Wheeler, a former D.C. police homicide detective, is running a parallel investigation into Rich’s murder. He said he believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation.

“The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”
When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That’s confirmed.”

We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth’s murderers. The services of the private investigator who spoke to press was offered to the Rich family and paid for by a third party, and contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family.

However, spokesman Brad Bauman noted that even if emails do surface it does not necessarily mean Seth Rich worked with WikiLeaks.

Quote

“Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we’ve seen that those interested in pushing cօռspιʀαcιҽs will stop at nothing to do so,” Bauman said. “We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth’s murderers.”

[size={defaultattr}]
Let’s pause for a moment and look at two important pieces of information. First, the “family spokesman” is actually a professional Democrat crisis PR consultant with the Pastorum Group, a recently formed consulting firm.

[/size]

Quote

 Follow
WikiLeaks 

✔@wikileaks

Seth Rich's new "family spokesman" is Brad Bauman a professional Democrat crisis PR consultant with the Pastorum Group.

3:38 PM - 11 Aug 2016

• 
  
• 
   6,9816,981 Retweets
• 
   6,8686,868 likes

Confronted by the Intelligence Report, Wheeler was unable, in several phone and E-mail exchanges over a two-day period, to specify a single law enforcement agency or officer, police report, media account or any other source he relied upon for his D.C. area lesbian gangs claim. But he insisted that his report was accurate and that any law enforcement officer who disagrees is “out of touch.”
“For some reason or other, these organizations don’t lay it on the line because they don’t know what is going on on the streets,” said Wheeler. “This is a serious crisis and the so-called experts are missing it.”’
I mention this fact because it relates to Wheeler’s credibility. It’s up to each individual to decide whether they will accept the claims made by him. Thankfully, researchers of Seth Rich’s murder do not have to rely on Wheeler’s words alone. Fox News also reports that “a federal source” has confirmed that Seth Rich did indeed make contact with WikiLeaks through now-deceased director Gavin MacFadyen. The federal source claims to have seen a copy of a forensic report of Rich’s computer which was issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) within 96 hours of his death.
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News. The source claims the FBI has the emails. According to this source, 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, dated between January 2015 to May 2016, were sent from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.
Fox News has not been the only source of speculation as to whether or not Seth Rich was involved in the DNC Leaks. WikiLeaks has issued a reward of $20,000 USD for “information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.” Even Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, seemed to hint at Rich’s connection to the leaks. During an August 2016 interview with Dutch TV program Nieuwsuur, Assange made an unusual comment that led some to ask what he knows.
“Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to give us material, at often very significant risks,” Assange said. “There was a 27 year old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons other than that he was walking down the street in Washington.”
“That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the interviewer responds. Assange tells him there has been “no finding” before he asks, “what are you suggesting?” Assange does not elaborate other than to say that WikiLeaks sources put themselves at grave risk to share docuмents with them.

Quote

We don’t comment on who our sources are. We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. Our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks. That’s why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity. Others have suggested that [Rich was murdered]. We are investigating. If you understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich, I think it is a concerning situation. There’s not a conclusion yet. We wouldn’t be willing to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it. More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.

The final piece of this elaborate puzzle relates to Twitter chat logs that are purported to have taken place between the infamous Guccifer 2.0 and Robbin Young, a former Playboy model and actress. In these direct messages Young and Gufficer converse about the origin of the DNC leaks. Readers should note that these messages have not been independently verified, but they can be viewed in their entirety on Young’s website.  As ZeroHedge notes,

Quote

“When Young suggested trusting Julian Assange, Guccifer 2.0 called him “unsafe” and that he “may be connected with Russians” despite being his hero.
“I’d like to find a journalist who can do an investigation and teel [sic] the real story of his life and death,” he said, and revealed that the whistleblower he was referring to was none other than a person named “Seth.”’

It is important to recognize that Fox’s report stems from anonymous federal sources and that Wheeler’s credibility may be in question. However, we should also reflect on the connection between the Democratic Party and the Rich family’s spokesman. Also, when doing a search of “Seth Rich WikiLeaks” one finds an abundance of left-wing media outlets brushing the story off as a distraction from the latest reports that Trump has shared classified information with Russian officials. On the other end of the spectrum, you find right-wing outlets defending Trump and claiming the real story is Seth Rich. Both stories involve the use of anonymous sources andthat is a huge problem in the American media landscape.
Is the timing of the release of these two stories related? Is one meant to distract from the other or are these two independently important stories that deserve your attention? I will leave that to the reader to decide. For now, I believe there is a fair amount of (anonymous) reports indicating Seth Rich’s involvement with WikiLeaks. If any hackers out there, or WikiLeaks themselves, are in possession of evidence that could implicate the Democratic Party (or individuals connected to the party) in the murder of Seth Rich, now is the time to release it to the public.
Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him onTwitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2
Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com
This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Image Credit: Next News Network


www.activistpost.com

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, docuмentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time….
Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News….
“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.” (“Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link”, Fox News)

“Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community….He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. ….

Quote

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger…Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.
“The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,” Murray said. “In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information…
Scott Horton then asked, “Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?”
“I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,” Murray responded. “In both cases they are leaks by Americans.”
(“A Spy Coup in America?”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you’d think that Murray’s eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.
Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they’ve showed no interest in his testimony at all.  Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?
Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there’s still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections?  In fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof of Russian meddling.  On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public’s expectations. Instead of a smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook.  Here’s how veteran journalist Robert Parry summed it up:

Quote

“The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks….The DNI report…as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses”….suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.” (“US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‘Hack’”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Repeat: “the report contained no direct evidence”, no “actual proof”, and a heckuva a lot of “guessing”. That’s some “smoking gun”, eh?
If this ‘thin gruel’ sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that’s because it is.  But the situation is even worse than it looks,  mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a docuмent that served their broader political agenda. Think I’m kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:
“On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump’s candidacy…  (but) there are compelling reasons to believe this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments…… to ensure this one reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for. …
….Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so “seasoned experts” were “handpicked” from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” …  While Clapper claimed these analysts were given “complete independence” to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.”
This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.  Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure.  The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization….
A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA’s hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA.  Given Brennan’s scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment.  Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions….
The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump’s presidency.”

Quote

(“More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged”, Fox News)

Repeat: “A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments.” That says it all, doesn’t it?
Let’s take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. “In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed …(that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies — CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17.”
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the docuмent failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.
3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?
Yes, they were “handpicked from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?
No,  their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.” (Clapper) This of course suggests that the docuмent was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.
5–Were Clapper’s methods “normal” by Intelligence agency standards?
Definitely not. “This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.”
6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?
Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday’s Arkansas online:

Quote

“I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that’s the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system,” said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. “I think as well our institutions are under assault internally.”
When he was asked, “Internally, from the president?” Clapper said, “Exactly.” (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant”, arkansasonline)

Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about “the assault on our institutions.”)
7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?
No, it doesn’t.  What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would ‘kill two birds with one stone’, (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there’s no proof of anything.   Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:

Quote

“12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

Quote

The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin  Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein’s view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians.”
(“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually “reviewed the evidence”, and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of  behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn’t that what’s really going on?
How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?
First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don’t get the impression that he’s the devoted civil servant and all-around stand-up guy he’s made out to be in the media. Here’s a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will help to put things into perspective:

Quote

“Five former FBI agents…raised concerns about his (Comey’s) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.

Quote

“These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,” the letter states.
Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey’s defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and observed, “Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration’s decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina.” (“FBI Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention”, Human Rights First)

Get the picture?
Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn’t mind breaking a few legs if it’ll advance his career plans. I wouldn’t trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn’t far.
American Thinker’s Clarice  Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here’s what she said:

Quote

“There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes — wittingly, or unwittingly.” (“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment  proceedings?
Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA’s 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those “other” countries.
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never.  The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there’s an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public’s radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of  Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently,  they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We’ll see.)
And what’s more surprising, is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppetmasters.  They’ve cast their lot with the sinister stewards of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?
Author Michael J. Glennon doesn’t think so. Here’s what he says in the May edition of Harper’s Magazine:

Quote

“Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate the precedent their victory would set. …
American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI’s blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA’s watch lists, and the CIA’s waterboarding. …. Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?”
(“Security Breach– Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state”, Michael J. Glennon, Harper’s Magazine)
“Who?”
The Democrats, that’s who.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion[/url] (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition[/font][/color]. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.[/size][/i]
This article was first published by Counterpunch[/font][/size][/color]
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47082.htm

Under internal pressure over his pursuit of the truth behind the Seth Rich story, network suits are apparently closing in on one of the network’s remaining conservative holdouts.In his opening segment [Tuesday night], Hannity told viewers, “I promise that I will continue to tell the truth. As for my future at Fox News, Media Matters is attacking. The Left is organizing an advertising boycott. I will continue to do my job to the best of my ability. I serve at the pleasure of Fox News.”
More ominously, he concluded at 11pm by saying, “hopefully, I will see you again tomorrow night.”
Before the program, he had tweeted a cryptic message regarding his future there:

Quote

Earlier, Fox retracted news coverage regarding Rich’s 2016 murder, which has intrigued many political followers since the DNC staffer’s body was found last summer. And there is widespread evidence that Rupert Murdoch’s sons, who now run its day-to-day operation, are fully committed to permanently wiping away its conservative programming.
#StandWithSean, an effort led by StopTheScalpings Co-founder Melanie Morgan, is continuing its efforts to stand by Hannity while he is under fire. This writer is also part of the organization.
On the group’s Facebook page, Morgan told followers, “Hannity is under a REAL threat but he promised to tell the truth, and continue at Fox as long as they let him. Hannity has told me personally that he is making some strategic moves, and this has to do with the Seth Rich murder case.

Though he has apparently vowed to keep further discussion of the Seth Rich issue off his show for the time being, Hannity has been exchanging Tweets with Kim Dotcom,who has dropped a bombshell, claiming to have been in contact with Rich and to have information proving that he was the DNC leaker.

I think he or Tucker (who presently has more clout than Hannity, due to his ratings) are going to have Kim on this week, if they can pull it off.
The bigger issue than the Seth Rich issue specifically, however, is his more general refusal to bow to the kookspiracy narrative, and his continued pointing out that this is a “tin foil hat conspiracy” (his words).
The people who run Fox are just as anti-Trump as any other media, however, they are making money off being ostensibly pro-Trump. Also, if they didn’t exist, everyone would turn to the alternative media on the internet. So they have a tough line to walk.
It may well be that Hannity is crossing that line with his continued investigation of Seth Rich and his continued pointing out of the ridiculousness of the mainstream “collusion” kookspiracy.
I guess we will know soon enough if he gets to keep his job.


https://www.dailystormer.com/sean-hannity-may-be-fired-from-fox-news-for-refusing-to-go-along-with-russian-kookspiracy-narrative/

More on the murder of Seth Rich-