The Death of Seth Rich-A Different Perspective Part 2

The Closer Look

Deep Corruption-FBI-DNC-MSM-Hillary Clinton and Other Scary Nightmares-The Closer Look

Assange and Wikileaks

A purposely contrived veil of secrecy has fueled speculation that Seth Rich was the Wiki-leaker responsible for the files labeled “DNC Email Archive” published by Wikileaks on July 22, 2017, just ten days after the reported death of Seth Rich.

In early August, Julian Assange added more fuel to what soon became a bonfire of speculation regarding Seth Rich’s role as a Wiki-leaker. During an interview with the Dutch program “Nieuwsuur” that took place seventeen days after the DNC email dump, Assange dropped a bomb. The key incendiary phrase that Assange used to ignite thoughts that had been merely smoldering was “Our whistle blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and very significant risks. There’s a twenty seven year old, works for the DNC, shot in the back, murdered…”. When pressed further by the host to confirm that Seth Rich had been the DNC leaker, Assange tried to be coy and simply replied that Wikileaks does not reveal its sources. But the damage had already been done. Assange had all but admitted that Seth Rich had done the deed and paid the ultimate price for doing so.  Assange subsequently appeared to quash all doubts by following up shortly thereafter with an offer of a twenty thousand dollar reward for information on Rich’s muderer(s).

Assange on “Nieuwsuur”

Case closed then, right?   It was not the Russians, it was Seth Rich.  It was most assuredly not the Russians, but was it actually Seth Rich? Perhaps not. First. let us take a look at the question that Assange was answering and the reply in its entirety. The interviewer began with this:

“Donald Trump has had a disastrous few weeks. If you look at the polls he needs a miracle. Um, in the American lexicon there is such a thing as the ‘October surprise’.  The stuff that you are sitting on, is there an October surprise in there?”  Let us pause right here so that you can come up with a few possible and utterly appropriate replies.

One reply might be, “Yes, we have some really explosive material that we are getting ready to post”. One might be “No, there is nothing further being reviewed at this time”.  Another possible reply might be “Wikileaks never sits on anything. Any lag time between receipt and posting of material is due to our very careful review and authentication process” (for which Wikileaks is famous-they have never been found to publish inauthentic documents).  But this is precisely what Assange repled:

“Wikileaks never sits on material”. (So far, so good)...”Aaahh..Our whistle blowers go to  significant efforts to get us material and very significant risks. There’s a twenty seven year old, works for the DNC, shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington, so.

Interviewer: “That was, that was just a robbery I believe, wasn’t it”?

Assange: “No, there’s no findings ah, so that’s the sort of” (Not so. D.C. police ruled “botched robbery pretty quickly).

Interviewer: “What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting”?

Assange:  “I am suggesting that our sources, ah, take risks and they are, they become, concerned, ah, to see things occurring like that”.

Interviewer: “But was he one of your sources then, I mean”?

Assange:  “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.

Interviewer:  “But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot on the streets of Washington”?

Assange:  “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are …you know, our sources face serious risks. Ah, that’s why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity”.

Interviewer:  “But that’s quite something to suggest a murder. That’s what you’re doing”.

Assange:  “Well, others have suggested that, ah.  We are investigating to understand, ah, what happened in that situation with Seth Rich. I think it is a concerning situation. There’s not a conclusion yet.  We wouldn’t be willing to state a conclusion but we are concerned about it but more importantly, um, a variety of Wikileaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens”. End of clip.  Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

What really happened here? The interviewer was probing in an effort to determine if Wikileaks had anything sitting in the pipeline that might affect the American Presidential election. Assange deflected and gave a reply that shifted the entire segment over to discussion of the possibility that Seth Rich was executed for providing Wikileaks the DNC email dump.

CGI?

There is something very odd about that two minute clip of Assange,  It just doesn’t seem natural. It does seem like CGI. There are spots where we hear Assange’s voice but the lips never reflect what is being said. His movements and speech always seem just slightly out of sync with the audio, as though it was put together in layers, as though the response were not “organic”.  Only an expert in CGI would be able to determine whether or not this clip of Assange was CGI or not but there is something very, very strange about it.

The Wikileaks DNC Email Archive posted July 22,2017

What was in that much ballyhooed data dump anyway?  Here follows Wikileaks’ descriptor box for the data:

“Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10520 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3799 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1742 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year”.

In spite of what the description tells us of the date span, there are in fact 38 or so emails present generated on January 1, 1970 and one from September 2013. The bulk of the remainder do fall within the time frame quoted.  Yet there is not one email generated by Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Barack Obama, Michele Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil, nor Seth Rich for that matter. The emails are, in whole, quite benign. They are official internal communications sharing major publications’ articles on political topics , announcements regarding various Democrat Party functions, receptions, Obama round table talks and the like.  The emails are all very ho hum, scarcely the kind of thing one might snuff a young man for. If anyone knew that, it would be Julian Assange given his position as editor in Wikileaks.  How especially curious, then, that he should be so focused on Seth Rich that he worked him in to the answer to a question that had nothing at all to do with what was asked of him.

In point of fact, this massive collection of emails, more than 44,000, seem to be items that one might archive or possible transfer to a shared drive. There are hundreds and hundreds of emails announcing incoming and outgoing calls. Given the sheer volume of material, we can assume that no one would sit there and click specific emails to be stolen, They must have been sitting in one master file, a public non password protected file.  There was no password breaking done here. Why would a Russian hacker want this stuff? Why would Seth Rich?  For that matter, why would Guccifer?

By now most people understand the difference between a “hack” and a leak”. Hacks are performed externally, leaks internally. But again, why would anyone perform a hack or a leak on 44,000 pages of mundane drivel? The latest rumor is that Seth Rich asked for (and received) money from Wikileaks in exchange for all of this   Why would Assange pay for it? It is absolute drivel. Had Assange actually paid for it he should have filed a lawsuit, not offered a $20,000 reward. Something just isn’t right here.  This rumor of a payment from Wikileaks may simply be a story to cover up money that Seth Rich obtained from some other nefarious caper. After all, this rumor popped up not long before his brother, Aaron Rich, opened probate on his slain brother’s estate. Much like Sandy Hook, this feels like a botched script that keeps getting little rewrites that take the play further and further off course.

And much like Sandy Hook with its bereaved yet broadly grinning parent, Robbie Parker, Aaron Rich could barely contain himself during an interview of his parents speaking on the subject of the loss of their beloved son, Seth.

Aaron Rich

When we struggle not to cry it can look like we are smiling and there is a possibility that this is what was going on here with brother, Aaron. But no matter how hard we try, no matter how much we contract our facial muscles to constrict our tears, just a little bit of that tell-tale salty fluid will leak out into the corners of our eyes, right? So let’s move in for a closer look.

Aaron Rich-close up

Hmmm….dry as a bone. Let’s go in closer. This is from a few frames after Aaron relaxes his face after trying to suppress his tears….

Don’t Cry For Me, Argentina

Correct that to “after trying to suppress his laughter”. This is another Robbie Parker moment. Just like Sandy Hook, something is very, very wrong with this story.

 

to be continued