| Seth Rich's parents — if wingnuts won't let them rest in peace then I hope they sue like hell. |
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has claimed these initial emails were downloaded at speeds far too fast for Internet theft, especially international theft. The Nation provides more background, including links to a follow-up segment that challenges some of the VIPS assumptions (you will see little about this at Consortium News, home of the first link), Thomas Drake going public with dissent within VIPS, and the majority's response.
First, in that follow-up segment of challenges, Nathaniel Freitas says there are indeed ways such download speeds could have been achieved. He cites various "Trojans" and cloud computing as two of them.
Drake, joined by Scott Ritter and others, goes even further than Freitas in saying the VIPS majority stretched some conclusions. A big one is this:
The transfer rate was independent of the physical location of the data at the time of copy.
Well, that would basically undercut the foundation of the VIPS majority, wouldn't it?
And that's followed by this:
In addition, no qualifiers, disclaimers, or dissenting views are provided in the VIPS memo, nor is any alternative theory presented.
Ten months later, seeing the deep dive on the so-called "Deep State" at Consortium News, the statement above doesn't surprise. Predetermined conclusions? Whoda thunk?
(In addition, Ritter has written on his own at TruthDig.)
To be fair, the majority issues its rebuttal. (I don't know how big the majority is, or how big VIPS is; five people speak in this rebuttal but six in the dissenting report, though I don't think all are VIPS members.) It has a fair amount of argument from silence, plus claims that cloud computing speeds, or other alternatives by the dissenters and Freitas, greatly sped up in general between spring 2016 and August 2017. Color me unconvinced.
Also, the original VIPS assume for the sake of argument that, if Guccifer 2.0 actually did this, he actually worked overseas. They ignore not only cloud computing but the fact that, if it were Guccifer, maybe he WASN'T overseas.
I also wonder how much Ray McGovern and his conspiracy theorist glory ramrodded this. As for McGovern throwing away a national medal due to CIA torture, how does he know it didn't do that earlier? He does know about its role in unwarranted assassinations before that. Allende, anybody? And, non-CIA American torture going back to the Philippines.
McGovern and William Binney recently noted that CIA's Marble program could allow spoofing of Guccifer 2.0.
Meanwhile, The Forensicator has recently bemoaned MSM coverage. He then partially rejected the dissenters' report shortly after it came out while also saying VIPS' majority stretched some things. In his alternate scenarios, this person rejects alternate scenarios while saying the download speed ceiling has been raised yet higher. More on that here, but ... you know? This seems like the IT version of an Overton window, his "strong evidence" or whatever ... that, you know, he just happened to look for after all the concerns and objections popped up.
OK, time for some nut-cutting.
First, IF the initial emails were stolen from inside the DNC, would we be fingering Seth Rich if he had not been killed in what is officially described as a robbery gone bad — or, per me, to address a few headscratchers, is maybe a drug deal done bad, or a drug dealers' world omerta killing? (The official, plus my alternatives, to me all make much more sense than a conspiracy theory.)
The answer is, we certainly would not. And, Guccifer 2.0 being spoofed would still not mean that Seth Rich did it.
This of course means Faux, Ed Butowsky and wingnut lawyer Ty Clevenger are all full of it, and deserve the suits and countersuits they're facing. (Maybe Seth Rich's parents or brother need to find an angle on suing the Forensicator, too. Since the blog started mid-2017 for a specific purpose, let's find out who's doing this!) And, Brains, I wish you'd stop publishing this bullshit. Every time you do, especially in a Texas Progressives roundup, I'm going to call out Clevenger, and I'm probably going to start calling you out too.
There. That's enough spleen for now, though that Clevenger piece has grown to almost Actual Flatticus takedown dimensions and needs a split, spinoffs or something.
Back to Seth Rich.
To recap:
1. We have no proof, just possibilities, that someone besides Guccifer 2.0 (and/or team) took the early 2016 DNC emails.
2. Whoever did take this batch, we have no proof of where in the world that they may have, or not have, done it from.
3. If other person(s) did take these emails, and they were on the east coast of the US, we have no proof they worked for the DNC.
4. If other person(s) who did take these emails worked for the DNC, we have no proof that Seth Rich was the person, or one of the group.
5. We know that among the most ardent claimants of "Seth Rich did it" are definite conspiracy theorists Ray McGovern and Ty Clevenger.
I can think of three alternatives to Seth Rich and/or any DNC employee being involved. All three make arguably almost as much sense if not much more.
First: To turn McGovern's nuttery on its head — NSA staffers from the Deep State who WANT Trump elected steal this stuff then use the Marble program to frame Guccifer 2.0.
Second: Roger Stone hired some minions to do this.
Third: A la Watergate, the Trump campaign or the RNC did this.
I consider any of those to have at least 10-20 percent the plausibility of "Seth Rich did it."
==
As for the big picture? Had I seen those Nation pieces when they came out, I wouldn't have gone as far down the "Seth Rich stole the emails" rabbit hole as I originally did. I might also have started some of my recent searching through Consortium News' past, especially on conspiracy theories, earlier than I did.
I'm sorry, to myself and to readers.
There. That's enough spleen for now, though that Clevenger piece has grown to almost Actual Flatticus takedown dimensions and needs a split, spinoffs or something.
Back to Seth Rich.
To recap:
1. We have no proof, just possibilities, that someone besides Guccifer 2.0 (and/or team) took the early 2016 DNC emails.
2. Whoever did take this batch, we have no proof of where in the world that they may have, or not have, done it from.
3. If other person(s) did take these emails, and they were on the east coast of the US, we have no proof they worked for the DNC.
4. If other person(s) who did take these emails worked for the DNC, we have no proof that Seth Rich was the person, or one of the group.
5. We know that among the most ardent claimants of "Seth Rich did it" are definite conspiracy theorists Ray McGovern and Ty Clevenger.
I can think of three alternatives to Seth Rich and/or any DNC employee being involved. All three make arguably almost as much sense if not much more.
First: To turn McGovern's nuttery on its head — NSA staffers from the Deep State who WANT Trump elected steal this stuff then use the Marble program to frame Guccifer 2.0.
Second: Roger Stone hired some minions to do this.
Third: A la Watergate, the Trump campaign or the RNC did this.
I consider any of those to have at least 10-20 percent the plausibility of "Seth Rich did it."
==
As for the big picture? Had I seen those Nation pieces when they came out, I wouldn't have gone as far down the "Seth Rich stole the emails" rabbit hole as I originally did. I might also have started some of my recent searching through Consortium News' past, especially on conspiracy theories, earlier than I did.
I'm sorry, to myself and to readers.
