latest, media watch

Weiner Laptop Doc: Assange Warrant Issued 2 Weeks After Swedish Election Leaks Warning

from Zero Hedge

Anthony Weiner after sentencing to 21 months in prison for illicit contact with underage girls

A confidential document found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop reveals that the United States Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads “Wikileaks: The Pirate Party’s White Horse Into Sweden’s Parliament?”

On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party – which is described in the cable as a “mixture between communism and libertarianism,” yet whose members are “well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income.” Two of the “pirates,” according to the report, were active in the “youth branch of the conservative party currently leading government.”

The Embassy cable notes the “grim electoral outlook for Pirates” – as confirmed by a Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat…

“…Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day…”

Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations – which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.

Cable found on Anthony Weiner’s Laptop, obtained via Judicial Watch FOIA Cable found on Anthony Weiner’s Laptop, obtained via Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit

The emergence of this confidential document (found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop and sent while his wife, Huma Abedin, was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff), is disturbing – as it potentially implicates the Obama administration in a conspiracy to silence Julian Assange while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State – not to mention that it could be the smoking gun in yet another clear case of mishandled information found on imprisoned sexual deviant Anthony Weiner’s laptop the FBI’s Peter Strzok and crew must have somehow overlooked.

A brief timeline of events

  • On August 20, 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange over a rape allegation – two weeks after the US Embassy met with the Pirate party and had concerns over Assange leaking US secrets. The net day, Swedish cancelled the warrant. “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,” says one of Stockholm’s chief prosecutors, Eva Finne. Swedish prosecutors did however continue to investigate a separate allegation of molestation, though they felt it was not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
  • On September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape investigation against Assange.
  • On November 18, 2010, Stockholm District Court approved a detention request for Mr. Assange, who had traveled to London. Two days later, Swedish police issued an international arrest warrant.
  • On December 8, 2010, Assange is taken into British custody and taken to an extradition hearing. Eight days later, Assange posts bail and walks free in London until May 30, 2012 when the UK Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.
  • August 16, 2012, Assange begins his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London – where he has remained for over five years.
  • In February, 2016, a UN panel found Assange to be detained unlawfully in the Ecuadorian embassy.
  • In May, 2017, Swedish authorities once again dropped their case against Julian Assange, with his Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson told Swedish media “It is a total victory for Julian Assange,” adding “He is free to leave the embassy whenever he wants.”

Julian Assange holding UN decision

Unfortunately, that’s not going to be quite so easy for the time being – as Assange faces immediate arrest by the UK for skipping bail in his extradition hearing. Moreover, in April of this year, CNN and the Washington Post simultaneously reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ DOJ has prepared criminal charges against Assange over 2010 leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents.

While the DOJ seems intent on locking Assange up, the WikiLeaks founder has also received tremendous support from certain members of congress.

As we reported last week, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher travelled to London in August with journalist Charles Johnson for a meeting with Assange, where Rohrabacher said the WikiLeaks founder offered “firsthand” information proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, and which would refute the Russian hacking theory.

Rohrabacher brought that message back to Trump’s Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to propose a deal. In exchange for a presidential pardon, Assange would share evidence that would refute the Russian hacking theory by proving they weren’t the source of the emails, according to the WSJ.

However – when Trump was asked in late September about the Assange proposal, he responded that he’d “never heard” of it, causing Rohrabacher to unleash on John Kelly, who he blamed for blocking the proposal from reaching the President. Rohrabacher told the Daily Caller:

I think the president’s answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party,” Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller Tuesday in a phone interview

“This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was shoved down the American people’s throats so incredibly earlier this year,” Rohrabacher said.

Contributing to the notion of deep-state interference, CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service” in April, calling Julian Assange “a fraud, a coward hiding behind a screen” for exposing information about democratic governments rather than authoritarian regimes. This quite the ironic statement, considering Pompeo used leaked emails from WikiLeaks as proof “the fix was in” against President Trump.

So – while the Swedish authorities have dropped their case against Assange, and the UN says he’s been unlawfully detained – the UK insists on arresting Assange the moment he steps outside the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail on the dropped charges, and the US Department of Justice is reportedly prepared to slap criminal charges on Assange.

Perhaps the establishment is still a bit miffed that the “white wizard” showed the world what’s really underneath the pantsuit, which despite the constant rhetoric of the past year is what ultimately cost Hillary – and so many of her charitable friends – the election.


  1. BigB says

    Sure: originally posted in comments on the “Sy Hersh Cracks Russia-gate” forum in August. Something scared Hersh: he said he lived in the “real world.” I interpreted that to mean he doesn’t want to be the next caught in a botched robbery.
    Hersh also distanced himself from Gavin McFadyen and Assange: when he had shared a conference stage with McFadyen in 2016. Hersh is well connected, so I’m intrigued as to why he caught a cold on this?
    There was also a seeming crisis actor at Rich’s vigil? Unless the cops normally walk gun shot victims around for identification?
    And don’t forget Shawn Lucas, who served the DNC with papers, also met an untimely death around the same time?

  2. Michael McNulty says

    I suspect the US may have threatened the UK government and said if Julian Assange makes a break for Ecuador it will ignore Britain’s sovereignty, and either send in a US military snatch squad and rendition him by helicopter to a US base, or attack his car by drone. Either way it would be a US military action on British soil (they do it all the time to other allies like Pakistan), and it’s unlikely any government could survive the loss of Britain’s sovereignty.

  3. MichaelK says

    Another pathetic, though illustrative, thing that characterises the Guardian’s rapidly declining journalism… is that they can see conspiracies and politics everywhere and tainting isubjects like Assange and Ecuador… everyone else… including the dreadful Russians… except for the UK and the US and their involvement! Our actions and motives are apparently pure and moral, almost to a fault! Harding makes a fortune selling rabid conspiracy theories about thd Russians handing the keys to the White House to Trump without a shred of real evidence to support his crazed theories soaked in nothing but rampant paranoia… but this is okay ’cause his hearts in the rightwing place, fuck his brain which doesn’t seem to work at all!

  4. MichaelK says

    A pattern repeats itself endlessly in the stuff produced by the Guardian, which means anyone can, for themselves, see if what I’m saying is true or not.

    Simply put, it’s part of the journalistic structure or culture of the Guardian itself and it doesn’t just apply here, it’s not a ‘mistake’ or because they lack the time to do their job preoperly. They’re doing it ‘properly’, only it’s the exact opposite of what they pretend their doing and why their ‘incopetence’ never has any consequences and they carry on regardless.

    The ‘truth’ and the ‘facts’ aren’t examined on their individual merits or for their veracity alone or in isolation. That really doesn’t matter anymore. As Harding admits, and he’s typical, what matters is the ‘context.’ The context, really, is everything and colours which ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ are correct and which ones aren’t. The ‘detail’ is really rather irrelvant here, especially if the ‘details’ contradict or question the overall contextual view, the lense we hold up to the world. The Great Lense becomes more important than the reality of the World behind it. Like… Russia and Putin are Evil and a threat to all our cherished values and our, flawed, but precious liberal democracy. So putting the right labels on things is vitally important because that means what ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ are worthy of the name and what aren’t.

    Harding is a religious zealot with the fire of the fanatic in his eyes. The conviction of the zealot that… Knows the Hidden Truths of the World denied to others! It’s really like a semi-religious cult. The Cult of the Truth.

    This is why we never hear from the Russians themselves anymore. It doesn’t matter what they say. What matters is that they are… Russians, therefore, we all know they are lying and a threat to Democracy and Truth itself and we’re the Guardians of both of them and we’re under constant assault and have to be eternally vigilant. This would all be grotesquely amusing if it wasn’t so frightening.

    • John Watwood says

      I agree with being extremely amusing if not so frightening. Insanity I say.

    • Harry Stotle says

      The Guardian has been especially egregious at promoting the rape myth.

      in the article linked to Hyde takes but a nano-second to perpetuate the lie – neither women has ever made this claim (rather it was the authorities who did so on their behalf). Curiously Hyde & Co have absolutely no insight into why some readers are revolted by their sanctimonious twaddle about ‘fake news’, a category that this article can definitely be filed under.

      Nothing thrills a Guardian columnist more than being able to express indignation at an injustice while working for an outlet that is key obstacle to such injustices ever being meaningfully addressed.

      Take this years general election – endless hatchet jobs against Corbyn, and then crocodiles tears after the tories resumed their austerity measures.

      Such as is the paucity of left wing news outlet that some people think the Guardian is the friend of the left – sadly, its quite the opposite.

      • Harry Stotle says

        Doh – this years general election!

        Sorry, meant last summers

      • George Cornell says

        The board of the Guardian is illustrative, Harry. The women are new, there having being none but the board-selected editor until very recently,, and prior to that, there were none. Still no visible minorities, no one suffering from the accelerating inequality in the UK, a topic which gets less attention than the formerly incessant Nazi gold topic. Most have been City types and ergo the left wing slant has all but disappeared, unless you believe that mindless gender counting politics , which threatens none of the 1%, is left wing. Having shot to international status on the back of Snowden they threw him under the bus for Hillary.

  5. MichaelK says

    What I find digusting about the Guardian’s writers is their repeated ghastly attempts at ‘humour’ relating to Assange’s personal hygiene problems, namely that he ‘stinks’ after ‘choosing’ to remain cooped-up in the embassy for so many years.

    I know have nothing but contempt and disdain for the people working at the Guardian. Yeah, I know that’s pretty negative, but that’s how I feel. Like Harding, their ignorance is only slightly smaller than their arrogance. They all seem to have a purile, childish, under-graduate, British, style ‘humour’ that I find incredibly irritating. That this ‘humour’ isn’t just a middle-class defence mechanism devorcing one from having to face harsh realities; it’s also often used as an attack tool utilizing ridicule against the weak and unfortunate.

  6. MichaelK says

    Today… more, typical, scurrilous, crap in the Guardian by another hopeless hack who labours under the delusion that he’s proper writer and a bit of witty wag at the same time. The ‘argument’ that it’s all now just a story about Assange’s overwhelming ‘pride’ doesn’t stand up for a moment. The idea that this affair wasn’t political from virtually the very beginning is, frankly, absurd; but maybe one has to be a hack at the Guardian to convince oneself that this is true. The massive resources devoted to this affair by the UK and Swedish states prove that beyond question, yet, for the Guardian, as usual, facts really don’t matter, as long as one understands the ‘correct context’ which, not surprisingly colours the way one interprets the ‘facts.’

  7. Assange is right not to trust the Swedes. With a guy like neoliberal “reformer” and Empire lackey Carl Bildt skulking around Stockholm whispering into people’s ears I would stay far far away too.

    (Weiner got 21 months in jail for sending “illicit” text messages and dick pics to some teenage girls? He should have waited until he was a few rungs higher up the ladder…then he could partake in orgies with a whole harem of underage girls, or line his pockets at the expense of the global economy, both even, and he would never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone a jail cell. Pathetic plebeian.)

    • John Watwood says

      I like your assessment and totally agree. Apparently Weiner wasn’t hanging out at the Podesta’s private parties. As you pointed out, wasn’t privy to that privilege. Yet.

  8. When foreign governments arrange to obstruct justice in another nation, they prove their ill intent. Mme. Secretary Clinton made an unscheduled stop in Stockholm in August just after Assange had decamped for London. All of a sudden the sexual assault investigation that the Swedish justice department had terminated was back on again. This is simply too coincidental to be anything but foreign interference in Swedish judicial proceedings. What is even worse is that Karl Bildt, the Swedish Prime Minister, assisted the US to obstruct Swedish justice. This is an unpardonable crime!

    • John A says

      Carl Bildt is a CIA informer dating back to the 1970s, when he leaked confidential info to the CIA about the non socialist parties talks to form a coalition government. Bildt has also been heavily involved in Ukraine and been keen to enrich himself following the US coup and complete mess that country has become.

    • Glass houses, stones? Surely, to Britishers, the unpardonable crime is a British High Court upholding this US inspired European warrant, and the British regime persecuting Assange? How the Swedes run their crooked country is none of our business.

      • Harry Stotle says

        I have been a keen student of the Assange case and to be fair the British court had little option but to uphold the European Arrest Warrant (IMO).
        The hearing itself more or less focussed on one technical issue; did the Swedish authorities follow correct procedure when issuing it (apparently they did according to the court).
        I guess there is a seperate question about the desirability of EAWs but as it stands having signed up to this mechanism the British authorities are obliged to abide by the committment they have made.

        What’s more troubling has been a refusal (by the Brits & Swedes) to accept the rulings of the UN after a 16 month investigation into the conditions surrounding Assange’e treatment.
        The UN instructed both the UK and Sweden to take immediate steps to ensure Assange’s liberty, protection, and enjoyment of fundamental human rights – yet no such steps were taken.
        Of course the vindictive British authorities appealed the ruling, and lost a second time.
        Ed Snowden famously tweeted that the behavious of the Brits/Swedes set a dangerous precedent, saying, ‘this writes a pass for every dictatorship to reject UN rulings’.

        Since arriving in the UK Assange has been jailed, electronically tagged and spent 6 years in a pantry fearing for his safety.

        It would take too long, and probably serve little purpose to revist the allegations made in Sweden but suffice to say the authorities there have refashioned the womens version of events into a preposterous concoction in order to serve the political agenda of a country out to get Assange for showing them up as cold-blooded murderers.

        You are right about Sweden though, their reputation has been badly damaged by the Assange debacle while in the UK there are no longer enough police officers to protect various communities perhaps because of the unecessary millions spent staking out a small embassy.

  9. George Cornell says

    And just why was this very sensitive information on the good ole sex deviant’s laptop? Was it obtained to impress underage Swedish girls? Was he faxing his penis photos to Swedes too?Inquiring minds want to know. Something is rotten in Sweden too and this must have something to do with their persecution of Assange if the women allegedly raped wanted the charges withdrawn. Maybe it was all about this, and one can only imagine what else there is. If only we really knew what it was that Sandy Berger

    It is interesting to look back and see who pleaded for his exoneration (Wiener that is) and whether it was the same people who pleaded for a Polanski pardon (before the latest run of accusations, who pleaded for the pardon of Marc Rich, and got it, got Scooter Libby off lightly etc. Etc.

    • rtj1211 says

      Sweden is well known to do US spying favours – there is nothing surprising in that…..

    • Richard Wicks says

      “And just why was this very sensitive information on the good ole sex deviant’s laptop?”

      Because, idiot, the accusations of the women don’t include charges of rape. That was made up by the corrupt government, idiot. The government in Sweden is railroading him for doing something awful – exposing corruption that threatens to destroy the entire Western world. That’s how bad it is.

      You morons think the best way to fix this problem is to ignore it. It’s to remove it. Excise it. Idiot traitors like you are perfectly willing to let the Western world descend into either communism or fascism, they’re equivalent in how horrible they are, they are both statist policitical structure with criminals running the entire system.

      Tired of you enabler scum.

      • George Cornell says

        My goodness! You are on the wrong site. I was talking about Wiener of course, who is a multiply charged and convicted sex offender. I was asking why the Assange material was on his computer. I suggest you take a tennis racket and beat your pillow with it repeatedly.

        Do you remember Roseanne Roseannadanna?
        I am for free speech but you make a strong case for limits. Don’t you feel silly?

      • You could make the point you are making without this torrent of abuse, which only serves to undermine your credibility. Don’t post like this again please. This is a pretty polite and respectful community even when disagreements become intense. Please respect that.

      • bevin says

        Quite apart from the tell tale nonsense to the effect that fascism and communism are the same, there is no mystery at all in the presence of these emails on Wiener’s computer. He was married to Hillary Clinton’s confidential aide who seems to have overseen the Secretary of State’s communications. She appears to have believed that do long as no ordinary member of the electorate saw the correspondence she was preserving its security.

        • George Cornell says

          If that can be substantiated then Amedin surely must have broken the law. Is there no consequence?

          • BigB says

            Clinton and Abedin knew what they were doing. Clinton especially, when she was SecState would have been briefed on the handling of sensitive information. They chose not to. So far there has been no repercussions – as they have been investigated by Clinton cabal supporters (Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok.) Compare with Bradley -Chelsea Manning who got 35 years for lesser offences.

            • George Cornell says

              The Swedes should be annoyed as it places them in the kind of light that causes roaches to scatter, no surprises there. There are clearly two sets of laws in the US as it accelerates its centrifugal movement away from basic democratic principles. One for ” them” and one for “us” where us is the 1% and their employees , not you and me.
              I can hardly wait to be told how poor Weiner has suffered enough to preclude him being prosecuted for this. I am rethinking my sympathy for Abedin, having perhaps married Weiner on the assumption he was going places and going to make a name for himself. He has done both but in unanticipated ways. Do we prefer our politicians to be penis faxers or frequenters of high priced hookers like Spitzer?

                • I don’t think he was a cover. When it comes to the power elite all that stuff doesn’t matter. The US, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (for starters) were involved in 9/11. Amazing, huh?

                • George Cornell says

                  Now BigB, after being shamed by the odious Weiner, surely you are not saying I should have no sympathy for her and family just because she is Muslim?

                  • BigB says

                    Don’t be silly, George: this isn’t about religion …in fact, it is about as irreligious as it gets. The Clinton’s are part of an international cabal that uses religion as a cover for imperial domination – aka. the clash of civilisations. That may sound fantastical, but check out their links to the Fethullah Gulen organization; the Hashim Thaci regime in Kosovo; and their better known association with Saudi Wahhabism. Clinton was not averse to taking pay-to-play millions from Islamic fundamentalist supremacists – who view the majority of Muslims as apostates? The fact that Abedin is a Muslim is incidental to the real issue: the mishandling of confidential, top secret, and compartmentalised state secrets on unsecured devices and servers. If Abedin forwarded confidential information to Weiner: who else did she forward to?

                    • John Watwood says

                      Excellent points. Especially the last sentence puts forth and interesting question. I wonder, does Abedin have ties to the Awan brothers? Or, are they basically one and the same unit?

                    • Big B says

                      I don’t know, John. It seems that Awan as Pakistani ISI: which, given the recent downturn in US/Pakistani relations (due in no small part to the Twitter Terets of the POTUS) should be a continuing source of embarassment? But no, although Awan had unlimited and uncontrolled access to as many as 80 House Democrats (including those on the homeland security, intel and foreign affairs committees); including full access to all of Wasserman-Schulz’s devices; was removing hardware; destroyed evidence; …and it seems clear to me the Seth Rich was able to locally download files onto a thumb drive …despite that, we are meant to believe the data breach was caused by the Russians?

                      Personally, I think the international Deep State (not just the Muslim connection) is exposed in the 650,000 Clinton emails, the 33,000 deleted emails (some of which are backed up on Weiner’s laptop) …there is evidence of possible treason, foreign inluence peddling, pay-to-play, you name it. The case has been re-opened: I guess we’ll see if the POTUS and Sessions have the balls to take it on?

  10. BigB says

    I’d be inclined to label this fake news? I am sure that Obomba was after Assange: but over this? The Pirate Party polled 0.65% of the vote in 2010 …Much ado about nothing? [Besides which, this article must be over three months old?]

    Now when they release Weiner’s file marked “Insurance”, I’ll sit up and take notice!

    • There are probably multiple motivations for the persecution of Assange, this is only suggested as one of them. And no, it isn’t three months old.

      • BigB says

        The there is a broken or misdirected link then. “reported last week” links to a WaPo article dated “April 21” – which led me to believe it was from last year. My point is that there may or may not be very high level (possibly Special Access? ) incriminating information on Weiner’s laptop …that Judicial Watch have been having a hard time getting released (despite winning their case.) There were 18 Classified documents in the latest batch (that the State Dept are drip feeding at the rate of 500 per month.) Compared to the Espionage Act and possibly treasonous mishandling of Government records on an unsecured server … Stopping a fringe party from even getting a single seat seems inconsequential to me? Bait and switch? Don’t look at the real criminal activity? #LockHerUp!

  11. At a certain point in the not to distant future Assange will show the World that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC Leaks & that the Obama/Clinton team had him murdered for it.

    Trump already knows this but can’t be seen to do the deal with Assange as its political suicide for his troubled Presidency & he’s sure he’ll be vindicated by one means or another in due course and when he is he’ll be able to walk on water as the Democratic Party will cease to exist & what’s left of the Republican Party will be running to Trump’s side.

    This US MSM farce is the long short & tall of the Russian Nothing-Burger.

    Jack the Ripper could have beaten Clinton & maybe he did ?

    • I find the Seth Rich case quite fascinating. I first thought what you suggest but then up popped a video on YouTube suggesting that the Seth Rich death was a hoax. I’m like WTF? I think it’s in the second video below but I know I saw in one video that there is a suggestion that Seth was a Republican plant and that the Republicans staged his death (in July, election November 2016) to smear the Dems. Quite a trick if true, no? And the fantastic thing about is that, if true, the Dems couldn’t have done a thing about it. They would have known, of course, that it was staged but there’s no way they could have said anything because Seth would have had them over a barrel with all the stuff he knew about them – even if he had nothing incriminating (impossible, of course) no one is ever going to accuse the other side of staging something like that because that would open such a huuuuggge can of worms! So they would have just had to grin and bear it. I’d love to see that mystery solved.

      2 minute ABC video showing Seth’s brother swallowing his smiles and the father mouthing the mother’s words as the camera pans from him to her.

      Half-hour analysis

      • What would be the point of hoaxing his death? It’s possible to comprehend a potential motive for faking terror events etc where a government agenda is clearly being promoted on its back. But what agenda could have been promoted by faking the murder of Seth Rich?

        If Rich wanted to discredit the Dems why not just release the information he had? It seems less drastic, less dangerous and probably more effective.

        • What I think we have is contradictory evidence and I simply don’t know what to make of it.

          Some facts
          * In the ABC video, the father mouths the mother’s words as the camera pans from him to her. This is undeniable. This suggests scripting – why would this be the case if he were really killed? The parents give no signs of grieving – not saying they aren’t, just saying they do not give any signs.
          * The brother is swallowing his smiles. This is undeniable.
          * A witness is interviewed and says that a police officer told him that Seth did not feel the bullets ( OK, I’ve never been shot myself but I find this extremely hard to believe – to me, it seems ridiculous.
          The three things above suggest to me the power elite doing their thing of “telling” us of their hoaxery and if we’re too stupid to pick it up, it’s our own fault.

          It is true, as Carrie points out, that Seth’s girlfriend has red eyes, however, I feel that her showing of grief is not entirely convincing nevertheless. They perhaps could have used something to make her eyes red … but not saying that happened and it isn’t genuine.

          Everything that Carrie quotes from the doctor who says he attended him seems perfectly legitimate to me. I guess there is the possibility that he could be a plant (even if it is 4Chan) or there could have been a body presented as Seth Rich’s – as we know from JFK’s assassination and the testimony of Frank Sturges, a Mafia criminal involved in the assassination, they do body switches. Presumably, if it were a body switch though the doctor would have recognised it was a different person.

          To me, there is simply contradictory evidence and it is quite a mystery.

          • I have to say I feel it’s a hoax though. When there’s so many oddities you really have to wonder. And the power elite love to get different theories happening – it was the DNC, it was a coverup by the hospital, it was a hoax. Like the planes on 9/11 – it was the passenger airliners, it was military planes, it was missiles, it was no planes or missiles. And as I recall from seeing the film JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick, same thing with the JFK assassination.

            • Do you not find Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick to be a bit questionable and hokey?

              • I think Conolly’s hagiographising of JFK is wrong. My feeling is that his gangster father may well have played a role in his ending up being assassinated and I think the Kennedy family should simply have come clean about Joe. I think possibly why they’ve never spoken up is because it would mean exposing the dad and that’s wrong. You can’t afford to be compromised that way when you’re in government though, of course, he had his womanising (even if that is not important) and no doubt other stuff as well.

                I have to admit I’ve done no other research on the JFK assassination but I find everything he said about it pretty compelling – the jigsaw pieces all seemed to fit together and there are an awful lot of jigsaw pieces to fit together.

                I find his argument that we’re ruled by a power elite that work by fomenting disharmony, through false flags and creating mass refugee situations, to create a divide and conquer situation totally compelling – as well as the problem, reaction, solution dialectic. I mean, that is EXACTLY what’s happening. We can see it before our eyes.

                What do you find questionable and hokey?

        • Apologies. I did not attempt to answer your question before, I was focused on the evidence. Why his death was faked rather than just releasing the information, I cannot even hazard a guess. Obviously, the Dems would know it was faked too. I cannot explain but I think the evidence clearly shows it was faked. Just the 2 minute video of the parents and the son speaking on the ABC are a total giveaway. This video is posted by the ABC, it is not posted by a hoax analyst and yet a significant number of comments posted by people who don’t indicate that they’re necessarily “into” hoaxes question it. This is one of them.

          “WTF? Watch this video many times. Something stinks. The first few seconds in, the brother is cracking up and trying not to laugh. He does this throughout the whole video. 30 seconds in, the dad says the police called him and stated that Seth was alive when they arrived and MAYBE stable when Seth got to the hospital. No, no, no, no, no. A cop would not say he was MAYBE stable. You are either stable or, you are not. 40 seconds in, the mom starts to talk and just as the camera is panning left towards mom, dad is actually mouthing her lines. He knows what she is about to say. One minute 3 seconds in, the mother says something off script? The dad subtly moves his right arm and taps her on the back and then he quickly takes over her conversation. WALLS COVERED WITH DISNEY AND MOM, HOLDING A GD PANDA! C’mon people.”

        • John Watwood says

          Possibly because he has/had more use alive than dead. Case in point: easier to control his family if he is still alive yet in secretive captivity. I know how I would act if someone killed my son over if he was being held captive. Completely different I assure you. Especially, if you believe that there is a chance if you go along with the game plan, their narrative that he will be allowed to live, but not if you don’t. Better insurance if he is alive. States do it quite often with ‘political prisoners’ do they not? Same sort of scenario with the Rich’s could be applied. I think that Clinton being the psychopath that she is wasn’t going along with the game plan and Rich and Braverman were ordered to ‘leak’ certain information to make her look worse but there were tons more information leaked than wanted by the PTB. Trump is so horrible that they needed a opponent who was even worse. Hence, the ‘leaks’. But, as stated above, too much got leaked. I wont go into what happened to Wikileaks last summer, the apparent attack on the Wikileaks personnel, their twitter, and website. It’s all connected. I think Wikileaks has been compromised since, since they have 360k of information and only have published a fraction(1/8 about) of it. Only in 3 little bursts coinciding with actual events happening to ‘prove’ something one way or another. There are no coincidences, just connections. Your thoughts?

      • Also, just to point out the very obvious signs of fakery we come to expect from the power elite – their justification for hoaxing us poor sods – they tell us with their obviousness and if we don’t pick it up, it’s our own fault. For God’s sake, why do you think you can justify your evilness with anything, you bastards? You’re just plain evil – it’s true though you do get a lot of help both smart and dumb.

      • So it’s just occurred to me he could easily have leaked the documents – after the faked death. That is a good one, I must say.

        • Carrie says

          That second vid you posted is really bad and exactly the kind of thing that gives hoax claims a bad wrap. Just saying “are you kidding me??” a lot isn’t evidence of anything! Also the girl clearly is crying. Her eyes are red and watery. If we just call everything fake crying we’re going to lose real cases of fakery in the confusion and allow people to dismiss all of it, even the real fakes.

          This is a much much better vid about the actually real puzzles about Rich, including the fact no hospitals will admit to treating him.

          • Yes, apologies, Carrie. I should have reviewed that video before posting. While I actually do believe the power elite use symbology in their hoaxes, it certainly wasn’t the best video to post. It seems youtube have changed their search so that you can’t find nearly the number hoax videos you could before! I know I watched a much better one but I can’t find it now.

        • Carrie says

          Then there was this anonymous post on 4Chan by a person who says he was a 4th year resident treating Rich at Washington Hospital Center. He says Rich wasn’t critical after surgery and then inexplicably died. He basically suggests Rich was murdered by a doctor in the hospital.

          If this is true that would be a very good reason for a total shutdown of info about where he was treated and also for withholding the autopsy. Fakery should be a last resort answer only when we’ve gone through everything else.

          “4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won’t be hard to identify me but I feel that I shouldn’t stay silent.

          Seth Rich was shot twice, with 3 total gunshot wounds (entry and exit, and entry). He was taken to the OR emergently where we performed an exlap and found a small injury to segment 3 of the liver which was packed and several small bowel injuries (pretty common for gunshots to the back exiting the abdomen) which we resected ~12cm of bowel and left him in discontinuity (didn’t hook everything back up) with the intent of performing a washout in the morning. He did not have any major vascular injuries otherwise. I’ve seen dozens of worse cases than this which survived and nothing about his injuries suggested to me that he’d sustained a fatal wound.

          In the meantime he was transferred to the ICU and transfused 2 units of blood when his post-surgery crit came back ~20. He was stable and not on any pressors, and it seemed pretty routine. About 8 hours after he arrived we were swarmed by LEOs and pretty much everyone except the attending and a few nurses was kicked out of the ICU (disallowing visiting hours -normally every odd hour, eg 1am, 3am, etc- is not something we do routinely). It was weird as hell. At turnover that morning we were instructed not to round on the VIP that came in last night (that’s exactly what the attending said, and no one except for me and another resident had any idea who he was talking about).

          No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I’ve never seen anything like it before, and while I can’t say 100% that he was allowed to die, I don’t understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I’m just one low level doc. Something’s fishy though, that’s for sure.”

          • George Cornell says

            Thanks for this. Suspicion heightened.

          • Carrie says

            Here’s more detail on the original 4Chan discussion (now all deleted as they never archive discussions there)


            A commenter challenged Anonymous:

            prove you are not a larper.
            what are the list of medications you administered throughout the entire process?

            A “larper” is someone who engages in larp or live action role playing, i.e., someone online pretending to be someone else. The original anon, alleged doctor replied:

            Anonymous (ID: rhotYJAg) 05/17/17(Wed)13:26:47 No.125914751:

            When he [Seth Rich] arrived to the trauma ward he had LR running, I don’t keep up with how much he got but less than 2 liters before we rolled to the OR.

            Note: “LR” is Lactated Ringers (solution), a common fluid replacement for patients who have lost blood or other body fluids; “PRBC” is packed red blood cells; “FFP” is fresh frozen plasma.

            No transfusion was done in trauma; the massive transfusion protocol was started because he was hypotensive on arrival but by the time the cooler (4u PRBC, 2u FFP) was ready we were on the way to the OR and honestly I don’t remember if he got any of it beforehand; he responded well to just IVF resuscitation so we went ahead with the surgery any just ended up giving him 2 units afterwards (the crit we got in trauma was returned just after we left and was low, ~24 IIRC but it wasn’t communicated to us… teamwork fail for sure but that can happen when we’re rushing to the OR)

            Note: “hypotensive” means abnormally low blood pressure.

            As for the rest of the meds? You’d have to ask anesthesia I guess. He didn’t need anything from us in the ICU except a propofol/fentanyl drip to maintain sedation while intubated but that’s pretty par for the course. The important part was that he was hemodynamically stable and not requiring pressors.

            Anonymous (ID: rhotYJAg) 05/17/17(Wed)13:36:13 No.125915975:

            I haven’t spoken to the attending who was on staff that night but the other resident I was with that night doesn’t remember it in any clarity (he was called to traumas as part of his rotation but that was ancillary to his ICU -different ICU btw- duties). Basically he said, “yeah that was weird, right?” At the time we were way more concerned with the rising class / new interns (July 1st is a terrifying time to be a patient lol) to make much notice… it always stuck in my head as something super bizarre but it was a long time before I even realized it was Seth Rich. When he arrived he was assigned by our system a trauma number, not a name as his patient ID. I only knew him at that time as Tra### (no freaking way that I remember the actual number). When it came to light who he was a while later I was floored. And terrified.

            Anonymous (ID: rhotYJAg) 05/17/17(Wed)13:39:36 No.125916400

            Nope, nothing in the head so no freaking way we’d CT before going to the OR with a clear intraabdominal GSW. No need to FAST or anything, just stabilize and go to the OR

            Note: “CT” is CAT scan; “GSW” is gunshot wound.

            One could always just increase the propofol drip or give him a ton of roc and screw with the vent settings. No idea if that happened but it’d be easy if you have the right meds and access

            Anonymous (ID: rhotYJAg) 05/17/17(Wed)13:53:57 No.125918189:

            He had two holes in his right flank and one in the left upper quadrant. In trauma you always assume by protocol that 3 holes = 3 bullets but it was pretty clear that he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet (eg, his liver injury). I’ve also seen enough GSWs to know that the media doesn’t get the number right every time.

            Alright anons it’s been swell but I’ll be gone for the next few hours for regular residency meeting / journal club BS. Take everything you read especially from the MSM with a grain of salt as usual but don’t stop digging.

        • OK, I’m calling this a hoax, fair and square (those words are so inappropriate but they just came to me).

          My 3-part hypothesis:
          1. event was staged with
          2. always-in-tandem hypothesis that there is evidence of sloppiness, ridiculousness and clues that the power elite employ to “justify” their hoaxing of us – if we’re too stupid to get it, it’s on our heads.
          3. The presence of the sometimes-present-in-these-events laying of red herring trails. (Please shed the propagandistic effect of the derogatory “elaborate conspiracy” epithet – the power elite aren’t into the “banality of evil”. As well as so ludicrously justifying to themselves their hoaxing of us by “telling” us with their clues, they need to make it mean something to themselves as well – so through all their ridiculous symbology and elaborateness they give it meaning. At the end of his JFK to 9/11 film, Conolly points out that although the power elite think of themselves as above the ordinary gangster so many people involved in the JFK assassination were all simply bumped off brutal gangster-style when crunch-time came.)

          First, some general hallmarks:
          * The parents express no bitterness to the alleged murderer and just talk about how they’ll keep going and remember what a great contribution Seth made – we virtually always see the parents of alleged victims in hoaxes carry on like this.
          * story changes, contradictions, convolution, things that simply don’t add up

          No clear evidence of a death – simply no evidence

          In the ABC video, the father mouths the mother’s words as the camera pans from him to her.

          * The brother is swallowing his smiles.
          * A witness is interviewed and says that a police officer told him that Seth did not feel the bullets (
          3. The anonymous doctor on 4chan saying they attended to Seth Rich. I like the touch about how it could be worked out it was really them but they felt that they should speak out anyway.

          Now, if anyone can find evidence that contradicts my 3-part hypothesis and fits another hypothesis better, please let me know.

          I should point out that Seth Rich trained with the Israeli military when he was in high-school and obviously has a connection with that country so if you’re wondering where he might be now – Israel could be the place. Note that the YouTuber thinks that Seth really was killed.

          • Formatting glitch above. Should read:

            No clear evidence of a death – simply no evidence

            In the ABC video, the father mouths the mother’s words as the camera pans from him to her.

            * The brother is swallowing his smiles.
            * A witness is interviewed and says that a police officer told him that Seth did not feel the bullets (

            • It just glitched again. I’ll try again.

              No clear evidence of a death – simply no evidence

              * In the ABC video, the father mouths the mother’s words as the camera pans from him to her.
              * The brother is swallowing his smiles.
              * A witness is interviewed and says that a police officer told him that Seth did not feel the bullets (

              • Should be “1” before “No clear evidence of a death – simply no evidence.”

    • Paolo says

      If Assange knows that Seth Rich was the source he should say it now. Time allows those that killed him escape justice. The fact that he doesn’t almost suggests to me that Assange either doesn’t know or that Seth wasn’t the source. What can be gained from not setting the record straight right now??

    • I notice that no one shows any sign of supporting my 3-part hypothesis that this event was staged and a recent commenter, Paolo, has commented with the assumption that, in fact, Seth Rich was killed. Perhaps Paolo thinks my hypothesis is so ludicrous it’s best to simply ignore it or perhaps he simply didn’t see it? Paolo?

      What I find distressing is that I think the majority of people, no matter how intelligent, do not know how to gauge evidence and will often remain inappropriately skeptical because they don’t think there is sufficient evidence or it is not compelling enough or they will tend towards a more seemingly plausible explanation regardless of evidence that supports a seemingly less plausible explanation. But to my mind, you can have a tiny amount of evidence that virtually proves something and unless you have compelling contradictory evidence you can go with that. Generally, though you will have bits of evidence that add up to support an hypothesis … as we do with the Seth Rich “murder”.

      The 2-minute video of Seth’s parents and the son is just about all the evidence you need to support both parts 1 and 2 of my hypothesis (unless there is compelling contradictory evidence).
      Part 1 – staged event: None of the family show the least signs of grieving and the brother, in fact, is desperately trying to swallow his laughter. I mean, he literally swallows his lips.
      Part 2 – The hoaxers are SIGNALLING their hoaxing to viewers: the father mouths the mother’s words, he taps her on the back with a seeming signal that she should stop and he will take over, the over-the-top swallowing of laughter by the brother – obviously, if they wanted to hide it, they would have re-done the interview with all the obvious signs removed, assuming they weren’t deliberately put in there in the first place.

      Now we come to the seemingly contradictory evidence, the post by an alleged anonymous doctor on 4Chan that seems very compelling WITHOUT the context of the ABC video. How can we fit this into “staged event”? We add a third part to the hypothesis, the laying of a red herring trail. Is this farfetched? Is this an artificial explanation of a piece of evidence to make it fit your underlying hypothesis simply to make it work? It is not. This is a known phenomenon and it makes perfect sense. The more theories going the better and we know from how the power elite love to make idiots of us that this kind of thing really appeals to them. Having us barking up the wrong tree and scooting down the wrong burrow. What could be more fun for them?

      Can we do it the other way? Can we fit the strange behaviour of the parents and brother with the indication that there was a coverup at the hospital provided by an alleged anonymous doctor. No, we cannot. We cannot do it the other way. That won’t work. And, of course, a post by an alleged anonymous doctor hardly counts as evidence in the face of much more compelling contradictory evidence, does it? What could be easier to fake? Whereas a family talking on television doing their shit is, by definition, not faked, it’s right there in-your-face evidence.

      Then we have all the convoluted stuff about no hospital saying they took him etc and the alleged witness saying the police told him that Seth told them he felt no pain from the bullets.

      So, please, viewers of this comment. If you think I’ve got it wrong, if you think I cannot claim to be right (my friends think I’m arrogant and take umbrage at the fact that I think I’m right – well, I do spend hours and hours on these things, why shouldn’t I, when they spend no time at all?), please come out and say why.

      Of course, I’m extremely hoax-minded but in this case it did not cross my mind for a nanosecond that Rich’s death was faked and I was all for the Hillary-did-it explanation, all for it, however, as soon as I saw the 2-minute video how could the wheels not start to turn immediately and my assessment change radically very quickly? What about you?

      • BigB says

        Flaxgirl: you are right about the video, it was staged and scripted. Rich’s father is clearly reading from an autocue? It’s hokey – but perhaps that was the best take? However, 1 and 2 do not equal 4 …the non-sequitur conclusion the Seth Rich was not killed …based, if I’ve got this right, on a two minute video that popped up on your YouTube feed? There is a lot more in depth context to this than a random video can provide? For instance: the family response was being coordinated by a “professional Democrat” and crisis communications fixer – Brad Bauman. That easily explains the staged vid: Occam’s Razor? Besides, Assange has all but said that Rich was his source. I’m quite prepared to believe the cover up and disinfo are to protect Killary …but in this instance, I’m not swayed by your logic.

        • BigB, Thanks for responding to my plea. I find it interesting that you disparage the video as evidence by referring to its brevity and random popping up. Those factors are irrelevant. It’s the content that counts.
          * no signs of grief from anyone
          * extremely obvious stifling of giggles from brother
          * scripting that is made obvious

          You say that the fact that I conclude that these elements indicate that the death was staged (I also say the fact that the staging is made obvious is significant) is a non-sequitur seemingly because a Brad Bauman co-ordinated the family response. I’m afraid I find THAT a non-sequitur. So someone is hired to “co-ordinate the family response” and thus we cannot conclude anything from the family’s behaviour because it is part of a response co-ordinated by someone? I disagree.

          I stand by my claim that the family showing zero signs of grief, the extreme stifling of giggles and the obvious scripting (regardless of who they’re co-ordinated by) do indicate that Seth’s death was staged, especially as it goes in tandem with the obviousness of it, which the power elite do to justify their hoaxing of us – it’s the staging plus gratuitous obviousness – two factors.

          The mother says they were told there was bruising on his face, knuckles and knees which does not strike me as consistent with two bullets in the back (one doctor said there were three bullets) – another feature of staged events is contradictions, things that are incorrect, etc.

          I also pointed out that the witness said that he was told by a policeman that Seth said he felt no pain from the two bullets – more gratuitous ridiculousness.

          There are so many things bizarre and wrong with the story and no clear evidence he was killed. BigB, if you have any clear evidence that he was killed please let me know what it is.

          Whether Rich was Assange’s source or not is irrelevant. Staged or real death, Rich could be his source either way.

          • BigB says

            HaHa! You slay me Flaxgirl: there is no evidence – anywhere! The WPD hoovered it all up, 9/11-like …not to be seen for the next 90 years. No bodycams, autopsy, ballistics, CCTV …all gone. Sy Hersh got ‘read’ a report by his FBI contact, then he denied it – even though he was taped. Rod Wheeler flip-flopped too. The absence of evidence means we both are welcome to our opinions? Either way: perhaps we could agree someone is hiding something; or someone? You got to wonder, who has the power to do that? And intimidate and shut down investigation? I know who I suspect.

            • We’re not in a courtroom so I guess we’re always entitled to our opinions, however, I think using Occam’s Razor – the version where you use the fewest assumptions/fewest questions technique – shows that Rich’s death was staged and – for John – the family was in on it not forced into it – won’t go into that below but too relaxed for it to be forced.

              Hypothesis 1 (H1) – Staged event (with tandem hypothesis of obvious signs of staging including contradictions, ridiculous things said, red herring trails)
              Hypothesis 2 (H2) – Real death

              The parents are scripted (mouthing of mother’s words by father).
              You suggest that they could be scripted AND that Seth died – we would have to ask the question why for that even if they have PR. Why would they script parents 3 days after their son’s death?
              Fits H1 better
              The parents show no sign of grief
              Now I know that grief isn’t always obvious but the fact is they show no signs of it which fits H1 better
              The brother stifles giggles all the way through
              H1, H1, H1!
              The signs are made very obvious. No attempt to hide giggling, father’s mouthing of mother’s words, father’s tap on mother’s back
              Fits H1 better
              Father says girlfriend said Seth said “he was home” when reports say he wasn’t (in another video the father says “home” and then adds “well a block from home”, however, in the video in question he simply says “home”. I mean, knowing that he was almost home wouldn’t the father say “almost home”? Wouldn’t he be upset at the thought that the son was “almost home” but didn’t quite make it? He shows no signs of that whatsoever.
              Fits H1 better
              Witness said that he was told by a policeman that Seth said he felt no pain from the two bullets
              Fits H1 better
              Mother says there was bruising on face, knuckles and knees which does not seem consistent with two bullets in the back
              Fits H1 better
              The father says that the policeman says to him that the son was “maybe stable” and we have the Anonymous 4Chan doctor saying that they saw him and he was OK when they saw him. This would suggest that if their son really died the parents would be extremely suspicious that the hospital was responsible for his death but they have made no noises in that direction. Actually, just noticed this in the doctor’s report.

              “He had two holes in his right flank and one in the left upper quadrant. In trauma you always assume by protocol that 3 holes = 3 bullets but it was pretty clear that he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet (eg, his liver injury). I’ve also seen enough GSWs to know that the media doesn’t get the number right every time.”

              Really? Shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet. Now this reminds me of Las Vegas where the nurse was hit by a bullet in the stomach that ricocheted and sliced her leg.
              Also, wasn’t he shot in the back? What’s this “right flank” thing?
              They are soooooooo pulling our legs, folks! So pulling our legs.

              Fits H1 better

              Massive lack of evidence as you state
              Fits H1 better

              OK, if you want to believe he died just from bullet wounds or that he died because the hospital didn’t do the right thing, go right ahead – be my guest.

              • And just to add this little bonus – not entirely relevant but I just found it and I love it: The Ultimate Crisis Actor

              • Carrie says

                It’s not uncommon for people who have been shot to be unaware and relatively pain free actually. I picked this up from a quick google search. There are several people here saying they didn’t realise they had been shot to start with and felt no pain.


                Gut feelings and instinct aren’t enough. Life is complicated. Just because we don’t understand something or think it makes no sense doesn’t necessarily mean it’s fake.

                • OK, Carrie, happy to drop the “not feeling the bullets” as an item but what about all the other points? I cannot see how to do the Occam’s Razor exercise with favouring of hypotheses swapped – for either of the hypotheses “died directly from bullet wounds” or “died because of something wrong happening at hospital”. Can you? And if you can’t then what are you going to believe?

                  I mean, come on! The doctor says “he was shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet” just like the Las Vegas incident! And, of course, it just occurred to me – this harks back to the JFK “magic bullet”. Can’t believe I didn’t make the connection before. Please, Carrie, we are being swamped with staged events. Just swamped with them. It is ridiculous. How can you be so reluctant to believe that his death was staged? The signs are screaming at us.

                  • Carrie says

                    What he means by “shot twice by the trajectory of the bullet” is there were only two bullet trackways in the body even though there were three holes, so they concluded one of the holes was an exit hole. There is NOTHING odd about that. It’s standard. The right flank is the lower right back. Again nothing odd there at all.

                    I dont believe or disbelieve as I try to let the evidence speak. I am not even saying the event wasn’t staged for definite. I just do not want to leap to conclusions and start seeing things that aren’t weird as being weird.

                    That interview with SR’s family does look a little weird. The bro looks like he might be fighting a smile. No one seems very emotional. It’s all a bit stilted and strange. How long after the murder was it?

                    The gf does look genuine to me, so it’s possible that family is just unemotional or a bit strange.

                    Like I said we have to consider other possibilities before jumping straight to fake every time.

                    • Oops! Thank you, Carrie, for correcting me and thorough in your approach. I was extremely sloppy by not even checking what a “flank” was, vaguely thinking it was to do with the thigh and because I was immediately reminded of the Las Vegas incident jumped to the wrong conclusion. That will teach me … I hope.

                      However, even though I screwed up there, I think the evidence still shows that the death was staged and there is simply no compelling contradictory evidence to show that it was real. You say that the family interview “looks a little weird”, but we have more precise information than that. There are two aspects here: what they say is both scripted and SHOWN VERY, VERY OBVIOUSLY TO BE SCRIPTED. You always have to bear in mind when you’re looking at a possible staged event is that the power elite justify what they do by telling us through sloppiness of execution, sheer ridiculousness and clues. So we’re getting the evidence in two ways. We may not even necessarily think what they say seems scripted but they’re TELLING us that it’s scripted by showing the mouthing of the mother’s words by the father and slightly less so by him tapping her on the back plus a general sense that they do not speak or act like grieving parents.

                      Imagine that you are a member of the power elite and you know how these things are conducted and imagine that you weren’t told in advance that this event was staged. What would you conclude from your observations? Would you deliberate, wondering if perhaps Seth really died or would you immediately think, “The stuff they get away with. Come on! Surely, they’ve gone a bit OTT with the brother barely hiding his smiles. How stupid are the dumb masses that they swallow this? My God! We can get away with absolutely anything. Oh yes, good old Seth, he’s off to the Israeli military to do some great IT work there.”

                      OK, so I jumped to the wrong conclusion about an element of this staging (just as I initially jumped to the wrong conclusion about Hillary being responsible) but despite those two errors I claim now that this event was staged and I urge you and anyone else reading this comment not to err on the side of skepticism when the evidence is really pretty incontrovertible – especially when it comes to anything to do with the power elite. Do you want to be the idiot they take us for?

                    • The thing is, can you come up with a single piece of clear evidence (that is, couldn’t be faked) that favours “real event” over “staged event” hypothesis? I’ve come up with a number of pieces that favour “staged event”. We can strike out the one about not feeling the bullets, however, my second point, even if it’s partly wrong still stands – if, the death was a result of a coverup by the hospital we would surely expect the parents to be creating a stink about it as the father said the policeman said he was “maybe stable” and surely he’d have questions as to why his son died and presumably someone would have got through to him with the 4Chan information.

                      If you cannot come up with a single point that favours real over staged and there are a number that favour staged over real, I really do think there’s only one conclusion to be drawn.

            • Just to say, BigB, I do so appreciate your response of “you slay me there”. I really, really appreciate it. Apart from your response all I ever get from people (unless they already agree with me) is a resistant skepticism or downright rejection of what I say and not a single solitary soul – apart from you – has ever shown any kind of suggestion of a turnaround response like yours. It restores my faith in humanity.

              • Big B says

                Thanks Flaxgirl. As you know, I’m broadly with you on the fakery: I can’t rule out your theory – but it is only a theory? I have even considered that the entire Russiagate ruse was a psyop CIA scam from the start. Clinton left her non-existent cybersecurity wide open for three months whilst SecState …that’s either criminally incompetent (or not according to the FBI) – or quite possibly deliberate? It was certainly deliberate to cover up her nefarious influence peddling scam – aka the Clinton Foundation?

                Fast forward to Seth Rich/Imran Awan breaches of protocol (allegedly including leaving a laptop in a phonebooth to be found?); Podesta got caught in a phising attack; 75% of emails (including 9 of the 10 that ‘lost’ the election) were written AFTER the data breach (‘hack’) was discovered; the FBI didn’t seize the servers; Crowdstrike conducted the investigation, then gave their findings to the FBI; the various FBI mis-investigations …those sort of data breaches and breaks in protocol shouldn’t have been possible in a cybersecure environment? Or anywhere, ever? Man, the DNC, FBI, Mueller and Congress are hyper-incompetent? …Or, as James Corbett says – incompetence is the new competence? It’s almost like they were waiting for it to happen: so that they could blame Russia? And now they turn a blind eye to any evidence to the contrary? It makes me very suspicious.

                So maybe Rich was disappeared and not killed? But I am wildly theorising, and my theories can’t be made concrete by Aaron Rich’s swallowed laughter? It’s good to suspect and keep an open mind …but why do you have to ‘prove’ you are right? Probably neither of us will ever know the truth? That’s why we’re conspiracy theorists!!!


                • BigB, I find your question “Why do you have to prove you’re right?” a very interesting question. It’s not so much that I want to prove I’m right, it’s more that I think in certain situations the evidence is such that we can determine whether a situation is X or Y and when such a situation exists why on earth don’t we simply call it? Why not just call it rather than sit back in skepticism when there is absolutely no reason to because there is sufficient evidence to call it? I find skepticism when the evidence is clear a highly inappropriate position. The power elite are wreaking havoc with us so when we can recognise exactly what havoc they’re wreaking let’s call it as it is.

                  Nothing is foolproof. You can have an investigation, a commission (9/11 and Warren, for example), a court case, whatever – nothing is foolproof so what are we waiting for to call something? I have an open mind and I’m happy to change my mind at the drop of hat if evidence is pushed my way that contradicts my current thought but, at the same time, when I see clear evidence of something I want to call it. If I’m wrong so be it (the results of huge investigations are wrong, too) but if I think the evidence is strong enough I want to call it and I really don’t understand why others don’t want to do the same.

                  These are what I believe are myths about the ability to determine if something is X or Y:
                  – We need lots of information
                  – We need to be an expert
                  – What we believe needs to sanctified by the media or some kind of authority

                  No. Amazingly, the only thing we need to determine that 9/11 was an inside job is 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7. That is all we need. Of course, researchers and experts went through God knows what to get there but ultimately we could simply say that 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration proves that WTC-7 was an inside job because free fall acceleration in a steel frame building only occurs with controlled demolition.

                  You disparaged my 2-minute video but really that video is all we need … unless there is compelling contradictory evidence. In fact, just the second or so that we see the father mouth the mother’s words is probably all we really need. In that moment we see both that the parents are scripted and the scripting is being signalled (we know that the power elite signal their fakery to justify it). You suggested that they could have been scripted by the PR person AND Seth really died, however, the likelihood of the PR person scripting them (very, very low to start with) AND the scripting being so obvious in that way is infinitesimal in my book. Scripting and signalling of the scripting have the fingerprints of power elite fakery all over them. To my mind I see nothing theoretical about my claim that Seth Rich’s death was faked – there is no clear evidence it was real and a significant amount that it was faked. And, as I said, just the mouthing by the father of the mother’s words is dynamite evidence in my book.

                  Sure, there’s lots of things I wouldn’t have the faintest clue about and some things cannot be worked out simply sitting at your computer. In some cases, you might need to be on the ground, an investigative journalist, an expert or whatever. But some things you can work out simply sitting at your computer analysing the news and looking at what analysts are saying.

                  I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist but a conspiracy analyst. In fact, I think I’m more of a second-level analyst. I rely on others’ greater skills of observation such as noticing the father mouthing the words – I often don’t notice such things – and then I put others’ observations together to PROVE the matter. When we have the evidence to prove something, let’s do it!

                  I have done 10-point Occam’s Razor exercises on three terror events: 9/11 (collapse of WTC-7), Sandy Hook and Manchester Bombing favouring the “independent researcher” hypothesis and issued a $5,000 challenge with special invitation to vociferous supporters of the official stories of these events to do an equivalent exercise favouring their hypothesis. No one has managed to respond either to poke holes in my exercises or produce one of their own – in fact, no one has produced a single, solitary point let alone a 10-point exercise.

                  Now if that’s not proof, what is? Surely, my 10-point Occam’s Razor on the collapse of WTC-7 is worth vastly more than the 10,000 pages or whatever of the fraudulent NIST report.

                  • BigB says

                    Flaxgirl: I broadly agree with your last comment: but differentiating between X and Y on balance of probability is one thing …knowing or validating whether X or Y is true is quite another. We are entering into the realms of epistemology here. Your proposition H1 from above is rational, and justified – but not verifiably true. The difference between your H1 proposition and my H2 proclivity (not strongly held) is not distinguishable without the input of more empirical data …and thanks to the WPD: that ain’t happening soon. So until there is a development in the case, we are left with our justified beliefs: but no empirical or actionable knowledge …just as TPTB like it?

                    • All we very often have anywhere is the balance of probability. That’s so much all we have. We’re not in the realm of philosophy here, we’re in the realm of reality. That’s what judges have, that’s what juries have, that’s what investigative journalists have, that’s what police have.

                      But actually in the case of events staged by the power elite we have a secret weapon, yes we have a very special secret weapon … the perpetrators let us in on their crime so we need only look out for their clues. They snow us with propaganda and rely on the Hitlerian lie (see below) to a large degree to stop us identifying their crimes but because they want to justify their crimes they give us a fighting chance and slip out rather obvious clues. They think we’re complete idiots though and only an insignificant few will pick them up, however, when we KNOW that they slip them out to us surely that makes our job much easier. Surely, that gives us a much more powerful lens through which to evaluate the data.

                      Hitlerian lie: Hitler said when you tell a lie tell a whopper. People will disbelieve small lies because they’re familiar to them but a massive lie is beyond their comprehension. There will always be traces of the lie but people will explain them away – yes, people will explain them away in absolutely ludicrous fashion.

                      Three days after the death of Seth Rich the power elite show us:
                      A family tableau with a father mouthing the mother’s words, tapping her to indicate he’ll take over and a brother stifling giggles all the way through … and they don’t show us any compelling evidence of his death.

                      After the Sandy Hook massacre the power elite show us:
                      – A child on Dr Oz say in response to being asked what he remembered of the day say: “I remember that a lot … of policemen were in the school, … when we were having a drill, we were hiding under the … ”

                      A child say this: “… and then we hid because everyone thought it was an animal then when we heard gunshots that didn’t sound like our army gunshots or our policeman gunshots or school gunshots or animal control gunshots we all hid into my teacher’s office …”
                      For videos:

                      … and they show us zero signs whatsoever of a massacre.

                      Just after the Manchester Bombing the power elite show us:

                      An orthopaedic surgeon say “What we saw was essentially war wounds so the kinds of wounds you would see on a battlefield,” and then show us children in hospital sporting bracelet bandages, showing no signs of injury whatsoever
                      A father video-selfying as he’s looking for his daughter, Ellen, and lamenting, in ridiculous fashion, that all the people walking past him are laughing because they can’t see what’s behind him: “People blasted to bits and half their bodies are everywhere,” although his footage shows no hint of this as no other source does either. People commenting say he sounds like the prairie dog calling “Alan” in the comic video.
                      For videos and photos:

                      Within two hours of the collapses of the twin towers the power elite show us a “witness” refer to the site as “Ground Zero”, the place on earth below which a massive bomb detonation occurs.

                      So, BigB, are we going to wield our secret weapon that the power elite generously provide us as a form of “handicap” or are we going to sit back and wait for more conclusive evidence while they push the envelope in how far they can go with their mockery of us? Wait until they’ve turned us into a global fascist state when perhaps it will be a little too late?

                      When I see very compelling evidence supporting a hypothesis and no compelling evidence against it, while using my reason and logic as best I can, I call it. I urge you and others to do the same. Time is of the essence.

                    • I’ve written another reply to your comment which needs to be approved because of the number of links but I just want to address something specific here that I didn’t in that comment.

                      Your H2 proclivity (not strongly held)? Are you kidding me?
                      You mean you think that there’s any weight whatsoever in a claim that a PR person not only staged and scripted Seth Rich’s family’s tableau scene three days after Seth’s death but also signalled the scripting and made no attempts whatsoever to get the family to show grieving … in fact, showed the brother stifling giggles all the way through. That’s not the way PR works – at all, BigB – they’re into completely trying to disguise their bullshit, but it is the way the power elite works – rubbing their fakery in our faces. All the evidence (and lack of it) supports H1 and NONE convincingly supports H2. And I really don’t know what other evidence we need to call it. We’re not in a courtroom. We’re not sending anyone to prison. We can just call it as we see it as citizens of the world being swamped with staged terror and other staged events on a weekly basis.

                      The doctor testimony is interesting I must say. Either the doctor is in on providing the red herring trail and can spout all the requisite bullshit (we know that doctors collaborate in these things, notably Dr Ibrar Majid at Manchester Hospital in his highly-packaged BBC interview) or it was someone else that they pretended was Seth Rich – the power elite have no qualms killing off people here and there to suit their purposes – it could have been a homeless person or similar with no obvious family. I thought before that the doctor would have recognised Seth so difficult to use a different person but reading the testimony more carefully I see that he didn’t know the patient’s name at the time so would not have been paying particular attention and by the time he learnt it would not, of course, be suspecting it wasn’t actually him and would not be doing a mental resemblance comparison.

                      I have to say I think the more likely scenario is that doctor was in on it and was just spouting the requisite bullshit. But either way, it’s a red herring trail. If Seth died unnecessarily in hospital the parents would surely be kicking up a stink about it, knowing that a policeman said he was “maybe stable” – seriously, it’s a joke.

                    • OK I know I’m going on and on and on about this but I find the reluctance of people to see the obvious reality of something really quite weird.

                      If anyone can come up with a possible plausible explanation for how the following fits “real event” rather than “staged event” for Seth Rich’s death please provide it – I’m not even asking for evidence just a possible plausible explanation. If you cannot think of a plausible explanation but you are not convinced that the death was staged please state precisely what is in the way of your conviction.

                      Three days after Seth’s alleged death we are presented with a family tableau where:
                      – Seth’s father mouths the mother’s words which shows both scripting and the clear indication of scripting (the second point being evidence of the power elite “telling” us what they’re up to)
                      – Seth’s brother, Aaron, stifles giggles all the way through


                      There is no compelling evidence provided to us that his death happened.

                    • OK, I know I have to stop but just one more thing. I think it is a case of the doctor being in on it rather than someone other than Seth Rich being used. Not to say in the least that what I say (on this occasion) qualifies as any kind of evidence, it’s just my opinion.

                      How they start their post and finish it strikes me as very pat and I feel that the sentences, especially the second one, have a chortle behind them … but just my opinion as I say.

                      First sentence
                      4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won’t be hard to identify me but I feel that I shouldn’t stay silent.

                      Last sentence
                      Take everything you read especially from the MSM with a grain of salt as usual but don’t stop digging.

                    • BigB says

                      All we have is the balance of probability …but probability without empirical data equals no case. Reality v philosophy: ditto. It doesn’t matter if you bring in one or a hundred other cases to establish a pattern – I can see the pattern myself, but it does not establish a prima facie case. That’s why, under Common Law, previous convictions were not declared. The evidence must stand on its own merit? Other than a highly suspicious video, which could or could not be interpreted as “elite signalling” …the absence of evidence proves nothing by itself. BTW the Clintons have a history of making evidence disappear. For instance, from the office of Vince Foster within hours of his “suicide.” It later turned up in the White House – prosecution? Don’t be silly. So the absence of evidence could be inculpatory and part of a known MO too?

                    • BigB, I am not talking about a court case here or taking to the streets with placards saying “Seth Rich’s death was staged”, I’m just talking about calling it a staged event in the comments of an online journal, that is all. What is your personal conviction about his death? Do you feel that evidence, logic and reason mean you can feel certain it was staged or do you have doubts?

                    • BigB, I do feel disappointed with you. I simply have no understanding of this ridiculous reticence about calling things out. In a comment on another article you introduced me to a new word – lugenpresse. So the Germans even have a word for it: the lying press. We are lied to every day all the time and not only do the media lie to us they collude and collaborate with other perpetrators to produce their lies, their staged terror and all rest of it.

                      Why on earth do you allow them the DOMINANT NARRATIVE, why on earth would you show RESPECT for what they say in any shape or form by holding back on calling something where the evidence is extremely strong and – in fact – they’re actually LETTING US IN ON loud and clear to justify their crimes?

                      What is this “empirical”, “epistemological”, “highly suspicious”, “could or could not be” utter bullshit?

                      The media make mistakes about things all the time even when they’re not deliberately lying. They don’t worry as you seem to about errors they may produce. In the comments section of online articles, while, obviously, we want to get our facts straight, we do not need to be in possession of the kind of evidence you seem to think is required. I mean, what do you need? Rather than only being able to see the father mouth the mother’s words do you think we need to see them rehearsing or something, just so we have the empirical data we need? I mean, you can always couch your ideas with a degree of uncertainty while still calling things out. If I feel certain I tend to like to call them out – and if I’m wrong, someone can let me know.

                    • BigB says

                      Sorry to disappoint: especially as I feel we have a broad basis of agreement. Unfortunately, I’m up to my neck in it – work, that is – as we Brits say. Suffice to say – I’m all for calling out TPTB, but only on empirically sufficient grounds. I’ll try and post a longer response later in the week …watch this space!

                    • As I keep saying BigB I’m only talking about comments in an online article – I’m not interested in actionable knowledge. However, I look forward to your response.

                      My attitude in these situations is the Occam’s Razor approach. They say that Occam’s Razor is not a tool of proof, however, if you’re looking at an event where you are limited to considering two broad hypotheses, real or staged, then I think it can act as proof. If you can come up with significant evidence that supports your hypothesis and none that supports the other, I really don’t know what else you need. There might be mini-hypotheses to debate within the broad hypothesis, eg, in the real event hypothesis of Seth Rich’s death you might look at death by bullets, death by incompetence in the hospital or deliberate death in the hospital … but, as the evidence supports staged event we don’t have to worry too much about the mini-hypotheses. Another mini-hypothesis example is the 9/11 planes into the buildings. I do love that one I must say. The seemingly most implausible hypothesis is the correct one –
                      there were no planes into the buildings! It was all done by explosives which they signalled to us so very loud and clear by christening the site “Ground Zero”, the point on earth underneath the detonation of a massive bomb, less than hours after the twin tower collapses (although it certainly wasn’t loud and clear to me for many, many years for a variety of reasons including that I didn’t even know what the term referred to until about 6 months ago). The way people have debated whether it was the passenger airliners, military planes with a “pod”, missiles as well as the real one, no planes, the one put forward by the most crazy conspiracy theorists of all, the “no planers”. But while seemingly implausible, it really is, of course, the most plausible. Apart from the fact that, according to experts, it would have been impossible to pull off, real planes would have collided, not “reamed through to the other side” to provide the plausibility of the damage bringing down the sturdy towers. God they must be chortling still over that one.

                    • Big B says

                      Flaxgirl: I’m not sure what you want me to commit to? This is not an I’m right, you’re wrong situation …we’re both speculating. The consensus we have is that the ‘lugenpresse’ are being true to form and lying: in that sense, we are both calling them out? But the specifics are indeterminate: I can’t help to validate your belief that Rich’s death was a hoax …because, in this instance, I have no idea that it was.

                      Why we are having this conversation is that both of us have incorporated into our belief systems – not just that the M$M lie, and direct our thinking away from making a ‘connect-the-dot’ comprehensive overall view of the facts – that TPTB will actually hoax and stage events. You don’t have to keep making that point: that basic belief is shared. But in this specific case: I can’t call it on what I have seen.

                      Forget the details surrounding Rich: this looks to me to be the biggest ‘Deep State Event’ since Iran-Contra. Rich exposed a supranational shadow government operating through the Clinton’s and their allies: that’s why he was targeted? Or, just as plausible, he was – wittingly or unwittingly – part of it? The outcome is the biggest hoax since 9/11 – Russia-gate. The consequence of that is that the Pentagram-MIC (HRC’s financial backers and co-conspirators) will make obscene profits. Including Northrop Grumman – who Aaron Rich has been linked to.

                      Could it all be planned – or coincidental? I’m working on the theory that it was planned …the GWOT posited on 9/11 was scuppered in Syria? AQ ot ISIL do not justify the neocon permanent war scenario – but Russia does?

                      So to me, the specifics are not that critical: Rich could be dead or alive – it doesn’t change the bigger picture. It’s the fact that 650,000 emails, 33,000 deleted emails, etc., have escalated into an existential danger to life on this planet is my main focus …and whether there is anything we can do about it by exposing the lies.

                      Am I right that is a CIA plot: well yes, at least partially …Russia-gate came from Brennan-Obomba – and was put out there by HRC (“What Happened”). Was it part of a deeper conspiracy for a new Cold War …I believe I am justified to think so. Can I prove it? Hell no!

                    • What you say about the bigger picture is very interesting including the Grumman Northrup-Aaron Rich connection. I know zero about all that stuff and wouldn’t have a clue where to start.

                      However, I do say that there is sufficient evidence to call Seth Rich’s death a hoax. I’ll reiterate for the last time in summary.

                      There are indications of scripting and clear signalling of that scripting of Seth Rich’s parents’ words 3 days after his death in their interview.
                      Aaron Rich stifles giggles all the way through the interview.
                      The obviousness indicated in points 1 and 2 have the fingerprints of the power elite pushing their hoaxery in our faces to justify their crimes.
                      There is no plausible explanation one might even think of (regardless of evidence) other than “faked death” to fit the evidence stated in points 1-3.
                      There is an anonymous post by a doctor on 4Chan suggesting jiggery-pokery in the hospital. This post fits perfectly with a red herring trail and one cannot think of another way that this evidence would fit with the interview.
                      There are a number of anomalies in the story.
                      There is no clear evidence of his death.

                      This is sufficient for me to call his death staged in the comments of an online journal … admittedly I’d do it anywhere. I shall accept that it is not sufficient for you. Although my years are quite advanced I seem to be finding, over the last year or so, for the first time in my life that what seems undeniable and in-your-face to me is not so to others (including my identical twin) – no matter what side of the fence they are on. It is very disconcerting.

      • John Watwood says

        I’m with you. I believe it was theater just like everything the elites do. Or much of it. Even if they really murders someone(s) or blow something up, the footage we see is done in a studio or ‘on set’ before hand. And the witnesses are usually crisis actors and not the actual victims or witnesses. Theater.

Comments are closed.