Sunday, 6 August 2017

Seth Rich Murder and Wikileaks

The serendipity that follows Bill and Hillary Clinton has claimed another name for its notorious body count. In 2016 Wikileaks released a series of emails that revealed corruption at the Democratic National Convention. The emails were about how the Convention was plotting to sabotage the presidential run of Bernie Sanders and make sure that Hillary Clinton was the only candidate for President. This is why it was doubly frustrating when the old fool went and endorsed her; see background links below for details. The chairwoman of the Convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, resigned, but it stopped there. In a just world this kind of perversion of the political process should result in a criminal investigation that would be bigger than Watergate, but so far President Trump has not ordered one; could this be because Trump might now compromised, see: The leak was allegedly obtained by a hacker, or team of hackers, codenamed "Guccifer 2.0". The identity of this source has never been revealed. He/she/they claim to be Romanian IT technicians, but there is no evidence for or against this. However, following the event a young staffer at the Convention, a political scientist named Seth Rich, was murdered. He was shot dead in the streets of Washington DC and the police claim that it was an attempted robbery. However nothing was taken from his pockets. As David Icke would say: "Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about." Mr Rich's family support the police findings and ask people like me not to speculate otherwise because it adds to their grief. This is not my intention; nevertheless if we have reason to be suspicious then we have a duty to speak out. If we don't, others in the future might have to die for the Rich family's feelings. This is the same argument used over and over again by 9/11 and 7/7 official story-believers, see: The people who spoke out claiming that Seth Rich's death was another Clinton revenge attack were branded "conspiracy theorists". However this all changed when Seymour Hersh, one of America's most experienced and respected journalists, announced that Seth Rich was indeed the deep throat in the DNC from which the emails had been divulged to Wikileaks; this was revealed by an alleged source of his in the FBI. It was not a Romanian hacker at all; it was an insider, Seth Rich. This is not something a man in Hersh's position would have said lightly. To qualify, Hersh does not dispute the police report on Seth Rich's shooting, but his revelations do lend weight to the possibility of an assassination and cover up. Source: At the time of writing, the DNC has yet to comment.

The deception might run even deeper than this though. Is Wikileaks itself a trustworthy source at all? For several years Richard D Hall has been claiming that Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Bradley/Chelsea Manning are all controlled opposition. When Richard said this he made it clear that he was one hundred percent certain that this was the case. Richard tends to embrace certainty too hastily in my view, and this has led him to make several mistakes; see background links for details. I disagreed with him at the time about Wikileaks et al. Nevertheless he has recently published a new episode of Richplanet TV where he and Andrew Johnson present additional evidence against the authenticity of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that is very compelling. They have raised questions that must be answered: Assange's family connections to a religious cult, his apparently unfiltered presence in the media, his involvement with government cyber-security projects and much more, see: This information will have to be taken into account when it comes to future supposed exposés being released from Wikileaks. There may be another explanation for the allegations made by Richard and Andrew, but I can't think of one right now. How does this affect the DNC corruption scandal and the murder of Seth Rich?


Anonymous said...

Richard D Hall is one of the best alternative media (or has prefers to call it, the independent media) researchers out there, and I think regarding the likes of Assange being disinfo he's right on the money IMO. Yes he's not always right in his assumptions, but I trust him more than some other researchers out there.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Anon. I concur. RDH really is one of the best. We differ on a few things, and I'm glad he has not added me to his "shill list" as a result, but he is still the first name that I think of when people ask me for more info.