Seth Rich murder: Wikileaks

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

As a former cop-allegedly-I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of hearsay evidence. If not, there is an example in BOLD above. An unnamed source with no corroboration. And we are supposed to take Wheeler's word that that is what he said. This would not last five minutes in a court of law.

As an alleged former mailman, I would assume that you would be familiar with the Cliff Claven rule that applies when postmen try to explain the law. Hearsay evidence is normally separated by more than two parties. When a statement is made by a known party, in this case a FORMER WASHINGTON D.C. DETECTIVE and that party can provide the identity of the party that made it, ANOTHER D.C. DETECTIVE, and both parties are able to be subpoenaed, the parties are subject to questioning in court and can be questioned in front of a jury etc, then that evidence can be entered and considered and would often lead to direct evidence depending on the character of the witnesses.

There are a hundred exceptions to hearsay evidence that can get them into a case. The fact that in this instance two well respected police officers who were promoted above and beyond their peers would be a hearsay exception of pretty good value to a prosecutor.

In fact a Judge or prosecutor might just ask that the first Detective that told the PI the info be allowed to testify first. That changes everything as long as all parties are available as per the 6th Amendment for cross examination, later.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

As an alleged former mailman, I would assume that you would be familiar with the Cliff Claven rule that applies when postmen try to explain the law.

Line of the year!

[mostpost]

It is false to think that Seth Rich's family think he was murdered by the DNC or the Clinton's or any such. They think the whole conspiracy thing is a travesty that is impeding the investigation.

It is false that Rod Wheeler was hired by the Rich family to investigate their son's death. He was hired by and paid by a third party.

It is false that Rod Wheeler is authorized to speak for the Rich family. They have specifically and unequivacably said that he is not authorized.

It is true that Rod Wheeler is a Fox News contributor.

[PaceAdvantage]

"Although Wheeler was paid by a third party, the family is named as clients of Wheeler's Capitol Investigations on a contract signed by Rich's father, Joel Rich."

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

"Although Wheeler was paid by a third party, the family is named as clients of Wheeler's Capitol Investigations on a contract signed by Rich's father, Joel Rich."

Your honor I move to invoke the Cliff Calvin rule!!

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

As an alleged former mailman, I would assume that you would be familiar with the Cliff Claven rule that applies when postmen try to explain the law. Hearsay evidence is normally separated by more than two parties. When a statement is made by a known party, in this case a FORMER WASHINGTON D.C. DETECTIVE and that party can provide the identity of the party that made it, ANOTHER D.C. DETECTIVE, and both parties are able to be subpoenaed, the parties are subject to questioning in court and can be questioned in front of a jury etc, then that evidence can be entered and considered and would often lead to direct evidence depending on the character of the witnesses.

There are a hundred exceptions to hearsay evidence that can get them into a case. The fact that in this instance two well respected police officers who were promoted above and beyond their peers would be a hearsay exception of pretty good value to a prosecutor.

In fact a Judge or prosecutor might just ask that the first Detective that told the PI the info be allowed to testify first. That changes everything as long as all parties are available as per the 6th Amendment for cross examination, later.

According to Findlaw:
hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim."

I suppose you could argue that this was not hearsay because the statement was not made in court by a sworn witness. I will grant you that. That does not mean that the statement police were told to stand down is an accurate one. Police spokespersons say that the investigation is an active one and they are seeking help from the public.
Findlaw lists 24 exceptions to the hearsay rule. (not 100) None of which appear to apply here.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

"Although Wheeler was paid by a third party, the family is named as clients of Wheeler's Capitol Investigations on a contract signed by Rich's father, Joel Rich."

I read that too. I think what happened was Joel Rich was approached by the third party-why don't we know who that is-who told him, "I know someone who is a top notch private investigator who can find out what happened to your son. And I will take care of his fees."

Naturally Joel Rich agreed, but what he did not realize is that this mysterious third party had an ulterior motive; to muddy the waters and to continue the false narrative that Seth Rich was killed for political reasons.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Your honor I move to invoke the Cliff Calvin rule!!

Cliff Clavin is a fictitious TV character written for comic effect. Let me ask you this, "Which were you, Tweedy or Muldoon?

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Cliff Clavin is a fictitious TV character written for comic effect. Let me ask you this, "Which were you, Tweedy or Muldoon?

Actually the character's name was Toody.

For those wondering who they are,a little nostalgia for the old folks:

YouTube

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You're kind of slow, aren't you? He would do it because he knows that admitting the truth-that the information came from the Russians-was the same as admitting that he colluded with a foreign power to influence an American election.
ETA: it took me five seconds after reading your post to figure that out.

No, you don't know what you are talking about.

Assange is a journalist and not a US citizen. If he is provided leaked documents from a US whistle blower, Russia, or anyone else, he can choose to publish them just like he did.

It would be no different than someone from the Whitehouse leaking something to the Washington Post or NY Times about a conversation Trump had with Comey that he wrote up in a memo and then writing an article about it in an effort to destroy the president.

You may think the Whitehouse leaker is or is not a scumbag (same as the DNC leaker), but it is legal for the Times or Wikileaks to publish the leak. These are not classified documents.

If you are Assange and a Russian was your source you shut your mouth continue doing your job as a journalist.

If you are Assange and your source was Rich (who is now dead), you can choose to keep that quiet, but you can also talk about how your sources take major risks, offer a reward, publish a Podesta email where JP called for "making an example" of leakers.

[davew]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I read that too. I think what happened was Joel Rich was approached by the third party-why don't we know who that is-who told him, "I know someone who is a top notch private investigator who can find out what happened to your son. And I will take care of his fees."

Naturally Joel Rich agreed, but what he did not realize is that this mysterious third party had an ulterior motive; to muddy the waters and to continue the false narrative that Seth Rich was killed for political reasons.

I bet you are right, because why wouldn't you be?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I read that too. I think what happened was Joel Rich was approached by the third party-why don't we know who that is-who told him, "I know someone who is a top notch private investigator who can find out what happened to your son. And I will take care of his fees."

Naturally Joel Rich agreed, but what he did not realize is that this mysterious third party had an ulterior motive; to muddy the waters and to continue the false narrative that Seth Rich was killed for political reasons.

There is zero evidence he was murdered as in the official "theft story" either.

1. Nothing was stolen from him.

2. He was not found dead. He was alive for 2 hours when police got to him, yet the police are not saying what he told them.

3. The video devices the police carry that would have recorded the conversation seem to be missing.

4. No one seems to know what happened to Rich's computer.

Dude,

He worked for the DNC.

There was a DNC leak that may have had an impact on the election.

Assange has all but said he was the source.

He was murdered.

I admit I love a good conspiracy story, but this is one is screaming this was not a random theft or murder. It has cover up written all over it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I read that too. I think what happened was Joel Rich was approached by the third party-why don't we know who that is-who told him, "I know someone who is a top notch private investigator who can find out what happened to your son. And I will take care of his fees."

Naturally Joel Rich agreed, but what he did not realize is that this mysterious third party had an ulterior motive; to muddy the waters and to continue the false narrative that Seth Rich was killed for political reasons.

And the person representing the Rich family now has strong ties to the democrats (as does his entire family) and is doing the work pro bono. That explains why they are distancing themselves from the private investigator also.

You have to realize they are in a no win situation.

Their son is dead either way.

It was either a random murder or he was basically a traitor to his party and everything his family believes in. Proving he was murdered because he was a leaker is hardly something they are hoping to be true.

[davew]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You're kind of slow, aren't you? He would do it because he knows that admitting the truth-that the information came from the Russians-was the same as admitting that he colluded with a foreign power to influence an American election.
ETA: it took me five seconds after reading your post to figure that out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ator-says.html


This article says Seth transferred 44K+ emails with 17K+ attachments to a WikiLeaks agent.


OMG Seth was a RUSSIAN spy working in DNC offices

[classhandicapper]

From Zerohedge

"Seems that not everyone within the FBI is on board with the “Russian hacking” narrative and are finally starting to come forward.

Finally, we find it ‘shocking’ that while the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc are all too eager to regurgitate each others anonymously sourced stories that are critical of Trump, not a single one of them had a single reference of this Fox News bombshell on their website at the time this article was published."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/...fer-seth-rich/