Home Topics in Depth Clinton- Leaks/Emails/DNC/3rd Way Caitlin Johnstone: Come on, we all know it was Seth Rich

  • Tuesday (539 posts)
    Profile photo of Tuesday Donor

    Caitlin Johnstone: Come on, we all know it was Seth Rich

    It’s stupid we’re still talking about Russian hackers vs. anonymous insiders when we all know who the source of the DNC leaks was.

    http://www.newslogue.com/debate/207/CaitlinJohnstone

    <snip>

    Let’s talk about Seth Rich. I’m just going to say out loud what everyone who’s been paying attention is already thinking: it’s unclear who leaked the Podesta files, but the DNC leaks almost certainly came from him. Could we prove this in a court of law? No. But we’ve surely been given a lot more reason to believe that it was Rich than that it was Russia. I see no reason not to assume that Seth Rich was one of the greatest heroes and patriots in American history until proven otherwise.

    I’m done pretending that this is some sort of fringe conspiracy theory when all the known facts make it by far the most plausible explanation for the DNC leaks and all the sources have proven themselves vastly more trustworthy than U.S. intelligence agencies, the U.S. government, and the legacy media combined. Seth Rich was involved with the DNC leaks. You know it, I know it, and Bob Dole knows it. We’ve got every reason to believe this and no reason not to.

    <snip>

    Seth Rich’s name has been back in the spotlight ever since WikiLeaks operative and former UK ambassador Craig Murray told Dailymail.com a few days ago that U.S. intelligence is once again lying to the American people about the Russian origins of the leaks, stating that both the DNC leaks and the Podesta files instead came from Americans working inside the DNC who did not obtain them by hacking since they had legal access to them. He stated that the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.” Murray (who has actually been saying this since his meeting with Julian Assange in October) has not named the leakers, but Rich was a Data Director at the DNC, and died under highly suspicious circumstances the same month the DNC leaks were released.

    more at link

    em77, liberalbeforeitwaspopular, FugitiveBirdie and 66 othersPastiche, nevereVereven, MissDeeds, snot, graycat, Xyzse, EaracheMyEye, LaaDeeDaaVA, share, Magical Thyme, glinda, Whisp, Enthusiast, KauaiK, Marym625, jeff47, Iwillnevergiveup, cjbmm, historylovr, djean111, Odd John, roody, Rocker, PDiddie, Port tack 8, Piperay, Scuba, kishcreek, glitch, notesdev, Ichingcarpenter, bbgrunt, sabrina, 7wo7rees, kath, DesertRat2015, NV Wino, ElfinWilde, 99thMonkey, Baba OhReally, LiberalArkie, Peace13, Dragonfli, PADemD, Doremus Jessup, broiles, Haikugal, Charles, Anemonella, davidgmills, Pacco Fransisco, roguevalley, LiberalElite, jwirr, Spanishprof27, arendt, incognito, cyberpj, Peace Patriot, newsjunkie, elias39, goodgirl, HomerRamone, HeartoftheMidwest, Downwinder, libodem like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
62 replies
  • 4 months ago #18
  • 4 months ago #33
    • libodem (985 posts)
      Profile photo of libodem

      1. Rec for the title alone

    • goodgirl (2183 posts)
      Profile photo of goodgirl Donor

      2. Yes and we all want to know who killed him.

      Or who had him killed.  Or both.

      Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.    John F. Kennedy
    • Rozinante (2471 posts)
      Profile photo of Rozinante

      3. Why wouldn't Murray and Assange name him then?

      If they named him as the DC insider leaker, it would be the biggest story in the past 100 years. Big people would be spending the rest of their lives in prison. Given the stakes, why wouldn’t Wkileaks (whose role is to OUT govt secrets) reveal the biggest secret of all?

      • Phlem (436 posts)
        Profile photo of Phlem Donor

        4. I like your style.

        Critical thinking is in such short supply. You wear it well. :)

        • davidgmills (4101 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills

          6. If that is your idea of critical thinking, I have a bridge to sell you.

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • Phlem (436 posts)
            Profile photo of Phlem Donor

            14. That is not but damn better than a lot. So what's your version?

            The person asked more questions than those who reply and “think” they have the answers.

            • Ichingcarpenter (3608 posts)
              Profile photo of Ichingcarpenter

              22. For 30 years we didn't know the identity of Deep Throat

              The biggest story was what these people revealed ……not who they were for good reason.

              Woodward and Bernstein insisted they would not reveal his identity until he died or consented to have his identity revealed… yet you want wikileaks to reveal someone who might be killed or have threats made against his family if he was killed.  Seth Rich still has family and friends who might be targeted or threaten.

              Don’t forget……. Hillary wanted Julia droned… revealed in  the emails

              Poedesta also threatened leakers in his emails………… yet you want their names revealed for ‘the big story” …..

               

              • Phlem (436 posts)
                Profile photo of Phlem Donor

                26. Um I said nothing of the sort. :)

                You and I both come from a place where there more assertions than questions asked. Propaganda lives and thrives in that environment. Someone asked more questions than had answers and from the place I came from, I’ll take that over anyone who has all the answers all the time.

                BEEN THERE,……………DONE THAT

                I think “WyldWolf” comes to mind vividly.

                I’ve also read this issue other places as JPR is not my lone source of information and other names have been brought up.

                I suspect it Might be Seth Rich, but I don’t know for sure so usually, I don’t talk about stuff I don’t know for sure. Simple as that.

                I was trying to lift someone up and encourage more questions than tear someone down. I did not ask anyone to breach confidentiality.

                Thankfully David took a shot at me, I could care less what he thinks.

              • FanBoy (7113 posts)
                Profile photo of FanBoy

                42. and we still don't know. just because someone was named and the book

                closed doesn’t mean it was the truth.  how would the peons know?

            • davidgmills (4101 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              23. Maybe you have never been in position where confidentiality was paramount?

              The key is confidentiality my friend.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • Phlem (436 posts)
                Profile photo of Phlem Donor

                27. Wow. Please continue to talk to me like I'm 3.

                You wear it well.

                • davidgmills (4101 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  29. I am just responding to your posts which seem to be fairly questionable.

                  And I am not the only one who who found your posts offensive.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
                  • Phlem (436 posts)
                    Profile photo of Phlem Donor

                    30. Mkay David.

                    BuhBy.

      • davidgmills (4101 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        5. Because the deal is they keep their sources confidential.

        It is a matter of trust.  Quaint idea I am sure.

        French Revolution; not secession.
        • snot (655 posts)
          Profile photo of snot Donor

          59. ^This.^

          There is no responsibility, without freedom; no freedom, without power; no power, without knowledge; no knowledge, without love.
      • Billy (1979 posts)
        Profile photo of Billy Banned

        Because the person that give Wikileaks the email data is still alive. Murray said it was a middleman. Not the actual leaker (Seth Rich).

        • Rozinante (2471 posts)
          Profile photo of Rozinante

          21. Actually, Murray said it was the leaker himself.

      • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
        Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

        11. Assange did everything but come right out and name Seth as his source

        However — as we all know — Wikileaks NEVER reveals its sources.  Never.  Assange said everything he could say short of violating his own ground rules.

        Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information identifying Seth’s murderers.  It does not take a clairvoyant  to cypher what this means .. Seth was most certainly the source of the leaks, period.   Anyone who can’t see the plain truth of this, is not paying attention.

        • davidgmills (4101 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills

          24. Except that Murray said it was someone in the NSA

          Not Rich, and Murray claims to be the person who picked up the “drop.”

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
            Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

            35. I guess there could have been more than one leaker

            why else would they “off” Mr. Rich?

        • StupidRedhead (2248 posts)
          Profile photo of StupidRedhead Banned

          41. Perhaps there is more than one leaker?

           “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

          Hasn’t someone gone missing that was a former head of something at the Clinton Foundation? I can’t recall the name, but he was pretty far up there. Hasn’t been heard from since October.

          948c8f248a
      • Samantha (595 posts)
        Profile photo of Samantha

        15. Contributors to Wikileaks count on it not to reveal its sources

        If an exception were made in the Rich case, as much as we all would love to know the literal truth, future contributors might rethink taking a chance by giving Wikileaks material to be made public.  That is the only reason I can think of for not revealing the “DC insider leaker.”

        Seth’s parents said after his death he wanted to make a real difference.  I believe he did just that.  He is a hero who probably gave his life to educate the public on just what exactly goes on underneath the surface of our politics.  And most I think would say those revelations were worse than what we could have ever imagined….

        Sam

      • TM99 (4694 posts)
        Profile photo of TM99 Banned

        19. That has already been answered by Assange

        if you did your research.

        In the trial for Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks was mentioned as the organization involved with Manning in those leaks.  But to this day, Assange will neither confirm nor deny that Manning had any contact with Wikileaks.  This is done so that any and every source knows that they are 100% protected in their true identities with Wikileaks.  This is a level of journalistic integrity that is rarely seen in the faux news/propaganda of today.  They value the truth (hence why they vet and have literally never been wrong in any of their leaks) and they value the truth tellers (hence why they jealously protect the identities of every whistleblower that comes to them in perpetuity.)

        When you hear people raising reasoned objections to Trump’s policies and appointments, odds are that you’re listening to the sort of thoughtful dissent that’s essential to any semblance of democracy, and it may be worth taking seriously. When you hear people criticizing Trump and his appointees for doing the same thing his rivals would have done, or his predecessors did, odds are that you’re getting the normal hypocrisy of partisan politics, and you can roll your eyes and stroll on. But when you hear people shrieking that Donald Trump is the illegitimate result of a one-night stand between Ming the Merciless and Cruella de Vil, that he cackles in Russian while barbecuing babies on a bonfire, that everyone who voted for him must be a card-carrying Nazi who hates the human race, or whatever other bit of over-the-top hate speech happens to be fashionable among the chattering classes at the moment—why, then, dear reader, you’re hearing a phenomenon as omnipresent and unmentionable in today’s America as sex was in Victorian England. You’re hearing the voice of class bigotry: the hate that dare not speak its name.  -- John Michael Greer
      • sabrina (5958 posts)
        Profile photo of sabrina Moderator

        20. There are other people to consider were Wikileaks to do that. They have NEVER

        revealed a source. Think of his family eg, and do you think the oligarchs wouldn’t SMEAR him as a TRAITOR?

        It’s so easy to ask those, like Assange and Murray who risked to so much to just satisfy our curiosity by violating the trust placed in them by the leakers who risk their lives and their families, Rich does have a family to think of, so we can feel good about it all, without understanding the POWER of those who have so much to lose IF they are challenged.

        I don’t know for sure  if Rich was the leaker, no one does, but if he was, he WAS a hero and one day we will probably find out.

        But right now, I do not want Wikileaks to break  their long record of not revealing sources unless there is some way it can be  done without violating the trust of the leaker, dead or alive.

      • jeff47 (717 posts)
        Profile photo of jeff47 Donor

        31. Because lying about keeping your sources confidential

        means people stop being your sources.

      • glinda (1621 posts)
        Profile photo of glinda Donor

        40. Because outing a source would deter others from doing so. Also Murray cannot say

        because it sounds like he does not know.

        Animals know more than we do. - Native American proverb
        • Rozinante (2471 posts)
          Profile photo of Rozinante

          49. Murray said the DNC leaker met him in the park, and handed over the emails.

          • glinda (1621 posts)
            Profile photo of glinda Donor

            51. I had read that it was an intermediary person. Did he now say it was the actual

            leaker? I thought he knew WHO the leaker was but that was not who met him????

            Animals know more than we do. - Native American proverb
    • Peace Patriot (1436 posts)
      Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

      8. Caitlin Johnstone puts all the known pieces together. Let me add a piece.

      This could be why Clinton’s Overlord sponsors abandoned her in the last week before the s/election.  I’ve been trying to figure out what their motive was, after making such an expensive investment.  It seems pretty clear to me that that is what happened:  she was “inevitable’; then she wasn’t.   It would take a lot for those who made that investment to write it off.  And I have little doubt that they promised her the White House, that is, promised that it would be rigged for her (as they rigged the Primary to get rid of Bernie and clear her path).  That is likely why she ran such a lackluster, clueless, incompetent campaign – she’d been told she had it in the bag.  Then she didn’t.

      All polls said she was going to win.  All corporate media said she was going to win.  Literally everybody thought she was going to win. And it all came crashing down very suddenly that week.

      Then there was FBI Director Comey’s unusual behavior during the week before the s/election, indicating serious temblors behind closed doors in the halls of power.

      So, if this is true – if Hillary’s Overlord sponsors cut their losses, and threw it to Trump (or let Trump win) – WHY?

      My first guess was that the lower level FBI agents’ investigations of the Clinton Foundation had to be stopped, because too many Overlords were in jeopardy, and the only way to get the investigations stopped was to stop Hillary (and make a deal with Trump to end the investigations – which he said he was going to do, until Hillary joined the Green recounts and this Russia B.S. got started – then he UN-said it).

      I figured some very serious wrong-doing was involved – wrong-doing that could ruin or even jail Overlords (the cabal of billionaires, banksters and war profiteers who have run everything since Allen Dulles put this CIA cabal together).  We’ve even had a flack story (Pizzagate), and all the “fake news” crapola, as probable cover for what the FBI agents (and the NYPD) might have been on to.

      Political murder wouldn’t phase these Overlords.  But Wikileaks knowing about it would!  Despite every dirty rotten effort to shut them up, Wikileaks cannot be silenced. Virtually everybody else involved in this Clinton takedown could be silenced.  Not Wikileaks.  I’m trying to remember when Wikileaks posted that $20,000 reward for Seth Rich’s murderers.  But from that moment, the Overlords would have known that Wikileaks knew, and if they had proceeded to rig it for Hillary anyway, Wikileaks would have TOLD the world, and Hillary’s Overlord sponsors would have been associated with a Clinton-inspired political assassination of an American citizen doing his duty on American soil.  If Hillary’s Overlord sponsors were the ones who hired the hit squad, they would be freaked out about it getting traced to them, and if they didn’t do it, they would still be tainted and possibly subjected to all kinds of dangerous investigations.

      It could have been a combination of motives and a combination of crimes and self-interests that resulted in the s/election NOT being rigged for Hillary as promised.  And there is also the Russia scenario (pro-HillaryNeo-Cons wanting a big war; anti-Hillary Overlords preferring to do business with Russia).  But this scenario that Johnstone has put together, from the parts of this picture that we do know, points strongly to Seth Rich’s murder being a political murder and a good candidate for the central pillar around which a decision to dump Hillary was made.

       

      • sharkbait (198 posts)
        Profile photo of sharkbait

        9. You have my attention. my thoughts are similar. Question:

        What do you think happened that caused her to cancel the victory fireworks the day before election day? She had a permit for it but no news source gave any reason for cancelling it. Do you think she knew she would lose?

        • Rozinante (2471 posts)
          Profile photo of Rozinante

          10. Could be some underlings arranged the fireworks…

          not realizing it could trigger a seizure. When higher-ups found out, they put the axe to it.  I don’t think they knew they were going to lose. Despite warnings of trouble from Mich Stste Dems, the campaign told them Mich was in the bag. Apparently they believed their faulty internals.

          • sharkbait (198 posts)
            Profile photo of sharkbait

            12. Trigger a seizure for Hillary?

            • Rozinante (2471 posts)
              Profile photo of Rozinante

              13. IIRC, strobe effect lights can trigger seizures in neurological patients.

              back on Clintons health. IDK what she might be suffering from, but she avoided pressers (where several flash bulbs would be going off). Perhaps fireworks have a similar effect? IDK. I do think she suffers from a serious ailment, the details of which her campaign brushed off. She’s not 100% healthy.

              • sharkbait (198 posts)
                Profile photo of sharkbait

                44. Oh, thanks. Recently I've been hearing about lights and noise triggering people.

                This isn’t meant for you but for the general public: This new use of the word triggering irritates me. I can be grouchy like that over cliches and such.

                 

        • Peace Patriot (1436 posts)
          Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

          32. I don't know about the fireworks. That could've been for any number of reasons.

          But I don’t think Hillary knew she was being dumped.  I think she was very shocked, along with a lot of other people (millions).  It’s possible that somebody in her entourage knew.  But why would they tip their hand that way?  It doesn’t make sense.

      • Samantha (595 posts)
        Profile photo of Samantha

        16. I believe you are so close you could hardly be closer — and here is why

        When the FBI first announced its investigation into Hillary’s emails, I received an email from a stranger who had read something I had posted which mentioned Russia.  He did not comment publicly but only did so privately because the information he had was given to him by an insider at the FBI.  What his message conveyed was that everyone there thought Hillary was guilty and an indictment should be recommended to Justice.  However, people in high places were scared to death to touch it he said because the revelations that could be made involved so many people in our government, it could take it down.  Because of this fear, he was unsure which way the FBI would go but thought perhaps Hillary would escape indictment because of the fear many, many people would go down with her.

        On his second question, he asked if I thought Russia did in fact have a copy of the emails.  I said yes because Guccifer had mentioned that he gave Russia and two other countries (one of which was China, and the other I cannot say for certain) a copy.  So when I read or hear the assertion that Russia influenced the 2016 election by “hacking” into various emails of distinctive politicians and/or organizations, I immediately think why would Russia bother when it had already been given pretty much all it needed….

        Sam

         

        • Peace Patriot (1436 posts)
          Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

          28. That's certainly intriguing. Any more detail?

          It seems vague.  Everybody in the FBI thought Hillary was guilty of what?  What was it that could bring down the government (and what does that phrase mean – the Obama political administration, or the entire U.S. government)?  Was it the email server investigators or the Clinton Foundation investigators who thought her guilty?  (They seemed to be two different FBI efforts.)  And why would investigators care who it brought down if it was such a serious crime or crimes?  (Was it personal fear – loss of career, retribution, loss of life – or fear of national instability?)

          It also sounds like he was probing you – trying to find out what you know or what you thought.  Did you have any suspicion that you were being investigated?

          I remember some ex-spy insider saying that everybody in the goddamn world now had copies of her emails.  This was a huge breach of national security and it was unconscionable that she wasn’t going to be held responsible for it.  She was the person in charge!

          Our spy agencies couldn’t have been happy about this, if it was news to them.  But maybe they were monitoring her all along and decided that such a blackmailable president was a good thing from their point of view.

          This is a very difficult tangle to sort out, especially since we only get bits and pieces and have to analyze things mostly by inference.  Literally everybody thought she was going to win.  The naive believed it because they thought she was a meritorious candidate; the knowing assumed it would be rigged for her.  There was no question that the “powers that be” – from Wall Street to the Neo-Cons, from all but 2 or 3 of thousands of Democratic office holders in the country to Henry Fucking Kissinger, and including nearly the entirety of the corrupt media – had chosen her as president.

          Last minute eruption of something at the FBI…and amidst cries of anguish throughout the realm, she doesn’t win.  Lots of people think that the voters decided this, that they didn’t like the conniving at the DNC or the whiff of crime – or voters just weren’t persuaded by her lousy campaign.  I think the opposite – that she ran a lousy campaign because she had been assured that she would win.  And I think that just about anybody who would be swayed by the FBI or the DNC behavior would not have voted for Hillary anyway.  It wasn’t the voters.  It was those who count the votes with their ‘TRADE SECRET’ code in all the voting systems.  But why?

          And now we are supposed to believe that the Russians did it.  So I figure it must have been our own Oligarchs.  (They are forever committing the very crimes they accuse others of committing.)  But why?  Why?  What could be so disturbing or scary to them that they would write off a billion dollar+ investment?

          • Samantha (595 posts)
            Profile photo of Samantha

            53. I read in another place that one highly placed Democratic Senator would be

            adversely impacted as well as at least six members of Congress.  The phrase used that the investigation “could take down the government” suggested to me certain highly placed individuals knew that they could get caught up simply through the mechanics of the investigation and be in jeopardy.  It certainly must have occurred to some of these people if Hillary reached a point where she thought she might be indicted and feared being convicted, she might negotiate a deal in which she turned on some of them.  Note the use of the word suggested above.

            It is also entirely possible that the Clintons who have a reputation for seeking retribution to those that harm them, and perhaps others who knew she had damaging information about them, pressured the FBI to look the other way for the better welfare of the Country, meaning in this case it would be left still standing.  Again, just speculation on my part.

            No, the author of the email was frightened, not probing, and no, I have never been investigated.  Anyone who investigated my background would be terribly bored by it, although I have worked at a number of well known big law firms in DC for some very successful attorneys.   Some of those people have been on the MSM commenting on different situations connected to recent events.

            I think Hillary lost because she failed to unite the party, and many Bernie supporters either did not vote, went Green or chose to give Trump their vote.  I do believe she and Bill are in the background of all the controversies that are ongoing now about the validity of the election, and they will not give up until Trump takes the oath of office (if that happens).

            Yes, we are suppose to believe “the Russians did it” but no one I know finds that anything but laughable.  Some of the information being reported now came out as early as 2013 and is old news.  I do think besides the incidents of great instability that Hillary demonstrated at various times during the campaign unnerved those supporting her, but when the information burst from the Life Insurance file Weiner kept, that, along with the NY prosecutor saying if the FBI didn’t start arresting people, he would was absolutely the last straw.

            In short, I have no literal facts but I was paying close attention and these are just my thoughts on the matter.

            Sam

             

            • Peace Patriot (1436 posts)
              Profile photo of Peace Patriot Donor

              57. The way the Clinton bubble collapsed, so suddenly and so completely…

              …and also given Comey’s unusual behavior, I tend to think that there was more to her loss of the s/election than her supporters being “unnerved.”  Yes, she is unstable.  Yes, she probably has Parkinson’s or something like it.  And yes, she ran the worst campaign for president I have ever witnessed.  But a week before the s/election, literally everybody in this country and on Planet Earth considered her “inevitable.”  It was not some gradual thing – of loss of confidence by her supporters, the “drip-drip-drip” of the FBI investigations and Wikileaks revelations or the slow dawning of dimwitted people that she is a Neo-Con.  It was sudden.  Really, up to election day, she was a shoe-in.  Then she wasn’t.

              I remember some of us here at JPR complaining at Wikileaks’ slow revelation process and not having any instant “smoking guns” to prevent her from becoming president.  We were all convinced that she was going to win.  Then she didn’t.

              To me this points to her billion-dollar sponsors – the members of the Overlord class who chose her as their tool, made her very rich and have the power to rig elections (not that difficult in our corporate-run system).  I feel absolute certainty in my bones that she was TOLD that she would win – that, if there was any problem, it would be rigged to make her the winner.  That, I think, is WHY she ran such a dismal campaign.  She felt free to alienate half the Democratic Party, and the biggest voting block in the country, Independent voters.  She showed naked contempt for millions of potential Hillary voters.  She was lazy.  She was screechy.  She was awkward and phony.  Her own staff and other advisers were making good suggestions that she ignored.  She didn’t care that she had one of the worst ever likability and trustworthy ratings.

              What does all this add up to?  Yes, she has a lot of obvious character flaws and that didn’t help.  But she was still “inevitable” and her Overlord sponsors for sure planned to shove her down our throats, up to the last minute.  Then they didn’t – or maybe it’s that they couldn’t – they were outmaneuvered and out-rigged. I’m not 100% sure of my theory, not at all.  But I do think her loss goes way beyond her supporters’ reservations, her indictable staff peoples’ nerves and her lousy personality and lousy campaign.  It also goes beyond the voters.  Our vote counting systems are so easily riggable, and the results are so unverifiable, that there is hardly an elected official in the country who can prove that he or she was actually elected.  Recounts are a joke – they are completely inadequate for an electronic ‘TRADE SECRET’ code system.  And a third of the states in the country can’t even do a recount.  (They have no ballots to compare to the electronic totals.)  So we don’t know what happened, in this s/election or any other.  And we never will know – unless we get some whistleblowers on this.  That is the other purpose of corporate-controlled vote counting – the first is to prevent reform; the second is to keep us guessing.

          • The Crone (2793 posts)
            Profile photo of The Crone Donor

            58. Very RW political bloggers are suggesting

            That Hillary, in utilizing the Russians hacked the election meme, is projecting her own guilt. That perhaps she had friends in China who were supposed to hack the election for her, but either those friends betrayed her or else were not able to do it.

            It does seem that she was shocked she didn’t win it. I thought she was so arrogant that she believed her own controlled media’s spin but Chinese friends stealing it for her makes more sense.

             

            "Let us not seek the Republican answer nor the Democratic answer but the right answer." John F. Kennedy   America is the only country that has real   lemons in its furniture polish, and artificial lemon flavoring  in its lemonade!
        • sharkbait (198 posts)
          Profile photo of sharkbait

          46. I felt from the start that she would not be charged with anything

          because it would expose others. She was so arrogant about it and and sure of herself knowing she couldn’t be taken down without others being taken down with her.

           

          • Samantha (595 posts)
            Profile photo of Samantha

            54. That is it exactly

            You have been paying attention, haven’t you?

            Sam

      • Enthusiast (6629 posts)
        Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

        39. Wow! That is very interesting!

        Well done, Peace Patriot!

        "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
    • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
      Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

      17. The Seth Rich connection has been so painfully obvious, my heads been exploding

      every time I see this “RUSSIANS HACKED THE ELECTION!!!” bullshit flooding the airwaves.

      Thank you Caitlin Johnstone!!!

       

      • davidgmills (4101 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        25. Except that Murray says it was somebody in the NSA

        Could be disinformation.  Don’t know.  And Assange was apparently upset with Murray’s comments.

        French Revolution; not secession.
        • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
          Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

          34. If Murray had said "it was someone from the DNC.."

          that would have been a dead give-away (so to speak), and Murray might be the next to suffer an early demise.

          I heard Podesta implied that Rich’s murder was “an example” of what happens to leakers.

          • davidgmills (4101 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills

            36. Where was that? I think I recall some email implying that but my impression

            Of that email was that it was quite cryptic.

            French Revolution; not secession.
            • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
              Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

              37. CounterPunch is saying Murray claims it WAS someone from the DNC, not NSA

              “Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

              http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/16/the-cold-war-continued-post-election-russophobia/

              And yes, the Podesta email comment was cryptic indeed.

        • Fawke Em (3109 posts)
          Profile photo of Fawke Em Donor

          61. Two different leaks…

          The DNC leaks were from an insider and the Podesta leaks are from someone inside government.

             
    • Baba OhReally (342 posts)
      Profile photo of Baba OhReally Donor

      18. Recommended

      I’m adding Caitlin Johnstone and Newslogue to the list of voices to follow (and hopefully be able to trust).

       

      _______________________________________________________________________

      “If you don’t read the newspaper you’re uniformed. If you do read it you’re misinformed.”
      Denzel Washington 12/6/2016

      baba4

    • Depaysement (700 posts)
      Profile photo of Depaysement Donor

      33. Blah

      No evidence.  Like the CIA “Russian” allegation.  And I suppose that’s Caitlin’s real point.

      I believe Murray so far.  That means it probably isn’t Rich, though he may have been involved somehow.

      "White youth, black youth Better find another solution Why not phone up Robin Hood And ask him for some wealth distribution" White Man in Hammersmith Palais (1978)
      • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
        Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

        48. Their were TWO leakers, one was likely Seth Rich, the other was NSA.

        “Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him.”

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/16/the-cold-war-continued-post-election-russophobia/

        • Depaysement (700 posts)
          Profile photo of Depaysement Donor

          50. I know there were two

          They weren’t the DNC emails.  But may have been the Podesta emails.

          The DNC emails were first released by WL on July 22.  Murray was given emails in  the park near AU by his contact in September, according to the Daily Mail.

          "White youth, black youth Better find another solution Why not phone up Robin Hood And ask him for some wealth distribution" White Man in Hammersmith Palais (1978)
        • Rosa Luxemburg (1075 posts)
          Profile photo of Rosa Luxemburg Donor

          60. Why would the NSA?

          It would have been more likely that there were a bunch of people  in the DNC and Democratic party who didn’t want Hillary as the candidate?

          The more that social democracy develops, grows, and becomes stronger, the more the enlightened masses of workers will take their own destinies, the leadership of their movement, and the determination of its direction into their own hands. Rosa Luxemburg.    
          • 99thMonkey (2830 posts)
            Profile photo of 99thMonkey Donor

            62. I don't mean the NSA itself, but someone AT the NSA. Another Snowden.

    • Enthusiast (6629 posts)
      Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

      38. Recommended to the max!

      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
    • Xyzse (1865 posts)
      Profile photo of Xyzse Donor

      56. I have yet to hear anything about this in the MSM.