I like this short video (30 minutes) by Sgt. Friday on the DNC leak and Julian Assange because over the past year or two, I gradually migrated from the assumption that Seth Rich had a role in delivering DNC data to WikiLeaks. In reality, we have no hard evidence that Rich took part in transferring data from the DNC to WikiLeaks, nor do we have evidence that DNC or deep-state operatives murdered him.
It is possible all this is true and evidence will be discovered, but currently, I don't believe we have it. We have circumstantial evidence that requires selective context. For example, Donna Brazile visiting Rich in the hospital is used as a link between his murder and the DNC. Why? She was his boss, an emergency contact, and heard he's at the hospital in bad shape. Why is it less plausible that she went to go check on her employee?
It's a hard pill for many to swallow for those who've emotionally committed to the story, but there's really no evidence of Rich being involved, or murdered by the Democrats for that matter.
I do, however, part ways with Sarge somewhat on Bill Binney. I completely agree with Sarge’s point that a lot of these clowns sell themselves, like ex-CIA operatives who expect you to just accept everything they tell you because you think they’re like a Jason Bourne with special insider spy knowledge of what the deep-state is REALLY doing for the purpose of making a buck (which I think is fine). Binney, I believe, is not one of these guys and is legit, and transfer speeds isn't the only evidence that reduces the probability that it was a hack.
I knew the nanosecond after I heard this story that it was an inside job, the same way I knew with certainty that Hillary’s servers were a clearinghouse for classified material to make it easy for her foreign clients to retrieve so they wouldn’t have to navigate U.S. government systems. It's just common sense to me.
For the DNC servers, I originally went with the assumption that it was insider Rich who stole data, but again, I no longer believe that. I’m no Columbo, but between the Awans and CrowdStrike, I’m sure we can have this thing solved in time to catch Tucker’s show.
Hopping off that tangent, as Sarge hits on in his stream, we connect Hillary, the DNC leak, Russia, and Trump with Julian Assange via the text messages between SSCI member Mark Warner and Assange’s attorney Adam Waldman (Sarge mistakenly calls him "Weidman" in the video), as well as the CIA document declassified by Ratcliffe.
Sarge also brings up Manafort’s role and does an excellent job of untangling these pieces and hanging them together to make the case that Assange was helping Hillary, who we know for certain orchestrated the Trump-Russia frame-up because of Ratcliffe’s letter.
Some of you are serious Assange fans. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why Assange is saying Trump offered him a pardon to say Russians didn’t provide him the documents:
“Congressman Rohrabacher explained he wanted to resolve the ongoing speculation about Russian involvement in the Democratic National Committee leaks to WikiLeaks, which were published by WikiLeaks and other media organizations in 2016," Robinson said. "He stated that he regarded the ongoing speculation as damaging to U.S.-Russian relations, that it was reviving Cold War politics, and that it would be in the best interests of the U.S. if the matter could be resolved."
In a statement released in February, Rohrabacher confirmed that he had met with Assange but denied conversing with Trump on the subject. The White House also denied the connection. "The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher, other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject. It is a complete fabrication and a total lie," then-White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said.
Why is Assange calling my President a liar? Why did a judge order Twitter to unmask the user who pushed the Seth Rich story?
It’s even more strange because Assange said several times in public, including on Hannity’s show, that Russia was not the source. Therefore, why would an offer for a pardon be made for something he already said publicly?
Check out the video. It's really good.
