Mueller Squashes Seth Rich Conspiracy Pushed by Hannity

[_Xenophon]

I think the main point of the VIPS testing was to show that it was impossible to do the hack as the download speeds were too fast for the internet back then. It had to have been done locally.

I disagree that this was the main point, it was one of many that they were thrown up as is common in conspiracy theories. There are also about a million responses to the download speed point,here is one; it is not some smoking gun.

As for the timing, 4 days isn't enough time to review 28,000 emails for veracity. Here are the points raised by the article I cited:

Avoiding Questions

The narrative raises questions that the press studiously avoids. Why, for instance, would Assange announce on June 12 that a big disclosure is on the way before hearing from the supposed source? Was there a prior communication that Mueller has not disclosed? What about the reference to “new material” on June 22 – does that mean Assange already had other material in hand? After opening the Guccifer file on July 18, why would he publish it just four days later? Would that give WikiLeaks enough time to review some 28,000 documents to insure they’re genuine?

Believe it or not, I did read all your articles. I addressed what I thought were the stronger points concerning the timeline. Frankly the one you specifically call out is pretty easy to explain. Either Assange and crew didn't verify all the data, highly probable and fits neatly with the idea that Assange was basically hellbent on damaging Clinton, or they had access to some or all of it at earlier times, a highly possible scenario given GRU's much earlier breaches.

[_Dr Exiled]

Xenophon said:

"Believe it or not, I did read all your articles. I addressed what I thought were the stronger points concerning the timeline. Frankly the one you specifically call out is pretty easy to explain. Either Assange and crew didn't verify all the data, highly probable and fits neatly with the idea that Assange was basically hellbent on damaging Clinton, or they had access to some or all of it at earlier times, a highly possible scenario given GRU's much earlier breaches."

Your article cites a bunch of possibilities about transferring data after the original hack by Guccifer 2.0, who mysteriously claimed to be the culprit. It then goes back to Crowdstrike, the firm paid by the DNC and wants us to rely on them. The FBI didn't take possession of the server and relied on the paid consultant Crowdstrike to make a mirror. That is still a big hole in my opinion. You are correct to say that an unknown computer specialist like forensicator should be questioned and I'm not a computer specialist. So, perhaps further review of forensicator's data should be reviewed.

Also, if you review your article, the DNC won't release their data speeds and what they were at the time of the supposed hack. It was a lot of data that was compromised and Crowdstrike was in charge of security at the time. How long did it take to get the data if we cannot trust the metadata forensicator used? It raises the question of why the server wasn't turned over to the FBI. How do we know that the mirror done by Crowdstrike wasn't compromised?

[_Xenophon]

Your article cites a bunch of possibilities about transferring data after the original hack by Guccifer 2.0, who mysteriously claimed to be the culprit. It then goes back to Crowdstrike, the firm paid by the DNC and wants us to rely on them. The FBI didn't take possession of the server and relied on the paid consultant Crowdstrike to make a mirror. That is still a big hole in my opinion. You are correct to say that an unknown computer specialist like forensicator should be questioned and I'm not a computer specialist. So, perhaps further review of forensicator's data should be reviewed.

Also, if you review your article, the DNC won't release their data speeds and what they were at the time of the supposed hack. It was a lot of data that was compromised and Crowdstrike was in charge of security at the time. How long did it take to get the data if we cannot trust the metadata forensicator used? It raises the question of why the server wasn't turned over to the FBI. How do we know that the mirror done by Crowdstrike wasn't compromised?

Guccifer claiming to be the culprit isn't "mysterious". There is evidence of the GRU unit who breached the servers also acting as the Guccifer persona; GRU = Guccifier 2.0 & DCLeaks. Guccifer was an attempt by the GRU to cover their involvement in the breach and aid in dissemination of the data. I have to ask, do you just reject everything in the Mueller Report and the indictments surrounding this topic?

The mirroring of the server may be a big hole to you but to the question of "why wasn't the server turned over" is because the FBI deemed a mirror to be sufficient (a practice not all that uncommon), it isn't some attempt to obfuscate or mislead by the DNC, they literally provided what they were legally obligated to provide. It should also be noted that plenty of other security contracts besides Crowdstrike came to the same conclusion concerning the nature and source of the breach, not to mention a handful of Intelligence Agencies and I believe that is mentioned in the article.

I guess my biggest problem with the theories promoting a source other than Russia(apart from the ones hiding behind a dead person) is their reliance on extreme assumptions when there exist highly probable explanations that are much simpler. They keep thinking "zebra" when "horsey" is more than sufficient. They also have to believe that the conspiracy is so deep and coordinated that not a single person across all these different organizations, government and private sector alike, broke ranks at any time to call foul.

You're correct that there are still some questions left without a complete picture. Unfortunately investigations, especially of this nature, are almost never going to be 100% clear cut. We have to take what data is available and draw the best conclusion we can. For me, there is more than enough to consider Russia the culprit and it would take one hell of a bombshell to override all the information we have available now.

[_Dr Exiled]

I'm skeptical of Russiagate because it looks like just an excuse to why Clinton lost. She would have supposedly won had those pesky Russians stayed home. Forget how we meddle all the time in other countries' elections or how our corporations were in the middle of raping Russia during Yeltsin when Putin came to power. Russia is obviously evil for not wanting us there. In any event Clinton was a horrible candidate and even if Russia were behind the leaks, the emails were true and showed how Clinton and the DNC stole the election from Sanders. It also showed how Clinton is really just another neocon puppet of Wall Street. Enough people in the midwest saw that and were susceptible to Trump's lies about being a populist and so they voted for Trump the clown. Also, the Russians' supposed campaign wasn't effective. Anyone other than Clinton would have won.

[_subgenius]

I'm skeptical of Russiagate because it looks like just an excuse to why Clinton lost. She would have supposedly won had those pesky Russians stayed home.....

Yet no one seems to focus on the Steele Dossier that in spite of the access to vibrant intelligence information was incompetently compiled as if it were intended....

[_Dr Exiled]

I'm skeptical of Russiagate because it looks like just an excuse to why Clinton lost. She would have supposedly won had those pesky Russians stayed home.....

Yet no one seems to focus on the Steele Dossier that in spite of the access to vibrant intelligence information was incompetently compiled as if it were intended....

It was opposition smear, paid by Clinton, and used to get the Fisa warrant. I'm sure the Republicans or at least Trump will use this to counter impeachment. The circus continues.

[_Some Schmo]

It was opposition smear, paid by Clinton, and used to get the Fisa warrant. I'm sure the Republicans or at least Trump will use this to counter impeachment. The circus continues.

It was commissioned by Republicans during the GOP primary, and then taken over and partially paid for by the Clinton campaign. Of course the Republicans will use it. Their base seems to think Clinton initiated and paid for the whole thing, too, because they are constantly mislead. Hypocrisy is the only tool in the GOP toolkit.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm skeptical of Russiagate because it looks like just an excuse to why Clinton lost. She would have supposedly won had those pesky Russians stayed home.

So you believe there's a major conspiracy among all of the US's intelligence agencies to falsify reports in order to save Clinton's reputation after she already lost the election? Seriously?

Forget how we meddle all the time in other countries' elections or how our corporations were in the middle of raping Russia during Yeltsin when Putin came to power.

Your response to Russian meddling in our election is to say, "Well we do it too!" and not, "Hmmm, maybe America should stop doing that, since we don't like it happening to us?"

Interesting.

[_Dr Exiled]

I'm skeptical of Russiagate because it looks like just an excuse to why Clinton lost. She would have supposedly won had those pesky Russians stayed home.

So you believe there's a major conspiracy among all of the US's intelligence agencies to falsify reports in order to save Clinton's reputation after she already lost the election? Seriously?

Forget how we meddle all the time in other countries' elections or how our corporations were in the middle of raping Russia during Yeltsin when Putin came to power.

Your response to Russian meddling in our election is to say, "Well we do it too!" and not, "Hmmm, maybe America should stop doing that, since we don't like it happening to us?"

Interesting.

We shouldn't meddle but our press and those in charge have this attitude of it's ok for us and not for anyone else. So, it's kind of hypocritical to complain about meddling when we meddle in Ukraine, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, France, Italy, etc. etc.

[_Some Schmo]

We shouldn't meddle but our press and those in charge have this attitude of it's ok for us and not for anyone else. So, it's kind of hypocritical to complain about meddling when we meddle in Ukraine, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, France, Italy, etc. etc.

So then it's not OK for us regular citizens to complain? As citizens, shouldn't we make our feelings about foreign interference known to those in charge?