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:
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.