the Democratic party. I would, however, differ with you perhaps only in that I am more likely to believe the dismissal by historically-venerable news organizations is, rather than a conspiracy of its own, a result of both general laziness and a disinclination to consider reports from sources promoting the original 1 and 2 theories that range from questionable (still worth a look), to plain unreliable playgrounds of ideological fantasy/assumptions (damaging to one's intellect).
To that point, while MSM opposition is notable, I don't think it meets our definition of evidence. And whatever the reviews of Stone's "JFK" upon release, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in my cohort who would echo those thoughts. While government involvement in 911 is still taboo among some of my peers, nearly everyone in my circles accepts the official story of Kennedy's assassination is bogus and the CIA was likely involved. You could be laughed out of a room for suggesting it was indeed Oswald alone with his magic rifle.
I will leave alone your specific critique of the BBC's failures in reporting, since I think I have touched on the general problems with such things above.
But back to Rich. I think the most important point you failed to mention is that of his surviving family, specifically his parents, as it seems he was not married and did not father children.
His parents, the only immediate surviving relatives of which I am aware, have repeatedly, adamantly and publicly denied a political motive behind his death and pleaded for an end to the speculation of political involvement.
Now, I have heard the argument that his parents are big Democrat supporters, thus they wouldn't want to besmirch his name, or theirs,by acknowledging he might have been the leaker.
I call bullshit on that.
No parent, except the most degenerate opportunist imaginable, would put a political party above finding the truth about the murder of their own child. I think this can be accepted as a general truism, but there are countless individual stories to back it up, including a few involving people I have met myself in real life. I have no reason to believe Seth Rich's parents are degenerate opportunists, nor that they remain in a state of denial over the cause of his murder. Perhaps they have been hoodwinked by the D.C. police, but I highly doubt it, given the massive attention focused on their son's death and their constant requests to put an end to the speculation and the opportunism of those who feed on the conspiracy theory (yes, I hate that phrase, but I find it appropriate here and lack a better substitute). There are many articles that cite the fact Rich's autopsy has not been made public as some sort of evidence in favor of the leaker+political murder theory. They are apparently unaware that actual autopsy ARE NOT public records in most states, none that I'm specifically aware of in fact. While the cause and manner of death is public, the autopsy report itself is private, available only to specified individuals such as law enforcement personnel and immediate family members. If there was anything in the autopsy report of Seth Rich that could lead to solving his murder, don't you think his parents would want to scream it from the mountaintop? I do. It is an assumption, for sure, but of the assumptions I've made so far, it is one I'm most comfortable with.
So here we are. While I am not convinced Seth Rich is the leaker, you have at least given me some new things to ponder. And for that I thank you. Neither am I convinced he was not the leaker, but I do lean toward the belief that even if he was, it was not the cause of his death, based on all I have said above. I doubt I have convinced you of anything either, but hopefully you at least have some food for thought as well. To my mind, the question of whether he is or is not the leaker is the key one. He could be the leaker and still have been murdered randomly in a botched robbery. He could not be the leaker and have been murdered in a botched robbery. But only if he was the leaker could his murder take on the political implications it has been given, in many cases by writers and publications who refuse to even begin to ask the questions we have asked each other tonight.
Thank you again, Elvis, for your belated reply. You have indeed reasonably answered my question to the best of your ability. Peace.
On edit: I have edited a few times since my initial posting to fix a couple obvious typos and clarify my statements on where I stand regarding Rich being the leaker or not. Upon review, I see some other things I might add or clarify, but I will leave it as stands for the sake of keeping things clean and transparent. If you, or anyone else for that matter, would like to continue the discussion on any points, I welcome it.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
Thanks mentalgongfu2 and Elvis.
. Anyway, fwiw, the MPD link 
Thanks SonicG and SLAD for the links.