Sandy Larsen

Roger, I haven't the energy, time, or inclination to become an expert on Russiagate. My ideas regarding it are based on years of personal observation of the actions of the various actors. I do have an open mind regarding it, but I am willing only to study individual claims to see if they can be verified. A great example of this is when Keven made the claim that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich was directly involved in the DNC e-mail leak. (In this post.) He gave me his source and I spent several hours researching it. Ultimately I discovered it to be only a half-truth. Yes, the FBI did admit to having Rich's laptop, and indirectly admitted to having investigated it as part of the their DNC leak investigation. But alas, no... the FBI did not admit that Seth Rich was involved in the leak, or that they thought he was involved. This is also a great example of why I don't trust the judgement of most people. So why should I trust what Craig Murray said? He is a close friend of Assange's, and could easily have been giving him a hand in deflecting Russian involvement allegations from WikiLeaks. Or, maybe Murray is telling the truth, but was duped by a Russian agent into believing that the e-mails were hacked by a disgruntled DNC employee. (I happen to believe this is likely the case.) So, bottom line is this: If you or anyone want's to convince me of something, make it something simple and give me a source so I can verify it for myself. As I said, my mind is open, But I think you guys have probably been hoodwinked by Trump-friendly fake news sites... OR by commentators who have been hoodwinked by those sites. (I've noticed that Ben Cole, who is not a Trump supporter, thinks and speaks just like a Trump supporter. And I believe that he does so because he gets his news and commentaries from Trump-friendly fake news sites.) One other thing I'd like to say for whoever it was that disparaged Rachel Maddow... I believe that Rachel Maddow is very credible and is fair in her evaluations.

Hey William, I'm still a believer in the Mueller Report. But there is one thing the other side is right about, and I thought you should know. I don't know if you followed what I discovered this morning about the Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation FOIA lawsuit. That is that the FBI did indeed confiscate Seth Rich's laptop. Not only that, indications are that they investigated it to see if Rich was involved in the 2016 DNC server hack. So they've got that going for them. But I don't think the FBI concluded that Rich is guilty. Because in the very same legal document where the FBI gives out this information, they also say that 12 Russians have been indicted for the election interference, and they don't want information about Seth Rich's laptop to get out and potentially hurt the case against the Russians. If you want to read that legal document, go to this post. Read Document 83 Attachment 1, which I've quoted at the very bottom of the post.

I think I have some good news for you guys... something that maybe you haven't thought of. Presidents are not required to get security clearances, and yet they have access to some of the most highly sensitive classified documents. Have you ever wondered how the intelligence agencies deal with that? I did, a long time ago when I had to have background checks and take other steps to get clearances. My best friend and I came to the conclusion that, if a candidate for president wasn't fit for a security clearances, the intelligence agencies (probably just the CIA) would take measures into their own hands and make damn sure that any unfit presidential candidate who had a chance of winning, wouldn't. As of now, Donald Trump would be a national security risk if he became president. He's deeply in debt and nobody is willing to loan him the half billion he owes New York City. Nobody who is deeply in debt qualifies for a security clearance... at least not a Top Secret one. For the simple reason they will be tempted to sell secrets. In Trumps case, would anyone here be surprised to learn that Vladimir Putin would like to slip[Trump a half billion dollars? Yeah baby! That would be one hell of an investment. Even if Trump were too cautious to sell Putin secrets, nobody could say for sure that his pulling American funds from Ukraine was a Russian quid pro quo. Trump's been wanting America out of Ukraine for some time now. I don't care much for the CIA's dirty tricks. But in this case I'll hold my nose.

"Goofball" is what I call the a child who is misbehaving. "Infantile" is what I call an adult who is behaving like a child. When Robert Montenegro created his The Men Who Murdered President Kennedy thread, with his long list of perpetrators, a number of members poked fun at him for his list. He left because no one took him seriously. One person posted a particularly childish message. I felt like Robert had cast his pearls before swine. Luckily he came back and reposted his list... on a new thread. It was at that time that I wrote, "Robert, ignore the infantile goofballs." And I would say it again under the same circumstances.

IMO it is quite a stretch for plaintiff Huddleston to figure, from what the FBI stated, that they were admitting that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016." To me, what it sounds like is that the FBI admitted they had investigated Seth Rich's laptop computer to see if he was involved. Which is a far cry from saying that they'd determined that Rich was guilty. Remember, in that court document itself the FBI were saying that the Russians were guilty.

I think I've found the answer as to what gave plaintiff Huddleston the idea that the FBI admitted Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016. It is in Document 83 (filed 12/9/22), Attachment 1. The FBI makes 36 numbered declarations in that document. The pertinent ones are #27 through #29, where the FBI gives reasons that certain information should not be released. Declarations #27 through #29 are quoted below. In short, they state that there are currently 12 Russians indicted for interfering with the 2016 election. And if the FBI were to release information related to the 2016 election interference investigation, it could be used to interfere with the investigation and the prosecution of those who are indicted. So apparently plaintiff Huddleston figured that, if the FBI is concerned about that in his lawsuit, then Seth Rich MUST be directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.

Following are the various admissions made by the FBI, according to plaintiff Huddleston: Document 18 (1/20/21): "First the FBI played dumb, claiming that no records existed. After getting backed into a corner, the FBI was forced to admit that the records exist, but now it asks the Court to string out production past the 2022 Congressional elections and possibly past the next Presidential election." Document 26 (6/14/21): "The FBI recently admitted to this Court that it has thousands of responsive pages and, as set forth below, the FBI has now admitted that it was already in possession of at least some of those documents at the very time that it claimed it was unable to locate any responsive documents." Document 46 (2/7/22): "As a result of this litigation, and despite previous testimony that it had no records whatsoever about Seth Rich, the FBI has been forced to admit that it possessed hundreds of pages of documents pertaining to Seth Rich, as well as laptop computers that belonged to Mr. Rich." Document 92 (1/13/23): "After years of denials, the FBI has finally admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016." The most interesting is the quote from Document 92. It's really hard to believe that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016. The pertinent question is, how did plaintiff Huddleston get that idea? What were the FBI's actual words?

Here are are all the lawsuit documents filed for the Seth Rich case, Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211651/huddleston-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/

The article isn't long enough to go into that kind of detail. (Particularly with all the conspiracy theories there are.) Same thing is true on the Wikipedia article on the WC/HSCA version of the narrative.

I've found the legal document indicating that the FBI has Seth Rich's laptop, a CD, and tape drive: https://www.justice.gov/oip/huddleston-v-fbi-no-20-00447-2023-wl-8235243-ed-tex-nov-28-2023-mazzant-j The document states that the FBI doesn't want to release information on it because it will reveal methods it uses in its investigations. What this tells me is that the FBI investigated the possibility that Seth Rich was a source of DNC e-mails leak. But it doesn't tell me that he indeed was. So I am still inclined to believe the Mueller report.

It represents the official WC and HSCA narratives quite well. If you read this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories you'll find that it represents the various conspiracy theories quite well.

Just in case you missed it @Keven Hofeling, still waiting for a citation. I can't find anything on the FBI admitting they have Seth Rich's computer, holding DNC e-mails. Other than right-wing fake news sites. EDIT: Never mind.

Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it. EDIT: Never mind.

Roger, My original claim was that that I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and so I believe what is in his report. His report debunks the Seth Rich theory that you and Keven believe. Keven challenged Mueller's report. I responded by giving sources that supported Mueller's conclusions, and that may have been the sources he used himself. I am not debating with you guys on the theory you believe. I'm defending my belief in Mueller's report by providing support for it. Having straightened that out... Yes, if Mueller is wrong then it is theoretically possible that the e-mails Assange released in July could have come from before Rich's death. (Though that wouldn't explain the non-Rich source for the additional e-mails Assange got in July, after Rich's death.) But I repeat, I trust Robert Mueller's report over the theory you guys believe. (And don't forget, Seymour Hersh admitted that what he'd claimed about Seth Rich was merely an unsubstantiated rumor. And that, because of that, the Fox news report based on it had to be pulled and Fox had to pay a six digit lawsuit settlement for having run it.)

A guy named Brian Huddleston sues the FBI, and within his document he states his opinion regarding Seth Rich. You consider that to be a reliable source for what you believe? This guy's opinion? Oh Please! So I was right... you can't find a reliable source for what you wrote about Seth Rich.

I trust Wikipedia articles because they are sourced. By reputable sources, not far-right or far-left fake news sites. Also because there are competing editors for each article, which helps ensure that BS doesn't get published. Or if it does, it gets challenged and then removed.

Below are two reputable sources reporting what I said. I'll bet you have no reputable sources for your counter-claim. NPR - Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it." The Man Behind The Scenes In Fox News' Discredited Seth Rich Story Hersh now says he was fishing for information from Butowsky. "I did not talk to anybody at the FBI — not about this," Hersh tells NPR. "Nothing is certain until it's proved. And I didn't publish any story on this." Note the Butowsky is the person who took Hersh's story to Fox News. (Who, recall, went with it. The retracted it. Then was sued for it and had to pay six figures to settle the suit.)

The problem with your timeline is that Wikileaks had ALSO been getting DNC e-mail leaks for several months prior to the time Julian Assange said on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton related e-mails. You can check that out on the detailed timeline given in this article. That article also lists DNC e-mails received by Wikileaks after Seth Rich's death. See the entry for July 14, 2016. Which is the reason why Mueller reported that Seth Rich was not the source for those leaks. That he was already dead by then. Following is a New York Time article regarding that. It has a paywall so I can't just link to it. Luckily I was able to copy the article before the paywall kicked in.

I doubt you can find a reliable source for that. Because I doubt it is true. When challenged on their reporting of this story, Fox News retracted it without apology or explanation. Seth Rich's family sued Fox News in March 2018 for having engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct" by fabricating the story defaming their son and thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. Fox News reached a seven-figure settlement with the Rich family in October 2020

Hersh cautioned that his claim may not be true. He later said that he had relayed "gossip" and that he was fishing for information. (Source)

I don't have a dog in this fight, and am not intimately familiar with the facts. But... According to this Wikipedia article on Julian Assange : According to the Mueller investigation, Assange falsely implied that [Seth] Rich was the source ostensibly to obscure the fact that Russian military intelligence was the source, and Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and the integrity of the Mueller Report.

Ben, If you insist on getting your Biden digs in, do so in the other political thread that the mods are allowing to run. Bye bye to this one.

Ben, If you insist on getting your Biden digs in, do so in the other political thread that the mods are allowing to run. Bye bye to this one.

It means being aware of prejudice against groups of people, based on race, LGBTQ, and all the other stuff that bugs bigots.

Is being "woke" bad?