Pages

Monday, July 15, 2019

Seth Rich In The News Again

There's a story that came out earlier today that injects the whole Seth Rich - DNC narrative into the public view again. Here's the slightly more than 25 word version:

A businessman and ex Fox Business contributor named Ed Butowsky has, through his lawyer Ty Clevenger, filed a lawsuit in which he alleges--among much else--that Fox analyst Ellen Ratner told him that she had been informed by Julian Assange that Seth and Aaron Rich provided the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Obviously, IF TRUE, this is mind boggling. It's that "if true" that gives pause.

This is Ed Butowsky, via Wikipedia:

Edward "Ed" Wayne Butowsky (born February 12, 1962) is an American financial adviser and former Fox Business Network commentator. Butowsky was purportedly banned from the network's building in August 2017 after he gained notoriety over his role in a story published and subsequently retracted by Fox News concerning the murder of Seth Rich and his alleged ties to WikiLeaks.

Here is Ty Clevenger's account of the facts that Butowsky alleges in his lawsuit, linked to FR:


Lawsuit outs Ellen Ratner as source for Seth Rich information
LawFlog ^ | July 15, 2019 | Ty Clevenger 
Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky. 
Although Ms. Ratner appears on Fox News, she is by no means a Republican or a conservative, and her role in the Seth Rich saga (like that of journalist Sy Hersh) obliterates the Democratic narrative that right-wing zealots fabricated the story about Mr. Rich leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee. 
Mr. Rich, a DNC employee, was murdered in Washington, D.C. on July 10, 2016, and the murder remains unsolved. Here’s an excerpt from the amended suit (“RCH” stands for “Russian Collusion Hoax”): 
45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Rattner [sic], a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News, contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms. Rattner’s brother, the late Michael Rattner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Rattner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder. 
46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Rattner asked Mr. Butowsky to contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Rattner did not want her involvement to be made public. [Continue]

The referenced Fox story is not the only story of this sort that has been retracted. The Washington Times also retracted a story re Seth Rich: Retraction: Aaron Rich and the murder of Seth Rich:

The Washington Times published an op-ed column titled, “More cover-up questions: The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug,” by Adm. James Lyons (Ret.) (the “Column”), on March 1 online and on March 2 in its paper editions. The Column included statements about Aaron Rich, the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, that we now believe to be false. 
One such statement was that: “Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information.” The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety. 
The Column also stated: “Also, why hasn’t Aaron Rich been interviewed [by law enforcement], and where is he?” The Washington Times understands that law enforcement officials have interviewed Mr. Rich and that he has cooperated with their investigation. The Washington Times did not intend to imply that Mr. Rich has obstructed justice in any way, and The Washington Times retracts and disavows any such implication.

Obviously, given these retractions, I don't want to invest a lot of time in Butowsky's lawsuit. OTOH, I count myself among those who don't buy the official narrative that "Russia Hacked The DNC Emails". I believe that the case that an insider was responsible for transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks is clear and convincing. I assume that the claim of a Russian "hack" was probably manufactured to smear Trump once the exfiltration was discovered. I simply can't see any innocent explanation for the bizarrely inept handling of this situation by the FBI and DoJ--as well as Team Mueller. It is critically important that the truth of all this come out. Here are two prior posts that go into that a bit:

Remember: The DNC Was NOT Hacked By The Russians
Roger Stone Questions DOJ on Predicate of Russia DNC Hack

CTH has also weighed in on the Butowsky lawsuit this evening, but cautiously. I can certainly subscribe to all of this:

The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016.  If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses. 
... 
The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike. 
Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to contribute at this point that hasn't already been said.

17 comments:

  1. Why Didn’t Mueller Investigate Seth Rich?

    In the article's comments, see the comment by Norumbega at June 15 at 11:56.

    [quote]

    The Twitter user McCabe’s Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) today notes ....

    "Now go back to the May 2017 infamous, but reluctantly retracted, Fox News article by Malia Zimmerman”

    At that point he [Beech] quotes an extract from Zimmerman’s article:

    “A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer -- generated within 96 hours after his murder -- said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin McFayden, a famous American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks.”

    ”'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks’, the federal investigator told Fox News ... But he said the whole case was put to rest after the FBI initial audit, and agents were told not to investigate further. The emails sit inside the FBI today, said the federal agent, who asked to remain a confidential source.”

    In other comments below, I [Norumbega] have quoted Larry Johnson as saying, of the Fox News report,

    “I know who Malia talked to. She was right. The FBI knew Seth contacted Assange.”

    Likewise, Bill Binney had earlier remarked, probably based on conversations with Johnson:

    “the people I know, they have at least two other avenues of information coming to them that verify what [Sy Hersh] said about the FBI having the data on Seth Rich’s computer, where he contacted WikiLeaks and transferred some data and wanted money for the rest of the data. I don’t think that’s publicly known yet.” ...

    [end quote]

    Norumbega's comment includes further interesting info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, in the linked article I think what's especially important is the indication that the Mueller Dossier is dissembling--not Assange. Assange is taking the usual sensible precautions in protecting sources and everything he says makes perfect sense. Mueller is the one who makes unsupported assertions--unsupported but for Crowdstrike, paid by DNC. Absurdly unprofessional.

      Delete
  2. Fake News Media Suffers Body Blow on Case Linked to Seth Rich, an article by Larry Johnson, published on April 29, 2019

    Johnson's article provides court information about Butowski's lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, thanks for all the links. Johnson's account of the case is concise and accurate. It's important to remember that this is a defamation case. What that means for our purposes is that it is directed at the defendants' misrepresentations of Butowsky rather than the accuracy of the underlying facts per se. IOW, regardless of whether Butowsky's views were correct, if he was deliberately misrepresented then he could have been defamed. The judge ruled that a jury might so conclude and the case should go forward. All that said, it also says something about the interests behind the smears, and discovery and depositions could be revealing.

      Delete
  3. VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings

    In the article's comments, see Norumbega's comment on March 17 at 15:28

    [quote]

    I want to outline what Craig Murray has actually claimed in his interview with Scott Horton. If this interview were more widely known, several points of confusion would be cleared up. Here I will summarize the key contents of that interview, and also summarize what we have reason to believe about the identities of the WikiLeaks leakers and Guccifer 2 from this and a few other sources.

    See: “December 13, 2016 – Craig Murray: DNC, Podesta emails leaked, not hacked – Episode 4328”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOql1gt-8c&t=1455s

    I summarize the key points as follows:

    1. Murray asserts that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak involved two entirely different sources.

    2. Murray flatly asserts that in both cases the leaks were “by Americans” who had access to the information they leaked as part of their jobs.

    3. Murray flatly asserts that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source in either case.

    4. The person he met in Washington was clearly the Podesta leaker.

    5. Murray says this meeting occurred after the Podesta material was already safely with WikiLeaks.

    6. Murray insinuates rather plainly that the person was involved (within American intelligence or law enforcement) in monitoring John Podesta’s communications as a registered and paid lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.

    7. Murray suggests that the answer to the question “was the leaker someone from intelligence/law enforcement, or was the leaker someone from the Democratic Party/DNC?” that the answer will be different in the two cases – which, given points (1) and (6), implies that the DNC leak was from a Democratic insider.

    8. Murray says that Julian Assange’s statement about Seth Rich reflects concern that Rich may have been killed on orders of someone who _thought_ he was the leaker – whether correctly or incorrectly. Thus Murray does not deny that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker but also avoids confirming it. We must still assume _some_ rational basis for so thinking on the part of Rich’s possible killers is being implied by Assange – such as knowledge that Rich had been in touch with WikiLeaks.

    9. Turning to other sources of information, it is clear that Murray’s meeting in Washington with the Podesta leaker will have occurred after he left the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence banquet early in order to do so. (In other interviews which I haven’t kept track of, Scott Horton says that two other people he’s interviewed (Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern?) were there at the banquet and witnessed Murray leave early.) This was on September 25, 2016. ...

    [end quote]

    Norumbega's comment continues.

    ------

    See also this article, Norumbega's comment on June 12 at 21:15

    ReplyDelete
  4. This might be a duplicate post. If so, delete one.

    VIPS: Mueller’s Forensics-Free Findings

    In the article's comments, see Norumbega's comment on March 17 at 15:28

    [quote]

    I want to outline what Craig Murray has actually claimed in his interview with Scott Horton. If this interview were more widely known, several points of confusion would be cleared up. Here I will summarize the key contents of that interview, and also summarize what we have reason to believe about the identities of the WikiLeaks leakers and Guccifer 2 from this and a few other sources.

    See: “December 13, 2016 – Craig Murray: DNC, Podesta emails leaked, not hacked – Episode 4328”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbOql1gt-8c&t=1455s

    I summarize the key points as follows:

    1. Murray asserts that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak involved two entirely different sources.

    2. Murray flatly asserts that in both cases the leaks were “by Americans” who had access to the information they leaked as part of their jobs.

    3. Murray flatly asserts that Guccifer 2.0 was not the source in either case.

    4. The person he met in Washington was clearly the Podesta leaker.

    5. Murray says this meeting occurred after the Podesta material was already safely with WikiLeaks.

    6. Murray insinuates rather plainly that the person was involved (within American intelligence or law enforcement) in monitoring John Podesta’s communications as a registered and paid lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.

    7. Murray suggests that the answer to the question “was the leaker someone from intelligence/law enforcement, or was the leaker someone from the Democratic Party/DNC?” that the answer will be different in the two cases – which, given points (1) and (6), implies that the DNC leak was from a Democratic insider.

    8. Murray says that Julian Assange’s statement about Seth Rich reflects concern that Rich may have been killed on orders of someone who _thought_ he was the leaker – whether correctly or incorrectly. Thus Murray does not deny that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker but also avoids confirming it. We must still assume _some_ rational basis for so thinking on the part of Rich’s possible killers is being implied by Assange – such as knowledge that Rich had been in touch with WikiLeaks.

    9. Turning to other sources of information, it is clear that Murray’s meeting in Washington with the Podesta leaker will have occurred after he left the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence banquet early in order to do so. (In other interviews which I haven’t kept track of, Scott Horton says that two other people he’s interviewed (Phil Giraldi and Ray McGovern?) were there at the banquet and witnessed Murray leave early.) This was on September 25, 2016. ...

    [end quote]

    Norumbega's comment continues.

    ------

    See also this article, Norumbega's comment on June 12 at 21:15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that's not conducive to a thorough exam of Mueller under the rules set by Nadler. It requires a really thorough and professional criminal investigation.

      Delete
  5. Well, Butowsky's lawsuit could eventually reach the stage of depositions taken, particularly that of Ms. Ratner. As far as I can tell, with a quick search just now, she has never denied this specific claim from the lawsuit, though I admit I have never heard of her before tonight.

    There is no way of knowing if Ratner even told Butowsky this story, much less if it was true. However, Butowsky did make this claim about the Rich brothers in the Summer of 2017, so it isn't like this is all new news. Additionally, around the same time Butowsky was floating this story, Dana Rohrbacher was claiming that he talked to Assange and that Assange could prove that the e-mails didn't come from the Russians.

    I mean, it is entirely possible Assange has been putting out flak the entire time, including the offer of a reward for information about Rich's killer, but the fact is that all the evidence we can see does suggest an inside leak, and Assange's actions have all indicated that it could have been Seth Rich.

    Of course, the things that interest me the most is the lack of curiosity on the part of the Mueller team- no indication they even tried to interview Assange, no indication they made any attempt to verify CrowdStrike's assertions about the hack, and in the end, the report itself offering exactly zero evidence of its claims- not even a vague description of how they know the things they claim to know- just flat assertion throughout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I noted in reponse to one of Mike's links, the case is about Butowsky being allegedly defamed. That could have occurred even if he was wrong about Seth Rich. The fact that a person is mistaken doesn't give license to defame them.

      I agree with your assessment--this is one more instance of Team Mueller showing NO interest in anything that didn't advance the Russia Hoax narrative, or that might actually call it into question. THAT should be of great interest to the media, but somehow isn't.

      I also agree that the theory that Rich provided the data to Assange is perfectly plausible on its face, and the reliance of Crowdstrike is utterly unprofessional and should be scrutinized by DoJ (if it isn't being examined already).

      Delete
  6. A powerful influence induced Acosta to let Epstein off on extremely serious child predator criminality. A powerful influence induced news media to retract truthful reporting of Seth Rich's involvement in the DNC email leak. A powerful influence induced DOJ prosecutors to let the Awan brothers off for stealing nearly everything on the DNC servers and selling it to foreign intelligence services. There is a pattern here, and it's not just incredulity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true. The Awan Bros. caper is too easily forgotten, in particular.

      Delete
  7. Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that Butowsky can win his defamation suit without proving the underlying claims re Seth Rich. For that what's needed is a real investigation, which to all appearances has yet to happen. Shamefully.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It might be that Andrew McCabe has been doing a disinformation operation regarding the murder of Seth Rich.

    CTH Comment 1

    CTH Comment 2

    ReplyDelete
  9. That commenter says:

    1) Sy Hersh told Butowsky that Andrew McCabe was his (Hersh's) source, and

    2) Rod Rosenstein ordered the murder of Seth Rich.

    I don't buy either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seth Rich was murdered at about 4:20 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016. He had left a bar at about 1:30 a.m.

      His whereabouts for almost three hours in the middle of the night are unknown.

      Three days later, on Wednesday, July 13, the Russia-based What Does It Mean? website reports that Russian Intelligence (VSB) is circulating a report in the Kremlin that Rich believed mistakenly that he was meeting with some FBI officials. Instead, however, Rich encountered a hit team that assassinated him.

      The website reports further that the hit team was arrested by "Federal police forces" on Tuesday, July 12.

      The website reports further that Russian Intelligence had detected, on July 7, an enormous increase of computer and telephone traffic between the DNC and the Clinton Foundation.

      The website (I think) suggests that Rich had learned that the Clinton Foundation was conducting a pay-to-play operation, in which the future President Clinton would appoint to her future administration people who donated a lot of money to her Foundation. Discussions about that pay-to-play operation caused that increase in traffic.

      The website (I think) suggests further that Rich intended to report this information to FBI officials at 4 a.m. on that Sunday morning. However, Rich's intention had been discovered by the Clinton Foundation, which sent a hit squad to assassinate him.

      According to the website, the assassins previously had assassinated a Georgia (USA) prosecutor who was "investigating Bill Clinton for child sex crimes".

      The website reports further that Russian Intelligence tried to report this plot to the US State Department on July 7. In response, however, the US State Department expelled the two Russian diplomats who had tried to report the plot.

      This story is extremely strange. Who was concocting it? And why?

      Delete
    2. I was mistaken when I wrote that that website was "Russia-based". I don't know where it is based.

      Maybe it's just a prank website.

      That particular article strikes me as a mirror image of Christopher Steele's dossier. The article pretends to know about super-secret Intelligence reports circulating in the Kremlin.

      Delete