Seth Rich Conspiracy came from Russia

[_Dr Exiled]

But how do we know that unless we actually interview him? Sure, that might be the case that he is in league with the Russians, but doesn't it strike you as odd that a main part of the supposed Russia conspiracy hasn't been interviewed or even charged for his supposed conduct in the 2016 election? Mueller didn't even try to interview him and the D.C. police haven't tried for three years.

You know he's only just now in the process of being extradited to the US, right? It was impossible before the embassy gave him up.

He volunteered to give testimony and Comey stopped the negotiations back in 2017. Also, Mueller could have subpoenaed him and the D.C. police could have as well, if they wanted to, but they didn't. They didn't even try.

[_Gray Ghost]

He volunteered to give testimony and Comey stopped the negotiations back in 2017. Also, Mueller could have subpoenaed him and the D.C. police could have as well, if they wanted to, but they didn't. They didn't even try.

Give testimony where? Over the phone? That's not how it works. Assange was hiding out to avoid being charged for his various criminal activity.

[_Dr Exiled]

He volunteered to give testimony and Comey stopped the negotiations back in 2017. Also, Mueller could have subpoenaed him and the D.C. police could have as well, if they wanted to, but they didn't. They didn't even try.

Give testimony where? Over the phone? That's not how it works. Assange was hiding out to avoid being charged for his various criminal activity.

Here is an article detailing the Assange negotiations that Comey helped to stop, for some unknown reason:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal

And again, Mueller and the D.C. police didn't even try to contact Assange or subpoena him. You realize agents can actually fly over to where Assange is and question him. I'm sure the Equadorian govt under the new president would have complied. Also, now that he is in custody in the UK, it would be a lot easier to subpoena him and set up an interview that could be conducted where Assange is. Mueller's investigation was never time barred and murder investigations aren't either.

Why don't they want to interview a possible key witness? If he is a Russian asset, like you say, surely interviewing/interrogating him would be what investigators do, unless they don't want him to spoil their narrative.

[_Gray Ghost]

Here is an article detailing the Assange negotiations that Comey helped to stop, for some unknown reason:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal

And again, Mueller and the D.C. police didn't even try to contact Assange or subpoena him. You realize agents can actually fly over to where Assange is and question him. I'm sure the Equadorian govt under the new president would have complied. Also, now that he is in custody in the UK, it would be a lot easier to subpoena him and set up an interview that could be conducted where Assange is. Mueller's investigation was never time barred and murder investigations aren't either.

Why don't they want to interview a possible key witness? If he is a Russian asset, like you say, surely interviewing/interrogating him would be what investigators do, unless they don't want him to spoil their narrative.

Why would Comey want to kill an immunity deal for an organization working with Russian military intelligence against the United States of America? This is a profoundly seriousness question.

Here's what's going to happen. Assange is going to prison. If he ever wants to get out, he can cooperate. Immunity would be grossly inappropriate.

[_Dr Exiled]

Here is an article detailing the Assange negotiations that Comey helped to stop, for some unknown reason:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal

And again, Mueller and the D.C. police didn't even try to contact Assange or subpoena him. You realize agents can actually fly over to where Assange is and question him. I'm sure the Equadorian govt under the new president would have complied. Also, now that he is in custody in the UK, it would be a lot easier to subpoena him and set up an interview that could be conducted where Assange is. Mueller's investigation was never time barred and murder investigations aren't either.

Why don't they want to interview a possible key witness? If he is a Russian asset, like you say, surely interviewing/interrogating him would be what investigators do, unless they don't want him to spoil their narrative.

Why would Comey want to kill an immunity deal for an organization working with Russian military intelligence against the United States of America? This is a profoundly seriousness question.

Here's what's going to happen. Assange is going to prison. If he ever wants to get out, he can cooperate. Immunity would be grossly inappropriate.

The presumption about Assange must have been working for the Russians is the real question. Was he or wasn't he? This is the heart of the Russiagate narrative. This is why it is crucial to hear what Assange has to say about it. He denies it and says he has proof his sources weren't a foreign government, meaning not the Russians. How about we test this prior to heading straight to a conclusion that supports a one-sided narrative? Maybe he is a Russian agent, but the lack of wanting to question him about this very important topic and just assuming he is a Russian agent, merely to support the narrative, is highly suspect. It's malpractice. What is there to be afraid of?

[_Xenophon]

The presumption about Assange must have been working for the Russians is the real question. Was he or wasn't he? This is the heart of the Russiagate narrative. This is why it is crucial to hear what Assange has to say about it. He denies it and says he has proof his sources weren't a foreign government, meaning not the Russians. How about we test this prior to heading straight to a conclusion that supports a one-sided narrative? Maybe he is a Russian agent, but the lack of wanting to question him about this very important topic and just assuming he is a Russian agent, merely to support the narrative, is highly suspect. It's malpractice. What is there to be afraid of?

I think this misunderstands what the Mueller investigation uncovered concerning Assange and Russia. I'd have to read it again but I can't recall anything even remotely resembling the idea that Assange needed to be an "agent of Russia" for the narrative to hold up. It doesn't matter to the investigation if Assange actually is an agent, is willfully advancing materials he knows are from Russia but doesn't care because he wants the dirt, or is totally ignorant as to who his source is. The point was that, through other means, Mueller had shown that Guccifer 2.0 was the pseudonym for the Russian team that had hacked the DNC and he had the communications between Guccifer and Assange.

Again, I agree that it would be nice to have Assange on record about these things but I think you place way too much importance into his piece of the puzzle to this whole thing. If you have an 1000 piece puzzle and are missing half a piece (remember, we still have a lot of his communications with the Russians) it is impossible for that tiny slice of the image to fundamentally alter what you are seeing.

[_Dr Exiled]

The presumption about Assange must have been working for the Russians is the real question. Was he or wasn't he? This is the heart of the Russiagate narrative. This is why it is crucial to hear what Assange has to say about it. He denies it and says he has proof his sources weren't a foreign government, meaning not the Russians. How about we test this prior to heading straight to a conclusion that supports a one-sided narrative? Maybe he is a Russian agent, but the lack of wanting to question him about this very important topic and just assuming he is a Russian agent, merely to support the narrative, is highly suspect. It's malpractice. What is there to be afraid of?

I think this misunderstands what the Mueller investigation uncovered concerning Assange and Russia. I'd have to read it again but I can't recall anything even remotely resembling the idea that Assange needed to be an "agent of Russia" for the narrative to hold up. It doesn't matter to the investigation if Assange actually is an agent, is willfully advancing materials he knows are from Russia but doesn't care because he wants the dirt, or is totally ignorant as to who his source is. The point was that, through other means, Mueller had shown that Guccifer 2.0 was the pseudonym for the Russian team that had hacked the DNC and he had the communications between Guccifer and Assange.

Again, I agree that it would be nice to have Assange on record about these things but I think you place way too much importance into his piece of the puzzle to this whole thing. If you have an 1000 piece puzzle and are missing half a piece (remember, we still have a lot of his communications with the Russians) it is impossible for that tiny slice of the image to fundamentally alter what you are seeing.

I don't think Mueller definitively showed Gucifer 2.0 was really the Russians. What state sponsored group immediately takes credit for their espionage? I would think state sponsored actors would act in the dark and wouldn't want to claim anything, much less be so public about it. Also, the timeline doesn't make sense as Assange announced he had the documents prior to actually getting them from Gucifer 2.0 or even communicating with Gucifer 2.0

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

[_Xenophon]

I don't think Mueller definitively showed Gucifer 2.0 was really the Russians. What state sponsored group immediately takes credit for their espionage? I would think state sponsored actors would act in the dark and wouldn't want to claim anything, much less be so public about it. Also, the timeline doesn't make sense as Assange announced he had the documents prior to actually getting them from Gucifer 2.0 or even communicating with Gucifer 2.0

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

We've been around and around on this one already so I'm not going to rehash it in its entirety. Reader's Digest version, it appears to me that everyone attempting to suggest there is a discrepancy in the timeline doesn't take into account several key points:

1. There were several breaches in security, Podesta's personal account being hacked as early as 3/21/2016. When Assange tells BBC he has damaging information on Democrat party memembers it is impossible to know which breach he is referring to.
2. Roger Stone confirms that Assange had damaging information in the Spring of 2016
3. Unless you just assuming everything Mueller says is suspect or a lie, there is investigative evidence connecting the GRU as Guccifer 2.0/DCLeaks, we didn't just take their word on it
4. We still don't have the underacted report and that creates extra fog here (I know we agree on this point).

I also think it is insane on its face to presume there is such a glaring error in Mueller's report. He and his team would have to be the worst conspirators of all time despite the decades of legal experience they brought to the table.

I said this to you on one of the other thread's and I think it still holds true here. I'll leave you the last word on it if you want.

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.

[_Gray Ghost]

The presumption about Assange must have been working for the Russians is the real question. Was he or wasn't he? This is the heart of the Russiagate narrative. This is why it is crucial to hear what Assange has to say about it. He denies it and says he has proof his sources weren't a foreign government, meaning not the Russians. How about we test this prior to heading straight to a conclusion that supports a one-sided narrative? Maybe he is a Russian agent, but the lack of wanting to question him about this very important topic and just assuming he is a Russian agent, merely to support the narrative, is highly suspect. It's malpractice. What is there to be afraid of?

We already know he was working with the GRU. Don't fret, he will be questioned. Thoroughly.

[_subgenius]

... there is investigative evidence connecting the GRU as Guccifer 2.0/DCLeaks, we didn't just take their word on it ...

actually, on this point, you did take their word on it...and not really "their word" but someone else's.
I recall that Guccifer 2.0 being linked to "Fancy Bear" is what there is, perhaps, sufficient evidence for...and it may be reasonable to assume that Fancy Bear's relationship with GRU was in effect for Podesta etc....but the notion that there was a GRU agent(s) etc at the helm for all that currently lacks evidence; and given your concession for "redaction" above- you are taking someone's "word" for it.

Nevertheless, we all know that you guys (eg Kevin Graham) specifically blamed the Comey letter as the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss. I mean how long is your hair-fire list now?....maybe its time to just call it a "hair-smolder" because its always just smoke after smoke with absolutely no flame.