The Right Side of the News

Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.

quote:

---

In the summer of 2016, Russian intelligence agents secretly planted a fake report claiming that Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was gunned down by a squad of assassins working for Hillary Clinton, giving rise to a notorious conspiracy theory that captivated conservative activists and was later promoted from inside President Trump’s White House, a Yahoo News investigation has found.

​

Russia’s foreign intelligence service, known as the SVR, first circulated a phony “bulletin” ” disguised to read as a real intelligence report ”about the alleged murder of the former DNC staffer on July 13, 2016, according to the U.S. federal prosecutor who was in charge of the Rich case. That was just three days after Rich, 27, was killed in what police believed was a botched robbery while walking home to his group house in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C., about 30 blocks north of the Capitol.

​

The purported details in the SVR account seemed improbable on their face: that Rich, a data director in the DNC’s voter protection division, was on his way to alert the FBI to corrupt dealings by Clinton when he was slain in the early hours of a Sunday morning by the former secretary of state’s hit squad.

---

Did any of your sources fall for that Russian propaganda, Faith? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Gee, Hannity was all over it. Geraldo Rivera promoted it. Alex Jones pushed it. Lots of others said it added to the "Clinton body count".

Now it's Epstein's illegal sweetheart plea deal.img https://juanitajean.com/...Shot-2019-07-09-at-3.27.01-PM.png[/img]Epstein pled guilty under the deal in June 2008. Obama was elected in November 2008. Way to go Fox!

Who said believe accusers without any investagory process?

Exactly what did the MeToo movement say?I assume you know supporting your claim requires evidence, such as documents or quotes from a spokesperson. Do you have such?

Oh those matter. (Actually, mishandling classified information is a crime only if you can prove intent to mishandle. No sane prosecutor would try to prove intent with no evidence.) But the aggravated perjury intrigues me. Google shows nothing. What is the charge and what evidence do you have for it? 18 U.S.C. 798 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure 798. Disclosure of classified information

quote:

---

(a) ”Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--

​

(1) ”concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; ”or

​

(2) ”concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; ”or

​

(3) ”concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; ”or

​

(4) ”obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--

​

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

​

(b) ”As used in subsection (a) of this section--

​

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

---

Notice the first phrase? Oh, did you notice that information classified after she had it doesn't count?(The server wasn't open. It was supplied by a commercial service. Those guys don't do open servers, if only to protect their internal networks.)There's no evidence the server was ever hacked.)

So, not just believe the accusation and nothing about anyone being a sexist pig. Got it.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I know what aggravated perjury is. Who do you think committed it and what's your evidence for it?You bolded the portions of the law that you think were violated. That's not evidence of violations. I specifically asked for evidence. Reading comprehension issues?"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates,..." means that mishandling classified material is a crime if and only if the perpetrator KNOWS he or she is mishandling classified information and explicitly DECIDES to mishandle classified information (e.g. see Petraeus). I'll be glad to discuss why it's virtually certain that Hillary did not know she was mishandling classified information. Feel free to present any evidence that she knew she was mishandling classified information and decided to do so."The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;" means that whatever you do to material that is not classified when you do it but someone classifies later is not a crime. Many of the "classified" documents on the server were not classified at the time. I see you didn't quote the part where I pointed out why such servers are not susceptible to intrusion and there's no evidence of intrusion.I see you don't know much about our government. The Secretary of State is not "the head honcho in charge of the entire intelligence services and armed forces apparatus". The Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA and some other agencies beg to differ with you. The State Department does have a "Bureau of Intelligence and Research" which is "strictly analytical and does not engage in counterintelligence or espionage."What anyone believes about Hillary's state of mind is irrelevant. What evidence you have is relevant. Haven't seen any yet. Not surprised. The DNC was hacked. There's no evidence Hillary's server was hacked.

quote:

---

Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[32][33][34] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.

---

{Wikipedia}Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I missed that. If he isn't alt-right he certainly has drunk all their Kool-Aid.

China fails to buy agricultural goods as promised: Trump

quote:

---

“Mexico is doing great at the Border, but China is letting us down in that they have not been buying the agricultural products from our great Farmers that they said they would,” Trump said Thursday on Twitter.

​

“Hopefully they will start soon!”

---

No, Donnie, everybody has figured out that proposing huge purchases without making any commitment or intending to follow through is the way to make you shut up and leave.

He has no idea what free speech is. He wants strict Republican government control. It's OK If You're A Republican.

So, no evidence of any wrongdoing, can't name anyone alleged to have committed aggravated perjury, doesn't have a clue as to the structure of the US government, and doesn't know how we found out about Hillary's server.Pathetic.

Lots of accusations, no evidence.The DNC is not Hillary. There was no classified info in the DNC emails. Feel free to post some as evidence for your claims.I haven't mentioned Sanders so it's obvious I haven't minimized anything. Feel free to quote me.There is no evidence any of Hillary's emails were leaked or hacked. Feel free to post some.The classified information on her server was missing the required header indicating it contained classified information. The classified information was marked where it was with (c) , but was not in the top portion. It was in an email way down in the chain. The Secretary of State is very busy, but I see you think she should have read every apparently non- classified email all the way through just in case. That would be, well, moronic.

Remember this is the guy who thinks the SoS is in charge of all US intelligence apparatus. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

His BS is spreading as usual with no fact checking. I've seen it on two other right wing sites.

quote:

---

After initial reports identified Patrick Crusius as the alleged gunman behind the the El Paso Walmart massacre that left 22 people dead and more wounded, Jim Hoft, founder of the right-wing conspiracy website The Gateway Pundit, presented an inaccurate picture of Crusius to his readers.

​

Selectively plucking information from the reputation management website MyLife, which can be edited anonymously by anyone, Hoft (pictured above) set about reporting that the gunman was really a Democrat, and that Leftists on the web were editing the gunman’s MyLife profile in real time. Here’s his headline from Saturday:

​

​

An archived version of The Gateway Pundit’s article on Saturday.
But Hoft’s post left out crucial information. For one thing, it asserted that the gunman’s original profile on MyLife said he was a registered Democrat.

​

However, earlier archived versions of the profile do not list any party affiliation. Here’s the first version of the profile saved on the Internet Archive on Saturday.

​

An archived version of MyLife profile for the gunman on Saturday.
A few minutes later, as the shooting became national news and after edits were made to the gunman’s page, the MyLife profile said the gunman was currently a registered Democrat Party; ethnicity is Antifa; and religious views are listed as Antifa.

​

A later archived version of MyLife profile for the gunman on Saturday.
Someone had apparently edited the page to identify the gunman as a Democrat only after he was identified as the gunman.

​

Hoft cited yet another edited version of the MyLife profile, which identified the gunman as a Democrat and his religion as Christian, as the original version of the page.

​

The Gateway Pundit referred to this edited version of the MyLife page as the gunman’s original profile at 2:46.
Within minutes, Hoft reported, the profile had been changed to identify the gunman as a Republican. Leftists changed it, Hoft claimed.

​

The Gateway Pundit used this, yet another edited version of the gunman’s MyLife page, to assert that leftists changed his political affiliation.
The conspiracy website, which was given temporary White House press credentials early in the Trump administration, did stumble upon an obvious truth about MyLife: It’s easily edited and thus not a reliable source of biographical information. And yet, for whatever reason, Hoft assumed he had witnessed to a left-wing conspiracy.

​

Only later, as the MyLife page was edited over and over again, did Hoft add an update albeit with more unproven claims.

​

UPDATE The MyLife page was created AFTER the El Paso shooting. Democrats then jumped in and changed it to make it look like he was a Republican.

​

In addition to it being unclear who edited the page and for what reason, it’s also unclear whether the profile itself was first created before or after the shooting. What is confirmed by archived versions of the page is that, initially on Saturday, it did not contain information about the gunman’s party affiliation or religious beliefs.

​

That material only appeared after Crusius’ name was connected to the massacre in El Paso when his digital footprint was a battleground of misinformation.

---

Lots more screen shots at the link.How A Conspiracy Site Spread MisInformation About The El Paso ShooterEdited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.