Latest topics
» The Hopkinsville Creatures: What On Earth Were They? Richard Dolan
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 6:32 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Solar Nebula Hypothesis Ready for History's Dustbin?
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 11:06 am by PurpleSkyz

» A Lot Going on at the ISS
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 11:04 am by PurpleSkyz

» Shadow People - The Mysterious Dark Watchers
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:58 am by PurpleSkyz

» COVID19 UPDATES - U.S. Marines and Navy Prepare to Execute Pandemic Plan plus MORE
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:47 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange space vehicles seem to appear out of flashes of light
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:30 am by PurpleSkyz

» Police Obtain Warrant for Ancestry.com DNA Database
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:28 am by PurpleSkyz

» Assange most important symbol of press freedom today – journalist
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:26 am by PurpleSkyz

» DR. JOSEPH FARRELL: PERMINDEX PAPERS II NASA UFO JFK ASSASSINATION DEEP STATE BEARER BONDS MYSTERY!
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 10:18 am by PurpleSkyz

» Meanwhile in London.........
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 6:15 am by bs4ever

» POOPness for FEB 21: RELEASE... NOT REALLY JUST SEND ME MORE MONEY!!!
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyYesterday at 12:56 am by PurpleSkyz

» ‘Food As Medicine’, Return to Nature
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyFri Feb 21, 2020 8:02 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Jenny McCarthy talks to Blue Chicken Cult Leaders about their documentary "The Conman Secret."
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyFri Feb 21, 2020 7:54 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Body Language: Mike Bloomberg First Debate Performance
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyFri Feb 21, 2020 7:53 pm by PurpleSkyz

» BiNaural beats study music - improve memory and concentration
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  EmptyFri Feb 21, 2020 2:40 pm by PurpleSkyz





***********

CLICK THE SUBSCRIBE BUTTON BELOW TO RECEIVE OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER

A 2ND EMAIL COMPLETES THE ACTIVATION PROCESS




CLICK THE PURPLE BUTTON TO VIEW OUR LATEST POSTS







You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » LEGAL DEFENDERS & FREEDOM FIGHTERS » JULIAN ASSANGE & WIKILEAKS » Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?

Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  Empty Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich? on Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:12 pm

PurpleSkyz

PurpleSkyz
Admin
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  Seth-Rich-imagenes-difundidas-conservadores_EDIIMA20170807_0501_16 Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  13444732_f120
#JUSTICEFORSETHRICH

Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?


Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  Picture-5

by  Tyler Durden  
Fri, 01/31/2020 - 23:05



Authored by Craig Murray,
A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying , including giving false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits  that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  2020-01-31_13-41-11
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence  between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.




Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  Screenshot-1003
Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich?  Screenshot-1004-1
Before I analyse these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?
To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page.
The opening email, at the bottom, dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am, precisely just one month after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office. It references Wikileaks’ offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich, and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer is “not aware of any specific involvement” by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next sentence is completely redacted. Why?
It appears that “adding” references a new person added in to the list. This appears to have not worked, and probably the same person (precisely same length of deleted name) then tries again, with “adding … for real” and blames the technology – “stupid Samsung”. The interesting point here is that the person added appears not to be in the FBI – a new redacted addressee does indeed appear, and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix after their deleted email address. So who are they?
(This section on “adding” was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my original one. See first comments below).
The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is “will do”. And every single word of this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that “I squashed this with …..”, is from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.
As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is why we now have it. Why?
It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of invasion of privacy).
And if it just all said “Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI” then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?
It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer, because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the correspondence between those two.
Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect in Seth Rich’s murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.
I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery:
Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions. Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case here).
You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.
(As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which I discovered describes Tam Dalyell “hounding” Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life as a “second conspiracy theory”, the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell. Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)
We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth Rich’s parents, David Kelly’s wife, Willie Macrae’s brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.
Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.
*  *  *
Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .


Thanks to: https://www.zerohedge.com



  

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum